Council Finance Committee Meeting – January 26, 2026

The Council Finance Committee met on January 26, 2026, to hear a report on the city's single audit and to receive an update on the Park Nexus Study and Park Impact Fees Update. All votes were unanimous. The committee provided direction to staff on refining the nexus analysis and prioritizing policy considerations before bringing the study to full council.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval: The committee unanimously approved the minutes of the Council Finance Committee meeting of December 2, 2025, without modifications.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Oral Communications: Four members of the public were online but none provided comments. No in-person speakers. No public comment on any agenda item.

Discussion Items

• Item 5.1 – Review of Fiscal Year 2024‑2025 Single Audit Report: Derek Ramponia (Finance Director) introduced the report. Ahmed Badawi (Badawi & Associates) presented. The city expended $2.7 million in federal awards; 52% were tested. The audit returned an unmodified (clean) opinion, the city qualified as a low-risk auditee, and no deficiencies in internal control or non‑compliance were noted. The committee had no questions and unanimously voted to receive and accept the report.

• Item 5.2 – Park Nexus Study and Park Impact Fees Update: John Marchant (Community Services Director) introduced the study. Tafion Rice‑Evans (Economics & Planning Systems) presented a technical analysis of the maximum allowable park impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act and Quimby Act. Key assumptions included maintaining the city’s service standard of three acres per 1,000 residents, exploring fees on non‑residential development, and including both parkland acquisition ($7.8 million/acre) and improvement costs ($3.4 million/acre, based on seven recent park projects). For multifamily units, the maximum fee would vary by unit size: a studio would see a fee decrease of 42‑48% from current levels, while a three‑bedroom unit would see an increase (e.g., current $67,800/unit to a maximum of $85,000/unit). For non‑residential, maximum fees range from $2.83/sq. ft. (hotel/motel) to $14.00/sq. ft. (office R&D).

  The committee debated several issues:

  • Family unit penalty: Council Member Ramirez noted that the per‑bedroom approach effectively penalizes larger family units. He requested a comparison of per‑square‑foot vs. per‑bedroom fee calculations.
  • Park improvement costs: The high per‑acre cost ($6.6 million) for a 0.3‑acre park raised concerns about economy of scale. The committee suggested re‑evaluating the improvement cost assumptions, possibly excluding outlier parks.
  • Land values across the city: Ramirez asked for a breakdown of land acquisition costs by planning area to see if differential fees are warranted.
  • Financial feasibility: Vice Mayor Clark and Council Member Ramos debated the need for a full feasibility study. Staff noted that a separate study would take months and that the R3 work already provides some context. Ultimately, the direction was to refine the improvement cost analysis rather than commission a new feasibility study.
  • Net new units and changes of use: The committee favored imposing fees only on net new development, not changes of use unless the new use generates more demand. This will be addressed in the ordinance later.

  The committee unanimously supported the first three staff recommendations: (1) maintain existing parkland dedication/ lieu fee under both Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act; (2) apply park and recreation impact fees to non‑residential development; (3) maintain the service standard of three acres per 1,000 residents.

Key Outcomes

• Single Audit Report: Unanimously received and accepted.
• Park Nexus Study Direction: The committee directed staff to:
  • Provide a side‑by‑side comparison of per‑bedroom and per‑square‑foot fee calculations.
  • Review and potentially revise the park improvement cost assumptions (e.g., exclude very small parks).
  • Provide a range of land values across the city for consideration.
  • Include historical data on fees collected under existing and proposed structures.
  • Separate the adoption of the Nexus Study (maximum fee) from the later ordinance that will set actual fee amounts and include credits or incentives.
  • Bring the refined Nexus Study to a future City Council meeting (likely April 2026).
• Next Steps: Staff will incorporate the feedback and return with an updated analysis; the policy ordinance will follow after council direction.