Panel Backs Higher Park Fees : Plan Would Cover 45 Established S.D. Communities

San Diego took its first step Wednesday toward increasing fees paid by residential developers for new parks in the city’s older neighborhoods since the taxes were enacted 17 years ago.

In the ensuing years, the money collected from the charges has fallen significantly short of paying for park construction, as inflation and rapid growth have driven up the cost of land.

The move toward the higher fees--which was proposed by the city manager’s office and which has the support of the Building Industry Assn.--was approved unanimously by the City Council’s Public Facilities and Recreation Committee. With council members Ed Struiksma, Celia Ballesteros and Judy McCarty all voting for the increase, the matter could be heard by the City Council as early as next week.

It was clear from comments of committee members--specifically Struiksma--and members of the city administration that the new charges are merely the first round of an escalation that city officials say is long overdue.

While the city’s 13 fastest-growing areas, such as Scripps Ranch, North City West and Penasquitos East, already are covered by relatively new and special park financing plans, 45 of the city’s 58 community planning areas are not.

Those 45 areas generally are the more established neighborhoods such as La Jolla, Clairemont, Pacific Beach, Ocean Beach and the South Bay.

So while a developer constructing a single-family home in an area with a special park fund such as Scripps Ranch, for example, has had to pay the city a fee of $1,480, that same developer building the same house in, say, Pacific Beach would only have to pay $100.

Additionally, while the newer park financing plans contain automatic cost increases to offset inflation and other increased expenses, the $100 park fee in the 45 older communities has remained unchanged since 1970.

If the City Council approves the city manager’s proposal, the $100 park fee levied on each new single-family home would rise to $632, while the old charge of $75 for each apartment, condominium, town house or other multifamily unit would go to $474.

The proposal--which technically changes the city’s Municipal Code--also would provide for a 7% automatic annual increase.

Over 20 years, the higher rates could generate as much as $45 million, compared with $9 million if the current rate structure remained in place, said Jack McGrory, deputy city manager.

McGrory told the committee that the new fees, if approved, would remain in place while the city makes an in-depth evaluation of population growth and park deficiencies in the 45 community areas in question. The ongoing analysis, which could take a year to complete, would identify which areas are most in need of parks and fees for those communities then would be increased accordingly, McGrory said.

Even with the size of the proposed increase, Struiksma said the city’s charges would remain “woefully low” and said he viewed the proposed charges as but “a first step . . . in what I see as more restructuring in tune with our (park) plans.”

“I feel the manager is way off the mark on what monies are really going to be needed” for future park construction, Struiksma said, adding that he wants the park tax expanded to include industrial and commercial development, which is now exempt.