| Vince Frassinone, Chairman | Stephen Kil, Town Manager |
| Frank Buck | Taghi Arshami, Principal, The Arsh Group |
| Tim Caballero | |
| Tom Cummings | |
| Julie Urbanski |
Absent: Frank Buck and Julie Urbanski
Nomination for Vince Frassinone to be the Chairman by Mr. Caballero. Seconded by Mr. Cummings. Nomination carries unanimously.
Mr. Kil stated that this is the kick-off meeting for the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, and noted that this process is a lot more streamlined than the Road Impact Fee was for those who sat on that committee as well.
Mr. Kil introduced Mr. Taghi Arshami, Principal Consultant with The Arsh Group, and turned the floor over to him.
Mr. Arshami advised that during this meeting, they would share background information, answer any questions the committee has, and set up the next meeting.
Mr. Arshami stated that an Impact Fee is defined as charges levied on different types of infrastructure or development in order to generate revenue for the purpose of funding capital improvements by that development. As people move in, they demand or require additional facilities, and they have to pay for it instead of the existing residents.
Mr. Arshami stated that many developers and contractors are familiar with the fees typically associated with subdivision ordinances or subdivision development. The Impact Fees are not related to those fees.
Mr. Kil advised that before 1993, the Plan Commission used to require parkland donations in new subdivisions; however, we can’t do that anymore because the Impact Fee statute came out. The courts prescribe the communities must follow the Impact Fee statute and cannot require parkland dedication. A developer can voluntarily dedicate parkland, develop it, and build a park in their subdivision; however, the Plan Commission cannot require it.
Mr. Caballero stated that the town needs parks and asked where we find the land. Mr. Kil responded that the thought is the Impact Fee can be used to purchase land. The Town not only has to purchase the land, but it has to construct the parks.
Mr. Kil commented that we have had this fee since the late 1990s. The Town needs this Impact Fee because the Park General Budget is for operating expenses, and there is not enough tax levy there to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to build new parks to meet the needs of the growing community.
Mr. Eberly advised that this fee is only charged against residential permits. It is not charged with industrial or commercial permits.
Mr. Kil noted the upgrades were done at Prairie West Park cost $335,000 and were done as a result of all the new residents moving in.
Mr. Arshami explained Impact Fee authority. The Town has the authority to impose Impact Fees based on the land use regulation, which is subject to Fifth Amendment requirements. There is a legitimate Federal purpose for this fee. At the State level, it is governed under the 1300 series of the State statutes, which was passed in 1991.
The State clearly outlines the process, elements, and methods of calculating Impact Fees. The State requires the CEO of the Town, or Town Council President, to appoint an advisory committee; there must be an infrastructure improvement plan prepared, which is an Impact Fee Study or Zone Improvement Plan, for a specific area designated as an Impact Zone or an Infrastructure Improvement Zone.
The State mandates that when calculating the Impact Fee, the fee must be reasonable. This does not mean it has to be to the dime or penny; the fee reasonably needs to reflect what is being provided as it relates to the level of service being provided.
Once a community approves an Impact Fee, the community has to establish an Impact Fee Review Board, and that board reviews cases where there are discrepancies or challenges.
Mr. Kil advised that in all the years he has been doing this, there has never been an appeal in front of the appeal board. Mr. Kil advised the Impact Fee Advisory Committee that they are the review board as well.
Mr. Arshami stated that the State also mandates that the fees are proportionate, which means that it has to be in accordance with the level that the Town is currently offering to the rest of the community and impose a fee proportionate to that amount. In other words, if the Town is spending $1000 per family for parks and recreational facilities, they cannot expect new residents to give $1200.
Mr. Arshami instructed the members of the committee what their role is as the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, which is to make a recommendation of a fee to the Town Council at the end of this process.
Mr. Arshami noted that the State allows various impact fees, such as utility access connections, park dedication fees, area wide utility access fees or trunk fees, area-wide road-improvement access fees, fire/public safety impact fees, and special assessments.
Mr. Arshami stated that Merrillville, Schererville, Crown Point, and Winfield also have Impact Fees.
Mr. Kil noted that only growing communities need impact fees; if you don’t have a lot of construction, the cost of enacting the Impact Fee will outweigh any benefit derived from it. St. John and Schererville have been using impact fees since the early ‘90s.
Mr. Arshami explained the reason for Impact Fees, including paying for infrastructure needs, which can include buying land or equipment. Future benefits of an Impact Fee include using it as an economic development tool and installing infrastructure before development occurs, as it is less expensive before land is developed.
Mr. Arshami noted some of the impacts associated with having an Impact Fee: It will increase the cost of development. However, there is also an argument that it reduces the cost of development because it provides advanced selection of land and/or advanced planning of the services, which may reduce the cost of future development. The Park Master Plan is going to be used as part of the planning efforts for the community and will use future Impact Fee funds collected to make those improvements.
Mr. Arshami stated that the greatest fear with Impact Fees is that the market cannot support the costs of those fees; however, people have shown that they are interested in parks and recreation and are willing to pay for it.
Mr. Kil advised the members that they were chosen to be on this board as they represent the building, construction, and real estate industries and can vet the information and make a good determination that is fair and equitable, based on market trends.
Mr. Arshami stated that future residents pay for the Impact Fee, which is built into their building permit cost. If there is no Impact Fee, future residents won’t pay the increased cost, which means everyone must pay for a parks program through taxation, or there would be no program.
Mr. Arshami advised that this fee could provide some financial stability to a community; for example, if a community can’t afford to pay for additional public improvements, this fee can help.
Mr. Arshami suggested that the whole town should be the Impact Zone. At the end of the presentation this will be discussed further; however, it is assumed that the town in its entirety will be the Impact Zone, and the balance of the presentation is based on that assumption.
Mr. Arshami stated that in 2008, the Impact Fee was $1,652.00; and in 2013, it was $1735.26, which is the current Park Impact Fee.
The park acreage is broken down as follows: mini-parks or block-parks, 41.3 acres; neighborhood parks, 52.1 acres; community parks, 95.7 acres; trails, 17.9 acres; and open space, 33.9 acres.
Mr. Arshami advised that in order to have an Impact Fee, needs must be identified to establish a level of service. He further advised that they have completed a preliminary report based on the current population. Mr. Arshami stated that the determination of needs is based on national averages, and local averages may be different.
The two largest park needs of the Town are for more open space and a civic park. While the Town has a park named Civic Park, it is not what a civic park traditionally is. The needs are broken into a 5-year horizon and a 10-year horizon.
Mr. Arshami stated that they have also studied the parks for specific amenities and determined what is missing or lacking, again based on the national average and not based on what the Town or the Park Board wants. The park distribution within the town is a major issue as there are a very limited number of parks in the northeast part of town. The Town has a ratio of 14 acres per every 1000 people, and the national average is 9 or 10 acres per every 1000 people. The land amount is in excess of what is needed, but the distribution of that land is unbalanced.
Mr. Arshami recapped the park needs of the Town: The Town provides services on a town-wide basis; aggregate park area and major facility categories meet the needs on a quantity basis, but there are gaps in the distribution.
Mr. Arshami stated that population projection is an important component of establishing an Impact Fee. The growth has slowed due to the recession, and the town has changed and housing is more expensive, which makes the town less accessible to younger families and young couples.
Mr. Arshami stated that they have studied the long-term population projection and the long-term construction activities for St. John and the surrounding communities. In 5 years, the population of St. John will likely be 19,012. He noted that the number of building permits issued has been used in the population projection figures.
Mr. Kil stated that the estimated population looks a bit low; last year we issued approximately 360 home permits, and we are on point to do that again this year. Our numbers are growing rapidly, so by the time Mr. Arshami calculates the numbers, they are almost obsolete.
Mr. Eberly noted that each permit adds roughly three members a household, so based on 360 permits, there were almost 1200 people added last year alone. We are ahead of last year’s pace so far this year. At 1200 for the next 5 years, that’s 6000 people.
Mr. Kil stated that 19,012, the number that shows for 2023, is where we are at right now in actual numbers. We know how many permits are issued and how many certificates of occupancy are issued, so it’s not that hard to do the math.
Mr. Arshami advised that the average number of persons living in a household was 2.85 in 2016, which is down from the average of 2.94 in 2010; and the average family size was 3.17 in 2016, down from 3.25 in 2010.
Mr. Arshami stated that it is important to distinguish between owners and renters. Traditionally, the household size is smaller for renters. In St. John, that number is quite close with renters having an average household size of 2.49 and owner-occupied homes having an average household size of 2.86. He noted that St. John doesn't have many rental units.
Mr. Arshami summarized the population analysis, which shows that the growth rate has been more than 5.5% annually for the last 16 years, which is about 500 people annually moving into St. John. Mr. Arshami stated that park facilities have not kept up with the population growth.
As of 2016, there were 5658 housing units in St. John; however, that number is higher today.
Mr. Kil advised that the 2016 Census Bureau data was the data collected in 2015. If we add 2016, 2017, and 2018 numbers, the numbers are substantially higher.
Mr. Arshami stated that they have to stay consistent with the 2016 data for the purposes of this study. And this study is looking at the impact of a single household.
Mr. Arshami advised that the average bedroom count per household is three bedrooms. Mr. Arshami reviewed the breakdown of occupancy: Owner-occupied is 94.79%; renter-occupied is 2.93%; and vacant housing is 2.28%. He also reviewed the breakdown of occupancy based on a demographic occupancy: Family-occupied is 72.7%; other-family occupied is 9.8%; non-family-occupied is 17.5%; female householder-occupied is 7.4%; and 65-and-over-occupied housing is 7.2%.
Mr. Arshami stated that the total of occupied housing units is 5529 while the total housing units including those that are vacant is 5568. Mr. Arshami noted that the vacant housing is primarily housing where building permits have been pulled but a certificate of occupancy has not been issued yet; and only occupied housing can be used to determine the household sizes.
Mr. Arshami also reviewed data calculations on new construction and housing tenure and size comparing single-family detached, single-family attached, and multifamily housing units, including the population counts of each type of housing. The total population count was 15,767 with 13,937 residents living in single-family detached homes. Single-family detached homes equaled 4876 units; owner-occupied units equaled 4726; and renter-occupied units equaled 150. Including “other” types of housing, the total housing units equaled 5529, with 5363 units being owner-occupied and 166 units being renter-occupied.
Mr. Arshami advised that dividing the total population count by the total number of units in each category would yield the household size for that category. The average household size for all units and occupancy type is 2.85, which will be used when calculating the Impact Fee.
Mr. Arshami stated that the new-construction trends were provided by the Town. Including the new construction, the total number of housing units in the town is now 6119, which is a hard number. If you multiply that by 2.85, you are close to 19,000 people, not 15,000.
Mr. Arshami advised that many of these numbers would be used in future calculations. He further advised that the single-family detached household size and the single-family attached household size are both 2.86, so their impact on the parks is the same.
Mr. Arshami summarized the housing trends analysis stating that the number of housing units has increased by approximately 25% from the prior Census; the new housing construction for the last 5 years exceeds 1100; growth is expected to continue, which will consume more land making natural land less available and more expensive. Mr. Arshami advised that this land is desirable for parks and is desired by developers and other agencies, such as golf courses, as well.
Mr. Arshami further advised that St. John is becoming fully developed or landlocked; therefore, acquisition of land will become more difficult and expensive.
Mr. Kil advised that the Impact Fee Advisory Committee needs to determine whether the entire town should be the Impact Zone. He further advised that development isn’t just happening in one area of the town; it is happening all over town.
Motion to approve designating the entire town, the corporate limits of the community, as the Impact Zone for the purposes of the Park Impact Fee by Mr. Cummings. Seconded by Mr. Caballero. Motion carries 3 ayes to 0 nays.
Mr. Arshami stated that the last Park Impact Fee was adopted by the Town Council on August 7, 2013 and this process needs to be expedited so the Impact Fee does not lapse and asked the members to set the next meeting.
The committee agreed upon setting the next meeting for May 17th at 8:00 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Parks Impact Fee Advisory Committee
| Vince Frassinone, Chairman | Stephen Kil, Town Manager |
| Frank Buck | Taghi Arshami, Principal, The Arsh Group |
| Tim Caballero | |
| Tom Cummings | |
| Julie Urbanski |
The recording secretary took roll call with the following members present: Mr. Vince Frassinone, Mr. Frank Buck, Ms. Julie Urbanski, and Mr. Tom Cummings
Staff Present: Mr. Stephen Kil; Town Manager
Absent: Tim Caballero
Mr. Arshami stated today’s goal is to talk about what facility needs are, what your role is, and what we plan to do.
For those who are realtors and developers, often in the process of subdivision approval, you are asked to contribute either in land or in cash for certain public improvements. However, the Impact Fee has nothing to do with that. Any dedication, such as a dedication of a road to access a new subdivision, is not an Impact Fee cost. Within the Impact Fee process, there is an option of providing land in lieu of cash, which is something can be negotiated and is permitted within the State statute.
Many of the parks in St. John are small parks, but it is a large amount of parks. The total park area is about 240 acres, which translates to about 14 acres per 1,000 population. The national average is about 9 to 10 acres, so you are exceeding the national average. Many communities lack reaching 8 to 10 acres.
Out of the parks in the town, there are mini parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, and a trail. A significant amount is Open Space. “Open Space” is defined as space that cannot be used for recreational activities but will be used for passive recreational activities.
Mr. Kil asked Mr. Arshami to inform the members that he is redoing the Park Master Plan in conjunction with this Impact Fee. Mr. Kil advised the Committee that the Park Master Plan has nothing to do with them, but that is what the Park Board is tasked with doing. Mr. Kil added that the study for the Park Master Plan and the Impact fee are being done together to help Mr. Arshami make the best recommendations for the Town.
Mr. Arshami stated that they are working with the Parks Department to develop a community survey that will be sent out, which will be an online survey. He spoke about another project he did where they received great feedback from 5200 comments about the parks in that community. Mr. Arshami stated it should be out in a few weeks and asked the Committee to partake in the survey.
Mr. Arshami stated that it was approved and agreed upon that all of the services provided are a town wide service. He added it is appropriate for the Impact Fee to cover all of the town within the corporate boundaries, and a motion was passed approving the same as St. John’s Impact Zone.
Mr. Arshami explained, in terms of the impact, there is a difference between a rental apartment and a single family home or a senior apartment and a single family home. These differences have to be put together to create a Service Unit that applies equally to the various types of units. The method to translate these different types of property into a Service Unit will be discussed. A Service Unit typically is a single family home. A Service Unit is measured by the population within a Service Unit, which is the unit of measurement that will be used.
Typically, when you're talking about the population, you have three different items that you have to consider: population, household size, and vacancy rate. The population of the town is driven by the number of housing units in the town. The household size is the difference between a senior unit and a single family home with three kids, which is called a household. The other factor that plays a role in the total population is how many of the units are occupied. At any moment, there is a vacancy rate. The vacancy rate is different between single family homes and apartments and those will be taken into consideration.
The population continues to grow, which is not an issue. Mr. Arshami stated he wanted to bring to everyone’s attention that by 2023, using the Census Bureau's estimate, the Town is expected to have a population above 19,000. For planning purposes, it is important to consider that the facility needs and the general needs are going to increase, and the funds required to meet those needs will also increase.
Mr. Kil commented that the population numbers may seem fairly low right now. Because the Census Bureau used 2016 numbers, their data is probably from 2014. When you are in a growing community like ours, the Census numbers are severely lagging. For the purposes of this exercise, the only real numbers that can be used that are recognized are the Census Bureau’s numbers. They're not our population estimate, which far exceeds these numbers. However, for the purposes of the exercise, we have no choice but to use them.
Mr. Frassinone asked what the real number is for 2018.
Mr. Kil responded approximately 21,000. He added the Town is over 20,000 right now based on the number of occupancies issued. There are about 3 persons per household in our town. If you know how many households there are and how many occupancies were issued each year, the projected population can be calculated. For purposes of this exercise, the Census Bureau data must be used; so if the numbers look off to you, they are.
Mr. Cummings asked how many new permits have been pulled this year for new construction. Mr. Kil responded during the first quarter of the year, the number is well over 100. If the trend continues, that number should exceed 400.
Mr. Arshami responded we are not just relying on the Census on just population. We are relying on the households; we are relying on the housing; we are relying on a variety of data that is not available outside the Census. In order to be consistent, we use the same numbers.
If there is an error in the estimates, as long as it applies to every type of category, then that error is absorbed, and the end result is okay. If they are 1 percent off in population, they are 1 percent off on the number of housing and 1 percent off in the households, so it applies across the board.
Family Household: There are about 4500 Family Households; close to 83 percent of all the households are a Family Household. “Family Household” means that there are parents and children within that household. Among those families, there is a significant number of children within those households; the average family size is about 3.17.
There are other types of households in the town, and we need to be fully aware of them. Female Households are households with no husband present. There are households that are Senior Households. Both of those categories are each about 7 percent of the population.
The total number of households was about 5500 and/or 5529. And that is one of those numbers that we are required to use from the Census Bureau. The average household size is 2.85. In other words, if you combine all of these folks, senior, female, and family, you will get a household size of 2.85. The other table shows a difference between the rental household or rental units versus family households.
The Census gives us both the type of housing units that are in the town and the percentage of the total housing units there are in that category. So 87 percent of all housing units in the town are single family detached homes. A single family detached home typically has a larger household size.
Mr. Kil asked Mr. Arshami to explain to everybody how the U.S. Census Bureau looks at a duplex as a single family attached housing unit, so they have a clear understanding of why your numbers are what they are.
Mr. Arshami explained all of these categories are set up by HUD, and how HUD defines the different types of housing. He explained that what the Town calls a duplex, which is two units on a single lot, HUD calls an attached housing unit. The duplexes that are in St. John are included in this number (referencing the “Single Family Attached” number). HUD defines a duplex as a two flat. Two flats or townhomes that are upstairs/downstairs are reported in that category by the Census Bureau.
Mr. Kil stated when you look at this if you are wondering why it is showing zero when there are duplexes in town, it's because that is not how HUD defines it. Mr. Arshami reported the total number of units from 2016 was 5658.
The way the Census Bureau reports the vacancy is once a permit is pulled, it is reported. They consider that a housing unit and count it as a housing unit. Since it is not occupied yet, it is included in the vacancy rate. St. John’s vacancy rate is very low compared to most communities where the vacancy rate is about 3 percent. The level of rental occupancy is also very low when compared to other communities.
Mr. Kil asked when the Census Bureau is calculating the percentage of vacant housing if they are considering it a vacant unit as soon as somebody pulls a permit to build a new home. Mr. Arshami stated they consider that a unit of housing; and since nobody is there, under the population estimate, it is considered vacant.
Mr. Kil stated we will have vacant units as long as we're growing because they consider a home under construction a vacant unit.
Mr. Cummings asked once occupancy is pulled if it is then considered occupied. Mr. Arshami responded that he's not sure if they follow the Occupancy Permit as data.
Mr. Kil stated that is problem we run into. They do not look at the Occupancy Permits. Typically, you're in a house in four months or so. The Census Bureau goes through the exercise and then does not repeat it for another five years, which explains why we're always behind in our numbers. We're a moving target because we're growing. They can't drop everything and keep recalculating St. John. Mr. Kil added it is interesting to know they consider a home under construction as vacant.
Mr. Arshami stated they follow the Building Permit, which is what their interest is. HUD follows the construction trends and housing construction trends. They collect Building Permits issued locally, nationally, regionally, whatever it is. Mr. Arshami advised that housing occupancy is important for the Impact Fee because housing units that are vacant are not using the parks.
The total population of the Town divided by the total housing units provides the average household size, which is 2.85. The same calculation can be done to determine the household size for different types of housing units.
When looking at this table, it's important to understand that the average household size for a single family home is slightly larger than the average household size of the community as a whole. The reason is because single family homes have larger families. Because of the abundance of single family homes and the overwhelming predominance of the single family home, it is very close to the average; the detached units and attached units are almost the same. That means the duplex units have the same type of family character.
When we get to the townhouses and larger, the average is reduced. Although minimal, it does show that the average household size is less than the typical single family home.
When we add it up, 5529 is the total number of EDUs. Mr. Arshami advised it is important to understand because this is the number that will be used. He also stated that all the calculations that have been done is to get to this number.
He reminded everyone that these are all 2016 Census Bureau numbers, meaning they were released in 2016. They usually release in the calculations of the prior year in July of each year. There are still the years 2016 and 2017 of construction that happened in the community, and we have looked at those. We do know how many Building Permits have been issued in 2016 and 2017, which is 232 plus 358. These are additional units that need to be added to the units that were there before 2016. We will add this to this column (indicating on slide) and recalculate the total EDU.
Mr. Kil added, when it says new housing units, those are supplied by the Building and Planning Department here. We do not differentiate. We call duplexes a duplex, two unit. Remember the Census Bureau calls those single family attached, so we're going to have to look at those two terms for this exercise as interchangeable. The reason Taghi is referencing a duplex unit, not single family attached, because we report it as a duplex although the Census Bureau looks at it differently.
Going through the same process, that was used in the previous table, using the average household size and using the EDU determined previously yields a total adjusted EDU for the Town and that is 6118. Mr. Kil stated that doesn't include the 200 we've already issued this year. Mr. Arshami advised that 6118 is the number we're going to use for a Total Park Service Unit.
Included in the study are 15 vacant land parcels that have been sold from 2016 to now which were evaluated to determine an average. Not all of the parcels are in St. John; but they are in St. John, Schererville, Cedar Lake and Crown Point, very close proximity. Mr. Arshami stated he believes the Crown Point parcels are in an unincorporated area of Schererville with a Crown Point address. They are all unimproved residential land; although, there might be some utilities in close proximity. Looking at that, an average land cost was calculated of about $27,000 per acre.
The total land amount of the 15 parcels is 329 acres. The parcels range from 2, 3, and 5 acres all the way to 20. Vacant lots were also looked at, many of which are being offered by developers. Looking at those 15 lots yielded an estimate of $4 per square foot, or about $178,000 per acre for lots. The lot sizes are typically from 1/4 to 1/3 of an acre and typically sold for $60,000 to $80,000. There are other lots that are larger or have amenities that sell for a larger amount; however, this is focusing on the typical home lots, and that's what we received.
Mr. Kil asked the Committee what they think about that about $30,000 to $35,000 range an acre in the development community. Mr. Cummings stated by the time you tap into everything, and you look at your profit margin, he's looking at $70,000 to $80,000 for an average lot in St. John.
Mr. Kil stated the numbers are going up a little depending on where they are. He has seen some lots now in the $90,000 to $110,000 range. Mr. Arshami stated they looked at those lots; and they are a waterfront lot or they are larger or they have wetlands or natural areas on the frontage.
Mr. Kil told Mr. Arshami he is on target with his market evaluation here. He added it might be a touch low, but you're right there. Mr. Arshami responded that's what he wants to hear and believes it is fair and appropriate at $60,000 to $80,000 per lot.
Mr. Arshami stated we have looked at all 36 parks and treated each park separately. Looking at each individual park and asked if it can be considered vacant land or is it within a subdivision that can easily be subdivided and turned into a lot, particularly those smaller parks in the town. The streets are there; they are within a subdivision; all we have to do is subdivide it.
At the same time, a lot of these parks do have unbuildable lots: It could be wetland, a pond, or just not accessible. Especially if it is small, it doesn't pay for a developer to go and put a road in the back. We have gone through specific site analysis for each park to determine the value based on the assumptions in the previous table. When we do this, we get this number and factor it excluding all of the wetlands all of the non buildable areas.
Many of these parks are a donation to the Town. The developers may feel that the natural area should be preserved, and they design around it so it may not necessarily become accessible. Wetlands are valued anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 an acre. That means that as a homeowner, you're willing to pay extra to see that natural area in the backyards, so there is a value, and we have tried to put those in there. The Total of Land Assets is about $10 million.
Mr. Kil advised everyone the number they are looking at is $10,979,352. Basically, it is almost $11 million for the market, and the assessor has $11.7 million. Mr. Arshami stated as a part of their work, they also looked at the assessor’s values.
Mr. Kil advised out of the 240 acres of parkland, the assessor's office has it valued at $11,677, 000. When Mr. Arshami did his analysis, his market value he came up with was $10,979,000, essentially $11 million; so the market value and the assessor's value are probably about $750,000 off. Overall, that's pretty close.
Mr. Arshami agreed and stated that, ironically, in most cases in the other communities, they are often higher than assessor's estimate because they tend to undervalue park properties.
Mr. Arshami stated if we go back to the assumptions that we have made, that is what we want to get your input on. And if you feel that there is something we need to change, we can easily change those numbers and adjust them. What we have in terms of total assets is $10.9 million for the land.
If you look at the previous tables, there are a couple of discrepancies between the assessor’s figures and what the Town has. Chip is on vacation this week, so some of the numbers couldn’t be verified. From what we can determine, there is an 18-acre parcel that is actually 3 acres. We don't know where it is or why the assessor's office is showing it as such. Once Chip comes back next week, we're going to have to verify that, so the $10.9 million number may need to be adjusted.
Mr. Kil asked if that is Town’s park assets right now. Mr. Arshami stated that is the total at park assets, which is an increase of about $5 million from last time. Prices have gone up, and the land value has gone up significantly. The estimate last time was about $6 million or $7 million. Additional parks have been added since then. At the same time, the value of land has increased. One of the factors that impacts the land values is the fact that it isn’t just a piece of land sitting there, it is a piece of land within a neighborhood which has a much higher value.
The numbers will be reviewed when Chip comes back. And, perhaps, we may need to review it with you as well so all of the assumptions are okay. Mr. Arshami added there are several trails that are on leased land that need to be verified as well.
The total households or EDUs have gone up by over 1000. The Cost has increased from $3,004 to $3768. Total investment per household has gone up by about $700 per unit in the 5 year period. These are all raw numbers and not the Impact Fee. The Impact Fee will be discussed at the next Meeting.
Additional investigation will be done about those sites when Chip comes back. The numbers of the trucks, etc., will be verified in case anything has been retired. That information has been collected until now. The last two tables may be revised based on any possible new information.
Mr. Arshami stated in our last round of this process the Advisory Committee felt that charging the full amount was not competitive for the housing market, and they worked a scenario that everyone agreed upon, and had fairly healthy conversations among the group. He added during the next meeting we will set up for the Advisory Committee to make a recommendation to the Council, which will be the end of your work. Mr. Kil advised that he will get the PowerPoint from Mr. Arshami and forward the same to the members for their review.
Following a brief discussion regarding everyone’s availability, the next meeting was set for Thursday June 21, 2018, at 8 a.m. Mr. Kil advised the Committee that they will need to be prepared to make a recommendation at that meeting which will allow the Plan Commission to get everything they need in a timely fashion in order to review all the documentation prior to conducting a Public Hearing on July 11.
Mr. Kil advised the Town Council would adopt an ordinance on July 26 which will be in advance of our August deadline.
Mr. Arshami advised the members to allow extra time for that day to discuss the Impact Fee that the meeting could go on for two hours.
Mr. Kil advised he will have the Certification ready. After making a decision that day, you will sign it, and then we are done.
Mr. Kil further stated the review was done in order to determine what a fair price would be and to determine what the market would support. He further stated this is similar to the Road Impact Fee process. The law requires a panel of professionals because it is your discretion as to what the actual Town can handle and the market can handle. Mr. Arshami advised the members have what was done the last time.
Mr. Kil advised that $1,735 is what our Park Impact Fee is right now. Mr. Arshami added that is the Committee's decision, and he wants to make sure there is ample time to discuss it and agree upon a rate that the Committee feels comfortable with.
(The meeting adjourned at 9:16 a.m.)
Respectfully Submitted:
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Parks Impact Fee Advisory Committee
| Vince Frassinone, Chairman | Stephen Kil, Town Manager |
| Frank Buck | Taghi Arshami, Principal, The Arsh Group |
| Tim Caballero | |
| Tom Cummings | |
| Julie Urbanski |
The recording secretary took roll call with the following members present: Frank Buck, Tom Cummings, Julie Urbanski, and Vince Frassinone.
Staff Present: Stephen Kil; Town Manager
Absent: Tim Caballero
Mr. Arshami welcomed everyone. Mr. Arshami stated this is the third meeting of the Parks Impact Fee Advisory Committee and advised that today the group will be talking about the net cost per service unit, the recommendation of the Impact Fee, and setting the Impact Fee.
Review: Mr. Arshami reviewed the process and requirements to determine the Impact Fee, which must be proportionate and reasonable; the level of service; and the EDUs, equivalent dwelling units.
Agenda: Mr. Arshami stated that today’s meeting includes determining the final impact per dwelling unit, calculating the net cost, and making a recommendation.
Mr. Arshami reviewed why the Impact Fee is based on the population as well as why the number of housing units and household size are taken into consideration when deciding the Impact Fee. He further reviewed the importance of occupancy and advised that an average 228 household permits per year have been issued over the last five years. The average household size is 2.85 members, and over 90% of the homes are owner-occupied.
Service Units: A service unit is one unit of service for park needs. The service unit is based on the average household size of 2.85. The average household service unit size is just over 1 unit at 1.00290. First, the multiplier is determined; next, the EDU is multiplied by that number. To get the total number of service units, the categories are then all added together.
Mr. Arshami advised that the numbers used are from the data from the most recent Census Bureau, which is the 2016 Census Bureau, with the housing units that were built in 2016 and 2017 added to that data for the total number of housing units. For 2018, 6119 was the total number of occupied housing units, that multiplied with the EDU yields 6122, which is the 2018 service unit total.
Assets: The assets are the number of units of park services that people are using. The park assets consist of land, building facilities, and equipment. The park land value is $7,414,129. The total for all the land, facilities, and equipment is $19,186,934.
The impact cost is all of the park assets divided by the park service units, which yields the cost per service unit. Thus, dividing the total assets of $19,186,934 by the estimated EDU of 6122 equals the cost per service unit of $3,134.29.
Mr. Arshami noted that the cost per service unit is a raw number and that the State requires additional calculations. The $472,078 of available revenue from previously collected Impact Fee funds must be included. That number is divided by 6122, the existing park EDU, which yields $77.12. That $77.12 is then added to the previously calculated number of $3,134.29 to produce the net cost per EDU of $3,211.41.
Mr. Arshami explained that the cost per EDU is $3211.41, and if you multiply that by the EDU multiplier for each housing type, you get the net cost per unit type. The actual cost for a single-family home (attached or detached) is $3,220.71; the cost for a 3-4 unit home is $2,804.05; and the cost for a multifamily/condominium is $2,362.11. The cost for the 3-4 unit and multifamily units are less because the EDU multiplier is 0.87 and 0.74 per unit respectively.
Impact Fee Options: A flat rate can be charged, or a graduated rate can be charged; which would start with a certain percentage and increase annually over the next 5 years.
Making a decision for an Impact Fee can be based on a single unit where all homes are equal; an adjusted unit based on the unit size and type; the number of bedrooms, which is typically categorized 2 bedrooms or less and 3 bedrooms or more; or a fraction of the calculated rate.
Setting the Fee: Mr. Arshami advised the board to consider the household size, predominance of new-housing construction, a percentage of the housing costs, the housing cost and economic impact on the market, and the ease of administration when setting the fee.
Mr. Arshami advised that the current rate that was set up the last time was 58%, which equals $1735. At 58%, based on current calculations, the total fee would be $1,868.01, which is approximately $132 more per permit.
The Recommendation: The committee unanimously agreed to recommend keeping the rate at 58%.
Mr. Kil advised that the Park Department has no debt at this time; that the 58% fee has worked well for St. John; and that the existence of an Impact Fee allows us to have the cash on hand for improvements.
Mr. Arshami stated that issuing 200 new construction permits per year, over the next 5 years, will generate about $1.8 million of additional funds. Over the next 3 years, the Town will have approximately $3.5 million of impact and collect $1.8 million in fees.
Mr. Arshami advised that the next step is to certify their recommendation, which will go to the Plan Commission and the Town Council. The Plan Commission will pass a Resolution approving the Park Impact Fee, and then the Town Council will vote on it.
Mr. Kil advised that after Impact Fee Advisory Committee makes and certifies a formal recommendation, the Plan Commission will hold a Park Impact Fee Public Hearing on July 11, 2018. Then the Town Council will act on this at the July 26th meeting.
Mr. Kil further advised that he will fill out the certified recommendation, if the committee is inclined to make a recommendation, and once they sign it, their job is done.
Motion to make and certify a formal recommendation to the Plan Commission and Town Council establishing a rate of 58% of the total Impact Fee, or $1,868.01, as the new Park Impact Fee by Mr. Cummings. Seconded by Mr. Buck. Motion carries 4 ayes to 0 nays.
(The meeting adjourned at 8:55 a.m.)
Respectfully Submitted:
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Parks Impact Fee Advisory Committee
