|
~ - 7A
<br />Page 15
<br />Water Meter Enstallatian Fee: and Water System Capital Facilities Fee. Table 2
<br />describes how Redwood City currently compares to other cities far total development
<br />fees.
<br />~ Tab le Z: Corn orison of Total Develo meat Fees ~
<br />Dwellin Units/Acre Low, 1-7 ~ Medium, 8-20 Hi h, 21 + Addition
<br />Jurisdic#ion ;
<br />Dal Cit Owned/Rental Owned i
<br />$26,937 ! $12,273 Rental
<br />$8,439 Owned
<br />$12,375 Rental
<br />$8,539 Bedroom
<br />$4;086 '
<br />Menlo Park 50,812 24,297 23,241 24,297 23,241 3,344
<br />Palo Alto 34,038 15,256 8,524 15,256 8,924 1 2,885
<br />Redwood Ci 20,976 9,555 6,141 i 9,555 6,141 ~ 1,574
<br />San Leandro 48;979 25,190 20,507 25,190 20,507 3,950 ~
<br />San Mateo 29,310 , 26,994 20,622 26,994 20,622 ~ 5,428
<br />Sunn vale 27,753 a 18,420 15,212 ~ 15,562 '(2,806 2,533
<br />The City Council Finance Committee asked staff to bring back information depicting
<br />how Redwood City would compare w'sth these same jurisdictions if both the maximum
<br />allowable park fees in Table 1 and the proposed Wafter Capacity Charge were added to
<br />our existing fees. That comparison is provided in Table 3 below.
<br />Table 3: Com orison of Total Develo ment Fees
<br />Dwellin UnitslAare Low, 1-7 Medium, 8-20 Hi h, 21 * Addition
<br />Jurisdiction Owned/Rental Owned Rental Owned . Renta[ Bedroom
<br />Dal Cit $2fi,937 $12,273 I $8,439 $12,3751 $8,539 $4,086
<br />Menlo Park 50,812 24,297 23,241 24,297 23,241 3,344
<br />Palo Alto 34,038 15,256 8,824 15,256 8,924 2,885
<br />Redwood Ci 44,671 28 314 26,099 ; 24,719 1 25,590 3,270
<br />San Leandro 48,979 25,190 , 20,507 I 25,190 20,507 3 950
<br />San l~lateo i 29,314 26,994 i 20;622 26;994 1 20,622 5,428
<br />Sunn ale 27,753 18,420 15,212 15,5621 12,808 2,533
<br />i * Includes maximum park fees and water capacity char es
<br />The Council l=finance Committee also wanted to know where Redwood City would rank
<br />in development fees if less than 100% of the park fee were charged (sti(I assuming the
<br />proposed water capacity charge). Table 4, below, uses the same jurisdictions and
<br />describes how Redwood City's rank would change at different park fee percentages;
<br />with 1 being the highest fee and 7 being the bwest.
<br />Table 4: Redwood City Rank for Total Development Fees by Type of Unit at Various % of
<br />Park FePS (seven total comparison citiesi
<br />Percents e of Maximum Park Fee 100% 80% 1 75% 70% 65% ' 60% 1 55% ' 50%
<br />Low Density Ranking 3 3 i 3 3 1 3 3 3 4
<br />' 91 units ro'ected I ! ~ ,_
<br />Medium Density Ranking Owned i 1 ! 3 4 4; 4 4 4 5
<br />573 units ro'ected ~ I
<br />High Density Ranking, Owned ~ 3 4 4 4 4 ~ 4 4 4
<br />2,473 units ro'ected '
<br />' Medium Density Ranking ~ 1 2 2 i 3 4 1 4 4 5
<br />i
<br />Rental (145 units projected) ~ 1 __._
<br />
|