Builders will fund parks

PALMER -- Neighborhood parks have become a priority in Palmer, and the bottom line for home builders is a new $200 fee.

Last week the Palmer City Council approved a new ordinance and set a fee schedule designed to help fund the construction of more neighborhood parks around the city. Beginning July 1, anyone receiving a residential building permit will pay a one-time charge of $200 for single-family residences, $150 for each unit in a multi-family residence and $150 for a mobile home, with the funds being dedicated to building more parks in the city.

The city didn't hear much public testimony during meetings leading up to the vote, and the few comments came from people who were there to testify on other matters but threw their support behind the park fee.

"Good on you for doing this," Michelle Church of Friends of Mat-Su told the council last week. She had come to the meeting to speak about an upcoming Fred Meyer development, but took to the podium during the park fee ordinance as well. She described the fee as a way to jump ahead of the "development train."

"That really is going to benefit your community enormously in the future," Church said.

According to the ordinance, the city's rapid growth and the fact that parks have not been set aside in residential developments means the city's level of park service has decreased in recent years.

"The result of the lack of recent neighborhood parks is that significantly more children have been playing in residential streets, which increases the likelihood of harm to children and decreases the functionality of the streets for transpiration purposes," according to the ordinance.

Council members say they will use the revenue from the park fee, in addition to other city funds, to counter this trend. If the ordinance had been in place during the past five years, based on city building permit information, it would have brought in an average of around $13,000 per year.

These park fees will go into a separate account to be used only for developing and buying land for parks. The fees cannot be used for maintenance or operations of existing parks, and they cannot be used for any other city business.

Developers of subdivisions or apartment buildings can, in place of the fee, dedicate a piece of land for a neighborhood park. This is dependent on city approval and entirely voluntary on behalf of the developer.

This part of the ordinance did not go far enough, according to Councilman John Combs. Combs played a key role in developing the ordinance and said he wanted to see parks become mandatory in large-scale developments.

"I think it's something that must be done," Combs said. He said he feared, because a lot with another house on it would be more profitable than a neighborhood park, developers won't ever set aside land for parks.

But city attorney Jack Snodgrass said courts are typically more comfortable with fee ordinances than those that involuntarily take land away from private owners, and the council followed his advice.

"If we get into strong-arming developers out of their property, we are going the wrong way," Councilman Tony Pippel said. Even with the ordinance as it is, the city can negotiate with developers to purchase a piece of land for a city park in a subdivision or near an apartment complex.

Another item of discussion was the rate of the fees. Several council members said the original proposal of $266 for single-family and $180 for others were awkward numbers and simply too high.

These rates were based on an estimated cost of $133,000 to build an acre park with lawn, five pieces of playground equipment and picnic tables.

Council members said the estimate was too high and, consequently, the fees as well and so rounded them down.

Lower rates or not, the city's attempt to make parks a priority through a fee ordinance is unnecessarily cumbersome, according to Councilman Steve Carrington. Carrington was the only one to vote against the final ordinance, but not because he doesn't want to see more parks developed.

"I like the idea of putting in parks … but it's kind of turning into a monster of an ordinance," Carrington said. "If we want to do parks, why don't we come to a consensus and just do more parks." Carrington pointed out that the council has historically used this approach when making sewer and water improvements and road paving a priority.

"This feels like a whole lot of ordinance, a whole lot of paperwork, just to tell ourselves we'll do parks," Carrington said.

His colleagues disagreed, however, and said this ordinance wasn't any more of a monster than others on the books.

"I think this is the right way to go and I think it's pretty clear cut," Pippel said. "This is a positive step for the city, and I want to applaud Mr. Combs for his effort."