FINANCE FOR FIELD FINANCE FORTHE THE FIELD The Trend of Expanding the Scope of Parkland Dedication Ordinances By John L. Crompton, Ph.D.
C
ourts have consistently endorsed and enhanced the principle of communities passing the costs of growth through to new residences that created the costs. The enhancements have led to the emergence of “new normals” manifested by expansion of the types of parks that are eligible, inclusion of development fees, and inclusion of reimbursement clauses. Figure 1 below shows a continuum of the evolution, extension and expansion of parkland dedication ordinances that has occurred over the past half century.
Ad Hoc Agreements Before the tax revolt of the late 1970s, many cities believed they could achieve more parkland by fostering developer good will through negotiating ad hoc agreements than by mandating it be dedicated. This approach meant the parkland being secured depended on the economics of a development, a developer’s sense of noblesse oblige, local needs, and the aggressiveness and expertise of elected representatives and city officials in negotiating with developers. However, developers frequently are represented by specialist lawyers and consultants whose expertise typically far exceeds that of local city planners, so taxpayers are disadvantaged. Although a goal of negotiated agreements is to prevent friction with developers, it often creates friction. A principle of good governance is “horizontal equity,” which requires that equals should
be treated equally. Since negotiated “donations” are determined on a case-by-case basis, it is likely this principle will be breached with substantially different levels of dedication being exacted for similarly situated developments. The need for a more sustainable vehicle became apparent in fast growth cities when the political climate and legislative actions emanating from the “tax revolt” of the late 1970s and early 1980s made raising taxes for acquisition and development of park facilities infeasible in many communities. This stimulated the widespread enacting of parkland dedication exactions.
Neighborhood Land Dedication The earliest approach to replace negotiation with a fixed formula imposed “mandatory dedication” of land for neighborhood parks
(Figure 1, stage 2). Developers were required to deed a specified amount of land on their site for a park. However, requiring the dedication be in the form of land meant the size of the acquired land was determined by the size of the developer’s project. Because most projects involved a relatively small acreage, only small, fragmented spaces were provided. They offered limited potential for recreation and were relatively expensive to maintain.
Fee-in-Lieu of Parkland This limitation encouraged cities to broaden their ordinances to require developers to pay a fee-in-lieu of the fair market value of the land that otherwise would have been dedicated (Figure 1, stage 3). This meant the dedication was no longer confined to a developer’s subdivision, because fees could be spent off-site. The shift to a cash option also enabled cities to expand ordinances beyond acquiring land, so funds could be used to develop improvements on parkland and/or to renovate existing parks.
Parkland-in-Lieu of Fee Some communities have elected to require payment of fees to be the default norm, and land-in-lieu of a fee
Figure 1: Continuum Showing the Evolution and Expansion of Parkland Dedication Ordinances
18
Parks & Recreation
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ad Hoc Negotiated Agreements
Neighborhood Parkland Dedication
Fee-in-Lieu of Land
Land-in-Lieu of Fee
Dedication Beyond the Neighborhood
Development Fee
| J A N UA RY 2 02 2 | PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N .O R G
