HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - June 20, 1991 (74)OF
CITY. OF LODI
AGENDA TITLE. Introduction of ordinance imposing a three percent
surcharge on the City's Transient Occupancy Tax.
NI ETWo DATE: JUNE 20, 1991
PREPARED BY. City Attorney
RECOMMENDED ACDCIN- Counci 1 consideration of the attached draft
ordinance imposing a three percent surcharge on the
City's. Transient:Occupancy Tax.
BACKGROUND INFORIMTION: As part of the City's ongoing evaluation and
update of revenue sources , the possibi lity of
increasing the City's Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT) has been discussed. For that purpose, the attached draft ordinance
has been prepared which increases the TOT from six to nine percent.
It will be noted that the ordinance is drafted in an unusual fashion,
leaving intact the existing ordinance which sets the TOT at six percent,
and simply adding a surcharge of an additional three percent by way of the
new section of the Municipal Code. It was done in this manner because
there may be some risk involved in the proposed action.
A the Council may recall, the voters in 1986 approved Proposition 62
(codified as Government Code Sections 53720 through 53730) , a measure
requiring two-thirds majority voter approval to impose any raw special or
general tax. In a case called Rider v. County of San Diego (1990) 272
Cal Rptr. 857, the Fourth Mstr1ct Court o Appealheld that
Proposition 62 conflicted with California Constitution Article 11,
Sections 9 and 11, which in essence say that the voters power of
referendum does not apply to matters of ". . tax levies or appropriations
for usual current expenses of the (city)." The Rider court viewed
Proposition 62 as a referendum on taxes.
Other courts have also invalidated parts of Proposition 62 (e.g., cfr of
Westminster v. Countyof Orange (1988) 251 Cal.Rptr. 511) ea ing
some to believe tile measure is dead. However, the California Supreme
Court has agreed to review the Rider case and it is at least possible
that it could reverse the District Court of Appeal.
APPROVED: `r I
THOMAS A. PETERSON
C 1 Manager J
CC -1
Introduction of ordinant.. imposing a three
percent surcharge on the City's Transient
Occupancy Tax.
June 20, 1991
Page Tw
HOTELCC/TXTA.01V
CItDKWE NO. 1515
AN CFDI[W�CE OF THE LORI Cl1Y CCC1:II.,
ANENER3 IM MUN I C I PAL CODE CHAPTER 3.12 - 1P_V Tf OCCUPANCY TAX",
BY A>W" THERETO A NEW 9JBSBCIYN 3.12.035 FNI= "SURCHARGE".
BE 1T CPJ34,ID BY THE LM CI1Y 0JJNCL AS FOLLOWS:
SBCIM 1. Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 3.12 - "Transient Occupancy
Tax", is hereby amended by adding thereto a mw subsection 3.12.035
entitled "Surcharge", to read as follows:
113.12.035 Surcharge.
E A. In addition to the six percent transient
occupancytax imposed by Section 3.12.030 of
this Code, there is hereby added a surcharge of
an additional three percent, for a total of nine
percent of the rent charged by the operator, for
the privilege of occupancy i n any hotel. This
surcharge shall be subject to all other
conditions and terms specified in Section
3.12.030 and shall be for the usual current
expenses of the City.
"B. The provisions of this section are
severable. Should any portion of this Chapter
be deemed invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the provisions of Section 3.12.030
shall remain in full force and effect."
-1-
SECTION 2. AI I ordinances and parts of ordinances i n conflict
'herewith are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be published one time in the "Lodi
News Pinel", a daily newspaper of general circulation printed and
published in the City of Lodi and shall be in force and take effect
thirty days from and after its passage and approval.
Approved t h i s day o f
DAVID M. HINCHMAN
Mayor
Attest:
t
ALICE M. REIMCHE f
City Clerk
x
State of California x
County,of San .Joaquin, ss.
I, Alice M. Reimche, City Clerk of the City of Lodi, do hereby certify
that Ordinance No.1515 :was introduced at an adjourned regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Lodi held June 20, 1991 and was
thereafter passed, adopted and ordered to print at a regular meeting of
said Council held , 1991 by the following vote:
Ayes: -,Council Members -
Noes:. Council Members -
Absent: Council Members -
Abstain: Council Members -
1 further certify that Ordinance No. 1515 was approved and signed by
the Mayor on the date of its passage and the same has been published
pursuant to law.
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
Approved as to Form
BOBBY W. McNATT
City Attorney
WHEN SENDING TO CODIFIER, TELL THEM TO LF-A\/F-
I
EAVEI N "B" RE SEVERABILITY.
ORD1515/TXTA.01V
-2-
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public 'Works Department
TO: City Council
City Manager
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: June 20, 1991
SUBJECT: Development Impact Fees - Public Hearing Questions and Responses
Following are responses to questions raised at the May 28 Development
Impact Fee public hearing. The questions are paraphrased from the tape of
the meeting. Some additional discussion is provided at the end of the
memo.
1 . What is the "Value" of existing Parks and Recreation Department in
$/Acre for the existing City compared to the new fees? (Terry Piazza)
Since the "existing standard" as defined is the same as that used for
calculating the fee, the "value" would be the same if replacement
value of existing facilities was used. The estimate for future park
facilities took into account: the existing inventory shown in Table
9-2 on Page 80 of the study. Thus, the new park facilities are
`comparable to existing facilities. Explicitly answering the question
would require a more detailed inventory and additional estimates;
both requiring significant staff time and consultant expense
2. Sewer RAE schedule appears inconsistent with Design Standards and
Water.RAE (Steve Pechin)
The Design Standards, while based on the various Master Plans, were
written ,to cover the design of facilities within a development
project. The impact fee study relied on city-wide flow data taken
directly from the engineering consultants who worked on the General
Plan.The unit flow factors are not necessarily the same and are
more conservative in the Design Standards; thus, comparing the RAE
schedule to the Design Standards will not provide consistent
results.
However, in reviewing this issue, the consultant found discrepancies
in both the Water and Sewer RAE schedules. The schedules have been
recalculated as follows:
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 2
Category Water RAE Sewer RAE
Residential
Low Density 1.00 1.00
Meru Density 1.96* 1.96*
High Density 3.49* 3.49"
East Side 1.00 1.00
PR -LD 1.00 1.00
PR -MD 1.96* 1.96*
PR -HD 3.49* 3.49*
Commercial
Neighborhood : 0.64 0.94 (was 1.25)
General 0.64 0.94 (was 1.25)
Dowrrtnm 0.64 0.94 (was 1.25)
Office 0.64 0.94 (was 1.25)
Industrial
Light 0.26 (was 0.92) 0.42 (was 0.33)
Heavy 0.26 (was 0.92 0.42 (was 0.33)
*Original figure was rounded to nearest 0.1; used nearest 0.01 to
be consistent with other categories
3. Storm Drain RAE schedule appears inconsistent with Design Standards
and Water and Sewer RAE' s (Steve Pechin)
The storm drain relative factors are the same as those presently in
effect. They were determined by the City in 1988 as part of the
update of the Master Storm Drain System Master Plan and Fee Program.
An analysis was done on the total .cast of providing trunk lines,
basins and pumping facilities for residential versus commercial
development. The Design Standards only address runoff calculations.
While it could be argued that a more refined breakdown is possible
(for example, commercial versus industrial), the cost difference
would be less the difference implied by. the Design Stardards which is
only.l3%.
Incidentally, the storm drain fees nppd tn ho rPralrulated dup to
land use changes i n the adopted General Plan and the omission of two
existing storm drain reimbursement agreements that are to be paid out
of the impact fee fund.
4. Iry does additional water system revenue from metering affect the fee
program? (Steve Pechin) -
Presumably, water rates will be set to cover maintenance,
replacements and contributions to general fund and no rux capital
facilities. Of course, actual water rates are set by the City
Council. To the extent water conservation from metering reduces the
need for additional wells, future updates of the General Plan and
Water Master Plan would reduce the number of mw wells needed. Then
the fee could go down.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 3
5. What is the effect of removing Lodi Lake from the calculation on
existing park standard? (Steve Pechin) -
The lake itself accounts for 35 acres of the 101 acres of Lodi Lake
Park included in the existing standard. Eliminating acreage from the
existing standard and reducing the rev park acreage to match the
existing standard will reduce the fee. The exact reduction amount
will depend on the results of the cash flow analysis. Based cn the
average cost of new parks, Table 1 Fresents the approximate effect of
reducing the. acreages as shown.
uesti.on:using 10.0, C per acre as value for land acquisition (Steve
Pechin, Dennis Bennett. Jeff Kirst, Council) -
Based.on comments from other developers, staff feels the $100,000
figure is. reasonable ccnsidering the City will have to have
..`appraisals. done. and pay prevailing market rates at the time of
purchase:.., This..action will occu-r.. nearer to development time, thus
land mill., be more expensive than .lard purchased years ago on
peculation ,.:
',`.Tn.computing...the area'of existing .community buildings, were leased
facil.ities:,included Wand. how does.it affect the arc gram; is there a
ISt. of the existing facilities? (Steve Pechin, Jeff Kirst) -
The .favi l i ties. t sed in determining the existing standard are:
Hutch.ins:Street Square Cafeteria 6,400 SF
Camp.Hutchins.Room 6,000 SF
hutch ns Street SQ uare North Complex 19,600 SF
Hutchins Street Square Pool Area 5,400 SF
Hutchins Street Square Fine Arts Buitding 8,700 SF
Recreation Annex, North Stockton Street 3,500 SF leased
Kofu Park Building 1,800 SF
Lee Jones Building (@ Legion Park) 900 SF
Grape Festival Pavilion 32,000 SF leased*
Grape .Festival Chablis Hall 9,600 SF leased
Recreation'0ffice.Meeting Room 900 SF
94,800 ST Total
(use of indoor school facilities not included!
*Pavilion only available 51 months/year
This square footage was used in determining the amount and cost of
new community buildings (44,100 SF @ $100/SF = $4,410,000). Reducing
this square footage has a similar effect on the fee as reducing park
acreage, although the amounts are smaller. See Table 1 for some
approximate alternatives.
8. Were revenues from renting/leasing community buildings included in
the program? (Steve Pechin) -
No, City policy in setting rental rates is to attempt to recover
operating expenses only.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 4
9. Police RAE's the land use is not as important a factor as the area of
town (Steve Pechin) -
Possibly, but this is not accounted for in the methodology and it
would probably not be legal to do so.
10. Residential impact fee comparison - Tracy is going down, Galt's
figure is only for certain parts of town and include Mello-Roos
figures, also the comparisons are distorted, misleading and
inaccurate (Dennis Bennett)
Tracy's storm drain fee has been reduced from $5,204 to $4,564,
however, many of the other categories have gone up. The total of
$23,116 shown in the comparison is riw 523,661. W have also been
informed that a suit is being filed over Tracy's fees.
Based on correspondence from Bennett and Compton, the City's
comparisonis accurate except in two categories:
Water. -' Depending on the area being developed, the fee is $950
instead of $1,800,
NE Area These fees were established to reduce the Mello-Roos
bond payments. They are used for capital facilities including
the types of facilities in Lodi's proposed program, and in our
mind fit the definition of an impact fee.
Their letter provided the following fee examples:
jlw
1,331 SF hoar in KE area: $12,623.64
1,250 SF home not i n NE area: $ 8,763.20
The City comparison showed $12,677 for a 2,000 SF home. Given the
wide variation in fee programs and situations, me feel the comparison
is sufficiently accurate for the purpose intended.
The fee comparisons were not intended to be precise. Doing so would
require a specific project design in a specific area for each city.
The proposed City of Lodi fees are based on providing the facilities
listed for the General Plan service area. The City Council may, as a
matter of policy, reduce the fees i n order to be "competitive".
However, this will transfer to burden to the General Fund and/or
Utility Funds. As discussed at the public hearing, arbitrarily
adjusting the fees opens the City to legal challenge. Reducing the
fees can be done by:
1) Lowering the service standard and eliminating projects - This
would uniformly reduce the fee in each land use category for the
reduced standard fee category (i .e. , Police, Fire, etc.).
2) Reduce the fee per RAE in any or all of the fee categories - This
would require subsidies from other City funds in order to
maintain the service standard or would mean deferring or
eliminating projects, in effect reducing the level of service.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
r
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 5
3) Directly subsidize land use categories (such as low income
housing) by paying all or a portion of the fee out of the General
Fund or other City funds.
11. Fee collection at Final Map versus Building Permit stage (Dennis
Bennett) -
Later collection will increase fees and create much more
administrative burden, i.e., billing and tracking every parcel versus
one map. Changing to collecting all fees at buiIdina permit would
mean recalculating to a square footage basis for
commercial/industrial and presumably per dwelling unit for
residential. We could split with some categories at map and others
at building permit. We already collect storm drain fees at map stage.
12. Parks standard distorted especially considering Lodi Lake and School
acreage, need more analysis (Dennis Bennett)
The standard is a policy decision; the data is there for Council to
decide. The first Parks project is a new Parks Master Plan which
will more precisely define the nature of the new parks, improvements
to be included, etc. Staff suggests that is the time to do more
.analysis and fine-tune the fee program.
School acreage was not included in the existing standard nor included
in future additions since the City has no control over either
situation.
13. Need more analysis on General City Facilities Fees (Dennis Bennett)
Again, this is a policy decision on the Council's part as to what
projects should be paid out of fees versus the general fund or simply
deleted. All the City Facilities included are needed to accommodate
growth.
14. Effect on house price of borrowing money to pay fees at Final Map
stage (Dennis Bennett) -
The impact fees for a single-family subdivision at 5 lots per acre
total $7,634 per lot. At 15% interest for 18 months, the additional
cost to be passed on the home buyer is approximately $1,700 plus
whatever the developer and builder mark up their costs. These
numbers are comparable to a realtor's fee on a $150,000 sale ($9,000
@ 60) .
This is over-estimated however, since it includes the time spent
building the house. In collecting at building permit stage, there is
still 6 months' or so interest while the house is being built. In
collecting at the later stage, the fee will have to be approximately
4% higher to account for the loss of interest revenue in the fee
program. These two factors would reduce the additional amount to
approximately $800 plus markup. We also would assume that with the
growth mariagement program, we will not see excessive numbers of lots
NCC9101/TXTW.0214
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 6
Wrapped so there should be a shorter time between map filing and home
construction.
15. Lodi's proposed Park standard is 3.4 acres per 1,000 persons served.
What is the parks standard for other agencies (Council) -
Stockton - 3 acres per 1,000 residents (considering
commeidai/industrial impact)
Davis - standard is area/distance based
-Tracy - 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents
Manteca 5 acres per 1,OCO residents
.Woodland.(draft) - 3.2 acres per 1,000 persons served plus additional
standards for facilities and regional parks
16 Relationship/methodology between Commercial land use and Police, Fire
and General City_ Facilities and sales tax revenue (William Mitchell)
No credit was .Offered:for"potential sales tax revenue. These sources
don't even pay for Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation operations,
let: alone new capital facilities.
17. Difference/relationship between commercial fees (esecially streets)
based on per acre' basis versus per 1,000 SF of building area (William
%..Mitchell) -
The basic decisions to use General Plan land use categories to keep
the fee program simple and to collect at map stage means that acreage
must be used since specific project plans are not available then.
This also evens out small differences in land use and is much simpler
to administer (fewer arguments over trip rates for specific types of
land use nor worrying about minor changes in land use). Given this,
there will always be at least 50%of the projects who feel they are
`below the average and should get a fee reduction. That could be
dnne, but only if ve charge the other 50%a higher fee.
18 Why have parallel water mains on certain streets? (Council) -
This is done on major streets and provides better service to what are
usually large parcels needing many fire services. It reduces the
need to cross the mayor street repeatedly which is expensive since
such crossings are usually bored rather than open cut.
19. Police "existing persons served" is 80,207 per Table 7-1. This seems
high. (Council)
The nuns includes an accounting of residents and employees based on
the various General Plan documents. It is consistently used in the
existing land use and project land use, although it is recalculated
separately for each fee category.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 7
20. The additional number of firefighters appears to be more than that
needed for the nevv station. Is it "top heavy"? (Council) -
The projects/equipment shown on Table 8-1 are per the Fire Long Range
Plan which includes :
° A 4- erson "quint" (combined truck/engine) at the new Station 4,
which includes 1 captain (mid -management)
° Adding a firefighter to the east side truck company
° Adding 2 fire inspectors
° Adding 1 public education specialist
Adding 1 hazardous materials specialist
All are firefighting personnel. This is a total of 23 positions for
which equipment costs only are included.
21. W are collecting fees for a fire station that will not be built for
a few years (Council)
The collection of fees for future projects is in compliance with
State.law given that vie have a long-range Capital Improvement Program.
22. Parks and Recreation, Page 78, Paragraph 2 says 770 SF is the
existing building standard (Council) -
That is a typographical error; the correct figure is 1,800 SF.
23. If a service club or private donation builds a park improvement, what
happens to the fee? (Council) -
Wim aproject included in the fee program is funded from another
source, the cost estimate would be changed a t the next fee program
update alongwith any other changes and/or cost increases; thus the
total fee would he adjusted accordingly.
24. Wy don't me reimburse the City for the cost of land already
purchased? (Council) -
That could be done. However, then the land could not be counted as
part of the existing standard. For example, the semi -developed
portion of Pixley Park (C -Basin) was counted in the existing
standard. It could be removed from the standard and included in new
parks. In some specific cases (such as the rest of C -Basin), the
undeveloped land was purchased with impact fee (Master Storm Drain)
funds so it would not be appropriate to "buy" it again. In ether
cases, such as the 13 -acre Lodi Lake Park expansion, the land was
acquired marry years ago (more than 10) and it would be difficult to
determine the purchase terms and conditions. In the case of streets
where me included recent wideningprojects, the cost of land
(Right-of-way acquisition) was included. W would include some
allowance for park land already owned if Council so desires and City
provides specific direction. This would of course increase the fee.
An example is snown in Table 1.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 8
25. Wy is the level of service standard for City Hall being increased
per Page 91, Table 10-1? (Council) -
The analysis for City Hall reflects that fact that the existing
building is overcrowded, thus the total cost of the project cannot be
placed on rew development. The term "level of service standard" in
this case is misleading since it is a statement of existing
conditions, not a desired level of space allocation. The future
total is based on the present plans for the expansion of the building
and matches the projections of City Hall personnel increases
throughout the life of the General Plan. g
Additional'Discussior
Although. --there wer e no specific questions, the issue of "affordable g
housing" was discussed. This issue involves nisch more thanjust impact
fees and includes land prices, construction costs, interest charges,
profit margins and "the Market". However, the following discussion dust
addresses impact fees.
Certainly anything that increases expenses to developers and builders has
the potential of increasing the final sale price. The issue of "who
ultimately pays" is not clear and depends on many local factors.
According to the latest information staff received at a recent seminar on
impact fees, there have been very few rigorous studies that attempt to
answer this question. These few indicate that while there is an increase,
it is "trivial" when compared against increases due to other factors.
This seminar included some discussion on the "impact" of impact fees. Ten
suggestions on offsetting their impact are at
as Exhibit A. Given
the City's 2% Growth Management Plan, some of these suggestions are not
possible. Note that No. 7 suggests fees be charged as early as possible
in the approval process. Numbers 9 and 10 and similar alternatives would
require a mudr more active role by the City in the area of housing
programs. Such programs could be handled by other public agencies on a
contract bas is, by a consultant, or by rew City staff.
Recommendation/Action
A t this point, staff needs Council direction on hwv to proceed with the
Development Impact Fee Program i n order to complete the enabling ordinance
and implementing resolution. The draft fees as presented need to be
recalculated anyway because of the changes in the final adopted General
Plan and the Water and Sewer RAE factor changes. Also, the calculations
started with revenue and expenses in fiscal year 1990/91. Obviously, the
program will not start then. W do wish to proceed as quickly as
possible; the City cannot collect any of its county -wide 1/26 sales tax
(Measure K) allocations until xAe have a traffic fee in olace.
Council decisions are needed on the following issues that h2.d been raised
which will also affect the- fee calculation:
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
=?n
.. City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 9
Table 1
AppROXII.,ATE PARKS AID RECREATION IMPACT FEE REVISIONS
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
"Excistingil
Future
Cost of
Fee
Diff.
Standard
Additions
Future
per RAE
Additions
Parks
Mth Lodi Lake
177.9 Ac
83.0
Deduct Lake 35 Acres
142.8 Ac
66.7 4c
$10,44 i^pprox.)
$10,210
41,600
Deduct 50% of Lake 35 Acres,
160.3 Ac
74.8 k
$11,710,000 (approx.)
$11*000
Cammity Buildings
With All Facilities
- Q 4,800 SF
44,100 SF
$4,410,000
511,810
Deduct All, Leased Facilities
49,700 SF
23,120 SF
a ro,
$ 2,312,000 PP x.)
$10,490
-$1,320
prorate Pavilion SF
:77,470 SF
36,040 SF
$ 3,604.000 (approx.)
�$11,310
500
Land Reimbursement
Lodi Lake. 13 Acre Expansion
$ 1,300,000 (approx
$12,630
+$ 8210
Camunitv Buildinqs, and miscellaneous projects subtotal $5,749,000 for $18,740,000 total program
is
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
Exhibit A
ffsettinL, the Imnact.s of Tmnact Fees
Connerly (1988) argues that impact fees are simply bad policy because of their
tendency to force higher prices and thereby displace lower- and middle-income house-
holds. Huffman, Nelson. Smith, and Stegman (1988) warn that impact fees may displace
development to areas that may be less able cope vidh that development. They also warn
cf fiscal effects. The problem is that public officials have not generally come to grips with
these or other effects of impact fees. Where impact fees are relatively small, however as
they Seem to be at the present time in most communities assessing them — any impact of
impact fees will be practically meaningless.
Nevertheless, where communities are concerned about prospective adverse impacts
of impact fees, they may pursue any of several mitigating policies (Weitz, 1". The aim
of such policies is to J�itt as much of the burden back to owners of vacant land as
possible, soften the magnitude of impact fee effects on housing prices by encouraging
greater land use intensity, and distribute the remaining burden among tenants of new
development and developers so that no party is burdened with the whole impact. What
exactly are those policies? Ten are suggested here.
1. Assure that long-range community plans adequately foresee future development
demand by providing enough land for that development. That land must be
provided With suitable infrastructure. These efforts wi I I keep the land market from
internalizing supply shortages attributable solely to unserviced land.
2 Give adequate advance notice to developers of impending impact fees. This may
be done through public hearings and delayed effective dates. The objective is to
give developers enough time to negotiate more favorable land purchase prices.
3. Tailor impact fees to the effects that specific developments will have on com-
munities. Fixed fees fail to account for projects have relatively higher impacts
because of their location in more congested areas. Setting fees by service area of
facilities is one workable solution.
4. Attempt to provide a competitive market. In a tight market where demand for
developable land exceeds supply in the short term, public cf6dals might allow
greater development density (where facilities can accommodate it), or allow
annexations.
5. Assure consistent land use practices. When landowners perceive that zoning or
planning changes are easily acquired, they will force developers to pay prices
reflecting those expectations. Communities should hold fronto land use designa-
tkM.
6. Many communities under -assess vacant land or extend it certain open space tax
preferences. Such practices subsidize speculative behavior, allow Iandowners to
hold land for longer periods, and enable landowners to demand higher prices than
the market would otherwise justify. They should be reconsidered.
80
7. Assess impact fees at the stage in the development process that can have the least
impact on prices. Consideration might be given to assessing the fees upon approval
of a project. This has the effect of forcing developers to internalize the fee as a
cost before selling land to builders. It should encourage developers to negotiate
lower land prices.
As a practical matter, the farther along in the development process the fee is
assessed, the more likely it will passed along to buyers. Assessing the fee at the building
permit stage has the advantage of raising revenue approximately when the impact is felt
while keepingg the fee relatively far away E - buyers. Assessing fees upon completion or
. explicitly shifting fees. to buyers will not put downward pressure on sellers of vacant,
buildable land and will instead guarantee forward Linkage of the fee.
8 mmunities should consider more flexible use of local improvement dish cats. If
communities can extend to new development lower borrowing rates and allow
repayment of the fee over along period of time, the potentially adverse effects of
impact fees may be greatly. reduced.
-9. Comiunities should ,aggressiyely.pursue subsidized housing programs offered by
the federal and state governments. Connerly (1988), for example, calculates that
the impact fee. burden' on lower=income households can be nearly completely
eliminated by use of federal low income housing tax credits.
10. Some communities pay the: impact feefor lower- and middle-income housing from
the seneral fund or other sources. This has many attractive features. First, there
is little adverse impact on the construction of affordable housing. Second, the
impact fee revenues are fact raised and put into necessary, earmarked accounts
for use by specific facilities. Third, it is the community at -large that subsidizes such
housing with payment of the fees. Loveland, Colorado, and Broward Cbtn y,
Florida, are among communities that do this.
Communities should consider an impact fee mitigation policy package comprised of the
combination of those policies_ that together show the greatest promise for offsetting the
impacts of impact fees.
Source: "A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees" by
James C. Nicholas , Arthur C. Nelson, Juli an Juergensmeyer
Course notebook from 1991 seminar on Development Impact Fees
81
'• CITY OF LODI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
i
1991 Fee and
Service Charge Schedule
i-Devetopment tmpac M�tegatlon Fees R Revised Draftri
RAE m Residential Acre Equivalent 6120191
Land Use Category Total Fee Water Sewer Storm Drainage Streets
per Acre I RAE Fee/Acre RAE FeelAcr RAE Fee/Acre RAE Fee/Acre.
Residential
Low Density $39.160 1.00 45,500 1.00 $1.080 1.00 $7,380 1.00 85,380
Medium Density $59.820 1.96 $10,780 1.96 52,120 1.00 $7,380 1.96 $10,540
High Density $105,200 3.49 $19,200 3.49 $3,770 1.00 $7.380 3.05 $16,.410
East Side Residential $41,130 1.00 $5,500 1.00 $1,080 1.00 $7,380 1.00 $5,380
Planned Low Density $39,160 1.00 $51500 1.00 $1,080 1.00 $7,380 11.00 "$5,380
Planned Med. Density $59.820 1.96 $10,780 1.96 $2,120 1.00 $7,380 1.98 $10,540
Planned High Density $105,200 3.49 $19,200 3.49 $3,770 1.00 $7380 3.05 : $16,410
Commercial
Neighborhood 440,280 0.64 $3,520 0.94 51.020 1.33 $9.820 1.90 810,220
General $48,270 0.64 $3,520 0.94 $1,020 1.33 $9,820 3.82 620.550
Downtown $40,280 0.64 53.520 0.94 $1,020 1.33 $9.820. 1.90 $10,220
Office $53.530 0.64 53.520 0.94 $1,020 1.33 $9.820 3.27 $17,590
Industrial
light $29.930 0.26 $1,430 0.42 $450 1.33 59.820 2.00 $10,760
Heavy $289870 0.26 $1,430 0.42 $450 1.33 $9.820 1.27 36.830
Police Fire Parks & Recreation I General City
RAE Fee/Acre RAE Fee/Acre RAE Fee/Acre RAE Fee/Acre
Residential
Low Density 1.00 $1,130 1100 $510 1.00 $11,810 1.00 $6.370
Medium Density 1.77 $2,000 1.96 $1,000 1.43 $16,890 1.43 $9,110
High Density 4.72 $5,330 4.32 $2,200 2.80 $33.070 2.80 $1.7,840
East Side Residential 1.09 $1,230 1.10 $560 1:10 512,990 1.10 57,010
Planned Low Density 1.00 $1,130 10C)$510 1.00 $11.810 1.00 $6,370
Planned Med. Density 1.77 $2,000 1.96 $1,000 1.43 $16,890 1.43 $9,110
Planned High Density 4.72 $5.330 4.32 $2,200 2.80 $33,070 2.80 $17,840
Commercial
Neighborhood 4.28 $4,840 2.77 $1.410 0.32 $3,780 0.89 $6,670
General 2.59 $2.930 1.93 $980 0.32 $3,780 0.89 $5,670
Downtown 4.28 $4,840 2.77 $1,410 0.32 $3,780 0.89 55.670
Office 3.72 $4,200 2.46 $1.250 0.54 $6,380 1.53 $9,750
Industrial
tight 0.30
$340
Heavy I ` 0.19 $2 0I 0.61 $310 0.33 $3,9001 0.93 $5.920
See Note 4.
Reference: LMC 115.64.xxx & Resolution 91 -root
'� Notes'
1. This schedule is a summary only; refer to the reference dted for details of applicability and interpretations.
2. LMC a Lodi Municipal Code; PWD 5 PublicWofks Department
a Fees must be Paid before work is scheduled ¢ applicable Map/Permit issued.
4. Special area assessmentsor charges required by reimbursement agreements are not included in this summery.
Approved: Jack L Ronsko. Public Works Director Date