HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 4, 1991 (82)I
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CITY OF LORI
AGENDA TITLE: Development Impact Mitigation Fees Adopt Resolution
MEETING DATE: September 4, 1991
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council adopt the Development Impact Fee
Resolution.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Development Impact Mitigation Fees discussed at the
August 21 meeting are contained in the implementing
Resolution which can be adopted September 4.
(The necessary ordinance, also up for adoption at the
September 4 meeting, contains the change requested Icy the Council regarding the time
of collection.) The fees would go into effect 60 days after adoption of the
Resolution. Note that the Resolution only contains the fee per Residential Acre
Equivalent (RAE). The ordinance, in Section 15.64.060, contains the formula to
calculate the fees. The fees have been calculated for the General Plan land use
categories and are shown in Exhibit A. This will be the summary used at the front
counter and in other requests for fee information.
Also, as requested by the Council, a summary of the changes made to the
Nolte/McOonald final report is contained in Exhibit B. Rather than highlight
additional copies of the report, a written summary was prepared to provide a
permanent record and to provide some explanation for the changes.
FUNDING: N/A
C4tui
Jack L. Ronsko
Public Works Director
Prepared by Richard C. Prima, Assistant City Engineer
JLR/RCP/Im
Attachments
cc: Finance Director
City Attorney
Nolte and Associates
Angus McDonald and Associates
APPROVED" —/k�� -
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Manager
CC -1
C0EVlMP/TXTW.02M (COXOM) August 27, 1991
Exhibit A
• •. CITY OF LO DI 1991/92 Fee and
PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT Service Charge Schedule
r
Mw1opment Impact Mitigation Fees
final
Draft
8120/91
RAE - Residential Acre Equivalent
Storm Drainage
Land LSD Category I Water Sewer
j
sweets
1
RAE
Fee/Acre
RAE
Fee/Acre
RAE
Fee/Acre
Residential
Low Density
I
$1,090
1.00
$7,910
1.00
$5.470
Medium Density
$11,190
1.96
$ 2,140
1.00
$7,910
1.96
510.720
High Density
$19,930
3.49
$3,800
1.00
$7,910
3.05
$18,880
East Side Residential
$5,710
1.00
$1,090
1.00
$7,910
1.00
$5,470
Planned Low Density540,170
1.00
$5.710
1.00
$1,090
1.00
$7.910
1.00
$5.470
Planned Med. Density
$ 81,190 1.96
$11,190
1.96
$2,140
1.00
$7,910
1.96
$10.720
Planned Bth Dens"
$107,210 3.49
$19,930
3.49
$3,800
1.00
$7,910
3.05
$16,680
commercial
Neighborhood
$41,280 0.64
$3,650
0.94
$1,020
1.33
$10,520
1.90
$10,390
General
$49,470 0.64
$3,850
0.94
$1,020
1.33
$10,520
3.82
$20900
Downtown
$41,280 0.64
$3,660
0.94
$1,020
1.33
$10,520
1.90
$10,390
Office
$54,720 0.64
$3,660
0.94
01,020
1.33
$10,520
3.27
$17,890
IndusWal
Light
$30.900 0.26
$460
1.33
510.520
2.00
$10,940
Heavy
$29,820 0.26
$460
1.33
$10,520
127
$6,950
Police
Fire
Parka & Recreation
General City
RAE
Fee/Acre
RAE
Fee/Acre
RAE
Fee/Acts
RAE
Fee/Acre
Residential
Low Density
1.00
$520
1.00
$6,380
Medium Density
1.77
$1,9601
1.96
$1,020
1.33
$9,120
High Density
4.72
$5,2401$2.260
2.80
$17,860
East Side Residential
1.09
$1,210
1.10
3570
1.30
513,180
1.10
$7,020
Planned Low Density
1.00
$1,110
1.00
$520
1.00
$11,980
1.00
$6,380
Plarmed Med. Density
1.77
$1,960
1.96
$1,020
1.43
$17.]30
1.43
$9,120
Planned High Density
4.72
$5,240
4.32
$2.250
2.80
$33,640
2.80
$17,860
Commercial
Neighborhood
4.28
$4,750
2.77
$1,440
0.32
$3.830
0.89
$5,880
General
2.59
$2.870
1.93
$1,000
0.32
$3,830
0.89
$5,630
Downtown
4.28
$1,440
0.32
$3,830
0.89
$5,680
Office
3.72
$4,1301
2.46
$1,280
0.54
96,470
IM
$9,760
Industrial
Light
0.30
$330 j
0.64
$330
0.23
$2,780
0.64
$4,080
Heavy
0.19
$210,
0.61
$320
0.33
$3.950
0.93
65,930
See Note 4.
Reference:
LMC Qhq*w 15.64 & Resolution 91-m
�ate3 .
1. This schedule is a summary only; referto the reference cited for details of
applicability
end interpretations.
2. LMC m Lodi Municipal
Code; PWD a Pjblic Works Department
3. Fees must be paid before work is scheduled or applicableMep/Perrnit issued.
4. Special area assessments or charges required by reimbursement
agreements are not included in this summery.
Approved:
Jack L. Ronako, Public Works Director
Date
Page 5 of 5
August 1991
PWDFEE5.XLS
Exhibit B
SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADE IN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
FINAL REPORT FROM APRIL 1991 DRAFT
(Note: Correction of typographical errors and minor editorial changes
not included.)
1) (Page 1, 6, 8, 10, 12, 28, 29, 37, 39, 49, 65, 66, 72, 76, 87, 93,
all project tables, all fee tables) The references to fiscal year
increments and project phasing were changed to delete the year
1990/91 and the fees were updated to 1991/92.
2) (Page 2, top paragraph) The basis of cost was not updated;
explanation as to how the cash flow model inflates costs was added.
3) (Page 3, all fee tables) All residential acre equivalents were
consistently calculated to two decimal places; previously, some
were rounded to the nearest whole number, some were not.
4) (Page 5, 11) Summary Tables if-? and 2-2 were updated to reflect
other changes in the report.
5) (Page 7) The following sentence regarding time of payment was
added: "In addition, parcels that are permitted to develop
without a final subdivision map (which happens often for
commercial and industriai development) will also pay the fees at
building permit"
6) (Page 9) Thethird paragraph beginning "The cash flow
analysis . . . " was revised to further explain interfund borrc,iing.
7) (Fage 12, fourth paragraph) An estimate of redevelopment that
will pay fees was included in the development forecast as
described in %hefourth paragraph.
8) (Page 13) The last paragraph describing administrative
requirements was added.
9) (Page 16) The "Existing Deficiencies" (water) section was revised
to describe ongoing projects and those already appropriated.
in the "Planned Water Facilities" section, two sentences beginning
with "Minor projects . . ." were added.
10) (Page 29) The final report contains a typographical error. The
water fee per low-density residential acre is $5,710 as shown in
;able 3-2, not $5,504 as shown on Page 29.
CDEJIMP.EXB/TXTW.FRM
SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADE IN DEVELOPMENT ",VT FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT
FROM APRIL 1991 DRAFT
Page 2
1111 (Page 40, 41) The lift station calculation for Kettleman Lane was
revised to reflect the additional office designation on the north
side of Kettleman Lane. Ciuff Avenue calculation was revised to
change the Industrial Reserve. Both changes are per the adopted
General Plan.
12) (Page 44, 47) Two existing reimbursement agreements were added as
Storm Drain "projects".
13) (Page 461., 47) The costs for E and G basins were spread out to
allow ?or project phasing and moved forward to better match the
growth management plan.
14) (Page 65) In the fourth paragraph, the cost sharing for Lower
Sacramento Road was clarified.
15) (Page 70, 78, 80, 81, 90) The General Plan, as adopted, required
an update of the "persons served" calculations which slightly
changed the analysis of existing deficiencies in the Police
(Table 7-1), Parks and Recreation (Table 9-3) , and General City
Facilities (Table 10-1) categories which in turn revised the
Project Tables. The standards for parks and recreation
facilities, as approved at the June 21 special meeting, were
retained. Since existing deficiencies are not included in the
final fee calculation, this does not effect the fee.
16) (Page 75) The phasing of the west side fire house was moved up as
early as possible in the program.
17) (Page 76) The sentence "No personnel are included." was added to
the top paragraph.
18) (Page 82, 84) Costs for some major park projects were spread out
to provide earlier funding for design.
19) (Page 87) In the first paragraph on "Estimated Costs and
Phasing", the sentence "The fee calculation methodology ." was
added.
20) (Page 89) The final report contains a typographica error. The
"existing deficiency" for the City Hall addition is 27.5% per
Table 10-1, not 27.8% as shown.
RCP/ 1m
CDEVIMP. EX8/TXTW. FRM
RESOLUTION NO. 91-172
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COLNM
ESFABLISfI(lVG DEVELOPMENT "ACT M1T1GAT1ON FEES
FOR ALL EEVHfFvE141S W[THN THE CITY OF LSI
VVIIERFA� the Lodi City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 1518, creating and
establishing the authority for imposing and charging Development Impact Mitigation
Fees in the City of Lodi; and
VVFEEA.� studies have been made and data gathered on the impact of contemplated
future development on existing public facilities in the City of Lodi, along with an
analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by new
development; and
VAB3M the relationship between new development, the needed facilities, and the
estimated cost(s) of these improvements is included in the study entitled
"Development Impact Fee Study" prepared by Nolte and Associates and Angus McDonald &
Associates dated August 1991; and
V4EWAA such information was available for public inspection and review 14 days
priar to the public hearing; and
VV -RFA the City Council finds that:
1. The purpose of these fees i s to finance Water, Sewer, Storm Drainage, Streets,
Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and General City facilities and to reduce
the facility service impacts and related problems caused by new development
within the City of Lodi;
2. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance only the
public facilities described or identified in said study;
3. After considering available information and data, and the testimony received at
the public hearing, the Council approves said study and incorporates such study
herein, and further finds that new development within the City of Lodi will
generate additional impacts within the General Plan area and will contribute to
the degradation of the existing facilities and the overall quality of life in
that area;
4. There is a demand in this described impact area for such facilities which have
not been constructed or have been constructed, but new development has not
contributed its fair share toward these facility costs and said facilities have
been called for in or are consistent with the City of Lodi's General Plan, and
or appropriate Master Plans.
5. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable
relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the
impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged,
RES91172/TXTA.02J
and, also there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the
type of development for which the fee is charged, as these reasonable
relationships or nexus are in more detail described in the studies and data
referenced above;
6. It is appropriate to establish the fees on a city-wide basis in order to
construct facilities in a timely and cost-effective manner and reduce the demand
for replacement of existing facilities in order to accommodate new development;
except for those sewer lift stations needed to serve a specific area;
7. The cost estimates set forth in the Study are reasonable cost estimates for
constructing these facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by new
development will not exceed the total of such costs plus a finance charge where
interfund borrowing is necessary to fund improvements in a timely manner;
8. The City has appropriated funds and established a Capital Improvement Program
which includes the projects shown in the Study;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Lodi City Council that:
1. DEFINITIONS.
The definitions contained in Ordinance 1518, Lodi Municipal Code
Section 15.64.020, are hereby incorporated by reference as if ful y set forth.
2. FEES.
The City Council hereby repeals Resolution 88-165 "Storm Drainage Fee", adopted
December 21, 1988, and Resolution 89-186 "Amending Storm Drainaqe Fees". adopted
December 20, 1989, and herein provides for a fee structure for public facilities
as follows:
C i tv-Wide Fees
FEE CATEGGRY FEE PER RESIDENTIAL ACRE EQUIVALENT (RAE)
1.
Water
$ 5,710.00
2.
Sewer
$ 11090.00
3.
Storm Drainage
$ 7,910.00
4.
Streets
$ 5,470.00
5.
Police
$ 11110.00
6.
Fire
$ 520.00
7.
Parks and Recreation
$11,980.00
8.
General City Facilities
$ 6,380.00
Supptemental Specific Area Fees
A. Kettleman Lane Lift Station $ 1,610.00
B. Harney Lane Lift Station $ 830.00
C. Cluff Avenue Lift Station $ 1,170.00
The Kettleman Lane Lift Station area consists of approximately 102 acres bounded on
the south by the north right -of way of Kettleman lane (State Highway 12); on the
east by the west line of the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal right-of-way; on
the north by the south line of the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal right-of-way
RES91172{TXTA.02J
and the quarter -quarter Section Line north of Kettleman Lane and on the west by the
property line located approximately 1185 feet east of the centerline of Lower
Sacramento Road, plus the area of Tract No. 2378, Sunwest Unit No. 12 as filed for
record in Book 30, Maps and Plats at page 52, San Joaquin County records, all as
shown on Exhibit A.
The Harney Lane Lift Station area consists of approximately 292 acres bounded on the
south by the north right-of-way of Harney Lane; on the east by the west line of the
Woodbridge Irrigation District; on the north, east of Lower Sacramento Road by the
quarter -quarter Section Line north of Harney Lane, and west of Lower Sacramento Road
by the property line located approximately 2300 feet north of the center line of
'iarney Lane; and on the west by the General Plan Boundary, approximately 1/2 mile
west of Lower Sacramento Road as shown on Exhibit 6.
The Cluff Avenue Lift Station area consists of approximately 158 acres bounded on
the south by the right-of-way of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPT)
tracks along -Victor Road (State Highway 12); on the east by the right-of-way of the
Central California Traction Company (CCT); on the north by the Mokelumne River and
on the west by the property lines approximately one-eighth mile west of the
centerline of Guild Avenue; plus the 7.7 acre parcel located east of the CCT and
north of the SPT shown as Parcel A per the Parcel Map filed for record in Book 11 of
Parcel Maps at page 73 San Joaquin County Records.
3. CALCULATM OF FEE.
Development Impact Mitigation Fees shall be calculated by the Public Works
Director in accordance with Chapter 15.64 of the Lodi Municipal Code and this
resolution,
The project acreage shall exclude portions of property left vacant and not to be
used for storage, parking, or other uses related to the project. Where the
project adds to or incorporates existing buildings or improvements, the acreage
shall be adjusted by the Public Works Director to account for this existing
u=e. For purposes of this section, "existing" shall mean any building or
improvement which 1 s in existence or for which a permit has been obtained upon
the effective date of this resolution.
Where projects include a change in land use categories, the appropriate
difference in RAE factors shall be computed by the Public Works Director.
Where theproject results in a less intensive land use involving a lower RAE
factor, a fee credit in lieu of a refund shall be made. Record of the previous
higher RAE factor shall be maintained by the Public Works Director for that
parcel for a period of time not to exceed ten years and shall, during that time,
be applied toward future improvements on that parcel.
4. EFFECTIVE DATE
The Development Impact Fees adopted in this Resolution shall take effect 60 days
after adoption. For projects in which an agreement and memorandum of
understanding for public improvement fees has been executed and a final map or
building permit has been approved, such fees shall be due and payable thirty
days after the above effective date or thirty days after billing by the City,
whichever is later.
RES91172/TXTA.02J
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 91-172 was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held September 4, 1991, by the
following vote:
Ayes: Council Members - Penni no, Sieglock, Snider and Hinchman (Mayor)
Noes: Council Members - Pinkerton
Absent: Council Members - None
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
91-172
CITY OF LORI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SERVICE AREA � = w
Approx. 102 Acres
KETTLEMAN LANE
LIFT STATION
SERVICE AREA
CANAL
__I
' LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD
--- .�
N -T. S.
JM No. Det• Revision App
�� •
• "�'
CITY 0 F LODI a
•' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SERVICE AREA
DISTRICT CANAL
N. T 5.
J� No. Dots Revision Appr.
A
SERVICE AREA =a
Approx. 292 Acres
EXHIBIT B
TU
1y Or t0
t
CITY OF LOPUBLIC f
WORKS ,
CLUFF AVENUE
LIFT STATION
SERVICE AREA
77
77
NO/
VICTOR ROAD
o..
NOT INCLUDED IN AREA TOTAL
VICE AREA — m m
,ox. 158 Acres
T.
1 f(STATE HWY. NO. 12)
Revision
EXHIBIT C
FINAL REPORT
CITY OF LODI
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
AUGUST 1991
PREPARED BY:
N O LTE AND ASSOCIATES
ANGUS MCDONALD AND ASSOCIATES
Paw
Manteca
August 20, 1991
2529-88-00
3
Mr. Jack Ronsko
Director of Public Works
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
todi, CA 95240
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT
Dear Mr. Ronsko:
This report has been prepared for the City of Lodi to evaluate the capital
improvements required to serve expanding areas of the City identified in the
General Plan. The primary objectives of the study were to identify capital
improvements, prepare estimates of probable construction cost, forecast the
timing of capital improvements, and develop a financing plan to fund the
construction of the capital improvements.
The principal results of the study are summarized in Chapter 2, Methodology
and Results. All comments received from the City and others on the draft
report have been incorporated into this final version.
We appreciate the assistance and cooperation we received from City staff
during the course of the study. Richard Prima deserves special recognition
for his tireless efforts on the project.
It has been our pleasure to serve the City of Lodi on this important project
and me look forward to again serving the City on future projects.
Very truly yours,
NOLTE AND SOCIATES
F. Wally Sandel in
Group Manager
FWS/ler (CL 1223-B)
Enclosure
NOLTE and ASSOCIATES
Engineers/ Planners/ Surveyors
- egtiFES.3;6��e .
'i
C 3H, r"
le pF
123 North Sycamore Avenue, Suite 101. Manteca, CA 95336 Tel: (209) 239.9080
':.�.:.-`"�E.a:#.':�'�,*s�k•�.n.. _ ... ..., x. .. .., �.. i� ... ., .. x .. ... -':#f '+` , .. _1;.. .. ��k�.:a.,aJ. aG.ir= , v-a.�o��._.
D R A F T (8/21/91)
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION FEES
FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF LODI
WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 1518, creating and
establishing the authority for imposing and charging Development Impact Mitigation
Fees in the City of Lodi; and
WHEREAS, studies have been made and data gathered on the impact of conternplated
future development on existing public facilities in the City of Lodi, along with an
analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by new
developinent; and
WHEREAS, the relationship between new development, the needed facilities, and the
estimated cost(s) of these improvements is included in the study entitled
"Development Impact Fee Study" prepared by Nolte and Associates and Angus McDonald &
Associates dated August 1991; and
WHEREAS, such information was available for public inspection and review 14 days
prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS,'the City Council finds that:
1. The purpose of these fees is to finance Water, Sewer, Storm Drainage, Streets,
Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and General City facilities and to reduce
the facility service impacts and related problems caused by new development
within the City of Lodi;
2. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance only the
public facilities described or identified in said study;
3. After considering available information and data, and the testimony received at
the public hearing, the Council approves said study and incorporates such study
herein, and further finds that new development within the City of Lodi will
generate additional impacts within the General Plan area and will contribute to
the degradation of the existing facilities and the overall quality of life in
that area;
4. There is a demand in this described impact area for such facilities which have
not been constructed or have been constructed, but new development has not
contributed its fair share toward these facility costs and said facilities have
been called for in or are consistent with the City of Lodi's General Plan, and
or appropriate Master Plans.
5. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable
relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the
impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged,
RESDEVTXTW,02�1
and, also there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type
of development for which the fee is charged, as these reasonable relationships
or nexus are in more detail described in the studies and data referenced above;
6. It is appropriate to establish the fees on a city-wide basis in order to
construct facilities in a timely and cost-effective manner and reduce %hedemand
for replacement of existing facilities in order to accommodate new development;
except for those sewer lift stations needed to serve a specific area;
7. The cost estimates set forth in the Study are reasonable cost estimates for
constructing these facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by new
development will not exceed the total of such costs plus a finance charge where
interfund borrowing is necessary to fund improvements in a timely manner;
8. The City has appropriated funds and established a Capital Improvement Program
which includes the projects shown in the Study;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Lodi City Council that:
1. DEFINITIONS.
The definitions contained in Ordinance 1518, Lodi Municipal Code
Section 15.64.020, are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
2. FEES.
The City Council hereby repeals Resolution 88-165 "Storm Drainage Fee", adopted
December 21, 1988, and Resolution 89-186 "Amending Storm Drainage Fees", adopted
December 20, 1989, and herein provides for a fee structure for public facilities
as follows:
C i ty-Wide Fees
FEE CATEGORY FEE PER
RESIDENTIAL ACRE EQUIVALENT (RAE)
1.
Water
$ 5,710.00
2.
Sewer
$ 1,090.00
3.
Storm Drainage
$ 7,910.00
4.
Streets
$ 5,470.00
5.
Police
$ 1,110.00
6.
Fire
$ 520.00
7.
Parks and Recreation
$11,980.00
8.
General City Facilities
$ 6,380.00
Supplemental Specific Area Fees
A. Kettleman Lane Lift Stat , on $ 1,610.00
B. Harney Lane Lift Station $ 830.00
C. Cluff Avenue Lift Station $ 1,170.00
The Kettleman Lane Lift Station area consists of approximately 102 acres bounded on
the south by the north right -of way of Kettleman lane (State Highway 12); on the
east by the west line of the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal right-of-way; on
the north by the south line of the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal right-of-way
RESDEV/TXTW.02M
and the quarter -quarter Section Line north of Kettleman Lane and on the west by the
property line located approximately 1185 feet east of the centerline of Lower
Sacramento Road, plus the area of Tract No. 2378, Sunwest Unit No. 12 as filed for
record in Back 30, Maps and Plats at page 52, San Joaquin County records, all as
shown on Exhibit A.
The Harney Lane Lift Station area consists of approximately 292 acres bounded on the
south by the north right-of-way of Harney Lane; on the east by the west line of the
Woodbridge Irrigation District; on the north, east of Lower Sacramento Road by the
quarter -quarter Section Line north of Harney Lane, and west of Lower Sacramento Road
by the roperty line located approximately 2300 feet north of the center line of
Harney Lane; and on the west by the General Plan Boundary, approximately 1/2 mile
west of Lower Sacramento Road as shown on Exhibit B.
The Cluff Avenue Lift Station area consists of approximately 158 acres bounded on
the south by the right-of-way of the Southern Pacific Transportation C.on4ay (SPT)
tracks along Victor Road (State Highway 12); on the east by the right-of-way of the
Central California Traction Company (CCT); on the north by the Mokel umne River and
on the west by the property lines approximately one-eighth mile west of the
centerline of Guild Avenue; plus the 7.7 acre parcel located east of the CCT and
north of the SPT shown as Parcel A per the Parcel Map filed for record in Book 11 of
Parcel Maps at page 73 San Joaquin County Records.
3. CA.QLA'IM OF FEE.
Development Impact Mitigation Fees shall be calculated by the Public Works
Director in accordance with Chapter 15.64 of the Lodi Municipal Code and this
resolution.
The project acreage shall exclude portions of property left vacant and not to be
used for storage, parking, or other uses related to the project. Where the
project adds to or incorporates existing buildings or improvements, the acreage
shall be adjusted by the Public Works Director to account for this existing
use. For purposes of this section, "existing" shall man any building or
improvement which is in existence or for which a permit has been obtained upon
the effective date of this resolution.
Where projects include a change in land use categories, the appropriate
difference in RAE factors shall be computed by the Public Worms Director.
Where the project results in a less intensive land use involving a lower RAE
factor, a fee credit in lieu of a refund shall be made. Record of the previous
higher RAE factor shall be maintained by the Public Works Director for that
parcel for a period of time not to exceed ten years and shall, during that time,
be applied toward future improvements on that parcel.
4. EFFECTIVE DATE
The Development Impact Fees adopted in this Resolution shall take effect
immediately upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 1518. For projects
in which an agreement and memorandum of understanding for public improvement
fees has been executed and a final map or building permit has been approved,
such fees shall be due and payable thirty days after the above effective date or
thirty days after billing by the City, whichever is later.
RESDEV/TXTW.02M
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 91-_ was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lodi i n a regular meeting held , by the
fol lowing vote:
Ayes : Councilmembers
Noes: Councilmembers
Absent: Councilmembers
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
RE5DEV/TXTW.02M
' CITY OF L O C� � KETTLEMAN LANE
. LIFT STATION
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SERVICE AREA
SERVICE AREA �v a
Approx. 102 Acres
7i 47070�
s
JM No. oot. a.v�.iow
6191
k
qy g
LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD
EXHIBIT A
CITY O L O ®I HARN EY LANE
LIFT STATION
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SERVICE AREA
NT5
DISTRICT CANAL
GENERAL PLAN Du riu^nT
Rovilion
p
SERVICE 'AREA
Approx. 292 Acres
EXHIBIT
0 a
...........
CLUFFI&XWE
ti+ ted OF O DIl
SERVICE AREA
v
.u
A6N NOT {NCLUOM M AREA TOTAL
RVICE AREA. m =
prox. 158 Acres
S. P. T.
- VICTOR ROO---I r
(STATE HWY. NO. 12)
1M
t
Revision
E)MIBIT Q
FINAL REPORT
CITY OF LODI
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Prepared for:
CITY OF LOD1
Prepared by:
NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES
1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95835
(916) 641-1500
NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES
123 N: Sycamore Avenue, Suite 101
Manteca, California 95336
(209) 239-9080
and
ANGUS MCDONALD AND ASSOCIATES
1950 Addison Street, Suite 107
Berkeley, California 94704
(415) 548.5831
August 1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Paqe No.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1
Purpose of the Fee
1
Planning Period
1
Basis of Costs
1
Background - Development Forecast
2
Residential Acre Equivalents
2
CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
4
SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES
4
Phasing of Improvements for Maximum Efficiency
4- -
Assumptions/Concepts
4
Procedure for Staging Public Improvements
6
Comments on Specific Projects and Services
7
Streets and Roads
7
Parks and Recreation
8
Police, Fire and General Facilities
8
Identifying Projects Curing Existing Deficiencies
8
Interfund Borrowing
8
Detailed Methodology
9
Summary of Fees
10
Changes In Land Use Entitlements
10
CHAPTER 3 WATER SERVICE
14
OVERVIEW
14
Supply
14
Distribution System
14
Water Master Plan
15
Water Reimbursement Policy
15
Existing Deficiencies
16
PLANNED WATER FACILITIES
16
Supply
27
Distribution System
27
Treatment
27
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
28
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
28
Relationship of Water Projects to New Development
28
Relationship of Water Projects to Land Uses
29
i
RPW33AS
-_-....... •..- .,
.. �..., '(tvrn.......... .. .... ....... ... ...... .. r:. .., ...v .. w..G.l. �>;ys a.
hee
-.�axa,:it..� ..r -�_. +pati „tt». »,4rJ4i:::ike�4nd, Ifisw •.... .. . . .. ... ... .. .... ..., ... .,..o- ..,. , ., .. .... ._
€
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page No.
Recommended Fees
29
CHAPTER 4 SEWER SERVICE
31
OVERVIEW
31
Coliection System
31
e
Treatment and Disposal
31
Master Sewerage Plan
31
Sewer Reimbursement Policy
32
Existing Deficiencies
32
PLANNED SEWERAGE FACILITIES
33
Collection System
33
Treatment and Disposal
33 -
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
33
Relationship of Sewer Projects to New Development
37
Relationship of Sewer Projects to Land Uses
37
Recommended Fees
39
BURDEN ANALYSIS FOR SEWER SUB -ZONES
39
CHAPTER 5 STORM DRAINAGE
42
OVERVIEW
42
Collection System
42
Detention Basins
43
Master Storm Drainage Plan
43
Master.:Storm Drainage Fee
43
N
PLANNED STORM: DRAINAGE.IMPROVEMENTS
43
Collection System_-
44
Detention 'Basins
44
ESTIMATED`COSTS`AND PHASING
44
Relationship of Storm Drainage Projects to New Development
49
19
Relationship of Storm Drainage Projects to Land Uses
49
Recommended Fees
49
Pat
CHAPTER 6 STREETS AND ROADS
51
f
OVERVIEW
51
Existing Traffic Conditions
5:
Circulat on Plan
51
Existing Deficiencies
51
RP0051AB
EPlj
hee
-.�axa,:it..� ..r -�_. +pati „tt». »,4rJ4i:::ike�4nd, Ifisw •.... .. . . .. ... ... .. .... ..., ... .,..o- ..,. , ., .. .... ._
r
e"
rl,
k,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
PLANNED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS 52
Developer Required Improvements 52
Street and Road Improvements 62
Freeway Improvements 62
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING 65
Relationship of Streets and Roads Proj cts to New Development 65
Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to iand Uses 66
Recommended Fees 66
Regional Facilities 66
CHAPTER 7 POLICE 68
OVERVIEW
68 .
Level of Service
68
Existing Police Facilities
68
Existing Deficiencies
69
PLANNED POLICE FACILITIES
69
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
69
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
72
Relationship of Police Projects
to New Development
72
Relationship of Police Projects
to Land Uses
72
Recommended Fees
72
CHAPTER 8 FIRE
74
OVERVIEW
74
Level of Service
74
Existing Fire Facilities
74
Existing Oeficiencies
74
PLANNED FIRE FACILITIES
74
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
76
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
76
Relationship of Fire Projects to
New Development
76
Relationship of Fire Projects to
Land Uses
76
Recommended Fees
76
i i i RP0033AB
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page No.
CHAPTER 9 PARKS AND RECREATION
78
OVERVIEW
78
Level of Service
78
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
78
Existing Deficiencies
80
PLANNED PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
80
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
87
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
87
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to New Development
87 -
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to Land Uses
87
Recommended Fees
87
CHAPTER 10 GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
89
OVERVIEW
89
Level of Service
89
Existing Deficiencies
89
PLANNED GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
89
1
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
89
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
93
Relationship of General City Projects to New Development
93
Relationship of General City Projects to Land Uses
93
Recommended Fees
93
APPENDIX A
95
pi0
s`
V
MOW
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
PaSe No.
3-1
Water System Improvements
26
4-1
Sanitary Sewer System Improvements
36
5-1
Storm Drainage Improvements
48
6-1
Typicai Street Section
63
6-2
Street Imprcvements
64-
9-1
Parks and Recreation Improvements
86
V
RP0033AB
as
3�-
l `
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number
Title Paqe
No.
2-1
Summary o f Estimated Major Capital Improvement
5
Program Costs and Funding Services
2-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - A11 Fees
11
3-1
Devel-opment Rel ated Capital Costs and
17
Phasing - Water
3-2
S�mmmy of Development Impact Fees - Water
30
14,
4-I
Development Related Capital Costs. and
34
Phasing - Sewer
t-
4-2
Smmmary of Development Impact Fees - Sewer
38
4-3
Sewer Sub -Zone Fee Calculations
40
x
5-1
Development Related Capital Costs
45
and Phasing - Storm Drainage
5-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees -Storm Drainage
50
6-I
Development Related Capital Costs and
53
Phasing - Streets and Roads
,.,
6-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Streets
67
and Roads
7-1
Existing Deficiencies Analysis - Police
70
7-2
Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - Police
71
a
7-3
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Police
73
8-1
Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - Fire
75
a-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Fire
77
9-1
Inventory of Existing Park and Recreation Acreage
79
_
9-2
Inventory of Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
81
9-3
Existing Deficiencies Analysis - Parks and Recreation
82
9-4
Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - Parks
83
and Recreations
_1
,_,
vi RPW31AB
9-5 Summary of Development Impact Fees - Parks and 88
Recreation
10-1 Existing Deficiencies Analysis - City Hall 90
Faci 1 it i es
10-2 Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - General City
Facilities 93
10-3 Summr, o f Development Impact Fees - General City 94
Facif ili e s
APPENDIX A 96
Vii RPW)316
w
CHAPTER 1
�o-
I NTRODUCTION
I= INTRODUCTION
The enactment of AB 1600 (Government Code §66000 et. seq.) has generated
formal and stringent requirements for documenting the basis for valid
development impact fees. In response to the changing legal climate, as well
as the desire to have a comprehensive financing plan for the various public
and numerous new facilities in Lodi, the current fees must be updated and new
numerous fees need to be implemented.
?he goal of the Development Impact fee Study is to repare development impact
fees which will provide funds to construct various ?ypes of improvements such
that the City of Lodi's adopted level of service is maintained throughout the
planning period. This goal will be attained consistent with the requirements
of AB 1600.
Purpose of the Fee
The purpose of development impact fees is to provide adequate financing for
the various public facility projects that are required to implement the City's
General Plan. The fee is imposed such that new development will bear its fair
share of providing adequate infrastructure.
The fees collected will be used to finance the design, construction, and
inspection of streets and roads, Water, Sewer, Drainage, Parks and Recreation,
Police, Fire, and General City facilities. The fee revenue will also be used
for a major update of the fee program, which is to be performed every 5 years.
z Planning Period
The proposed General Plan before the City of Lodi covers a planning period of
April 1987 to 2007. For the purposes of the fee study, the planning period
was broken down into fiscal year increments: 1991/92, 1992/93, 1993/94,
1994/95, 1995/96, 1996/97, 1997 - 2002, and 2002 - 2007. The planning
increments are the basis for projecting fee collections, capital improvement
expenditures and cash flow analyses.
Basis of Costs
Capital improvement schedules have been prepared for the Proposed General Plan
x that cover Water, Sewer collection (but not the wastewater treatment
f facility), Storm Drainage, Streets and Roads, Police, Fire, and General City
facilities. Capital costs included in the General City facilities category
are, for example, city hall expansion, library expansion, fee program
monitoring, parking lot construction, and miscellaneous projects not falling
w 1 RPM318
i
M,
M
0
into other infrastructure categories. Project descriptions for each project
were developed with the assistance of City staff, other City -retained
consultants, and the authors. For each major project, estimates of cost have
been prepared utilizing current cost data from the City, recent bids for
similar projects, contractors and suppliers. Estimates of cost are based upon
January 1, 1990 dollars throughout this report. The Engineering News Record
20 -Cities Average Construction Cost Index for January 1990 was, at that time,
4673. The cash flow model inflates the actual expenditures for public
improvements (for both land and construction costs using the above index) to
the midpoint of each fiscal year.
Background - Development Forecast
The first step in calculating a valid development impact fee is to prepare a
forecast of the timing and rate at which the City will develop. This forecast
must be consistent with Lodi's General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance.
The development forecast serves two purposes:
• The development forecast provides the basis for determining when the
required infrastructure trust be completed to maintain the targeted level
of service set forth by the City.
• The development forecast plays a significant role in forecasting cash
flow. The amount of development that occurs throughout the planning
period determines the amount of the fee and the development in any
particular year determines the total dollars that are available to fund
improvement projects.
The forecast of final mapping was prepared per gross acre by the City of Lodi
and is presented in Appendix A. Because the City will collect development
impact fees at the time of the final subdivision r is recorded, a forecast
of final mapping was used to estimate the inflow of cash. The construction
capital outlay forecast was based upon the City's proposed Growth Management
Plan which provided the probable location of development.
The annual update of the fee program will include an assessment of the extent
to which development in todi has been occurring as forecasted. If rates of
development begin to depart substantially from expectations, the development
forecast and fee program will be updated based on a forecast that reflects
then -current expectations.
Residential Acre Equivalents
After the amount of development was forecast for each land use category, a
m
conversion was made into the number of Residential Acre Equivalents (RAE' S)
that would be developed, for each category of public improvements. An RAE
factor measures the use or burden a land use places on a category of public
improvements (e.g., water supply or roadway improvements) relative to the use
2 RPW;3.8
I
i
or burden placed on those improvements by an acre of single family dwellings
4, in the low-density residential category.
As one simple example, the water service RAE factors reflect relative water
consumption. Since the Lav Density residential category is selected as the
use from which all other land uses are measured, this land use category has a
" RAE factor for all services equal 1.0 RAE per acre. All other RAE factors for
the category of public services being considered are scaled relative to this
"base" RAE factor for the Low Qensity Residential land use category.
For this example, the RAE factors for water are calculated in the following
manner for low density and medium density residential land use categories.
Assure a population and unit aensity as shown below.
Land Use Pooulation Unit Density
Lav Density 2.75/unit 5/acre
Medium Density 2.25/unit I2/acre
Also, assume a per capita average water consumption of 285 gallons per day.
Therefore, the water demand per acre can be calculated as follows:
Lav Density: Demand = 2.75 x 5 x 285 = 3,919 gal/day/acre
Medium Density: Demand = 2.25 x 12 x 285 = 7,695 gal/day/acre
By this method, the results indicate that the demand of medium density
residential land exerts a 2 times (7695/3919 = 1.96) greater demand upon water
supply and transmission facilities than does low density residential.
Therefore, a RAE factor of 1.96 is assigned to medium density residential for
water remembering, of course, that low density residential is the baseline
having a RAE factor of 1.0.
EF
Ni"
3 RPM3.s
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
` SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES
Capital improvement projects to support the Proposed General Plan and other
City improvements are to be funded through a number of sources. In the course
of identifying Proposed General Plan capital improvements, a number of
existing deficiencies were identified in each of the service areas that are
not to be funded by development impact fees. City staff 'has projected, where
possible, the sources of funds to finance those projects and/or portions of
projects that are not development related as summarized in table 2-1.
During the course of assembling the information included in this report and
summarized in Table 2-1, a number of capital improvement plans, old and new,
were reviewed. Information has been taken from these capital improvement
plans and has been included in the table. Because the planning horizon for
the capital improvement plans provided by the City are not synchronized with
the General Plan period, the totals for capital improvements in Table 2-1 are
not comparable to past City plans.
Phasing of Improvements for Maximum Efficiency
The matching of required public improvement projects to revenues from the
development impact fee program was an iterative process that included close
coordination with the Growth Management Plan. Two objectives were served:
• The location and timing of new public improvements in Lodi were planned to
help assure an orderly and cost-efficient pattern of development.
Public improvements were timed to assure that Level of Service (LOS)
targets for each service were reasonably maintained.
Insofar as practical, the growth rates that are part of the Growth Management
Plan can be accommodated throughout the City. Development can occur
simultaneously in several areas of the City, rather than be concentrated in
one area at a time. A temporary quasi -monopoly on supply of developable land
is avoided.
.- The following paragraphs describe some of the basic assumptions and concepts
that were used in arriving at project phasing. Additional information
concerning specific facilities is included at the end.
Assumptions/Concepts
it ?he following assumptions and concepts guided the process of preparing the
development forecast and staging of public improvements to meet LOS targets.
4 RP0033
M=WW=0MW=MM MMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiamm a wm � t
TABLE 2-1 21-Au2-91
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MA,OR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES
STORM SAN STATE AND GAS TAX DEVFLOPNEN
PROGRAM GENERAL WATER SEWER DRAIN JOAQUIN FEDERAL FUND& MEASURE' IVPACTFEE
DESCRIPTION OOSTS(1) FUND FUND FUND FUND COUNN FUND T.D.A. FUNDS OTHER FUND(2)
1. Wrier Service
$10,931.525
$0
81,828.000
to
to
to
8o
8o
to
to
88.303.625
2 SawerSwvke(3)
83,013,920
$J
80
81.005,500
to
80
to
to
80
8830.600 (4)
81,388.820
3 VawmDralnage
$17265.707
$930.000
to
$0
$121.000
50
so
to
to
to
$16.234,707
4. Sueelsand Roads
$45,100,937
$13,800,000
to
$0
80
$178,000
8831,000
813,552,500
$1,450,750
to
815,290,887
6 Police $2,576,000 $74,000 $0 t0 50 to so
t0 50 to
$2,502,000
a Rre $2.155,000 81.090.000 to to go to to
to to to
$1.065.000
'z Parks and Reereefkn 530.191.000 85.531.555 So so So so 80
to 8o $6.353.000 (5)
818.308,445
a GerwdCity F 812.884,309 $1.159.125 80 to to so 80
to to $0
811,725,184
TOTAL: 5124,138.398
$22,584.680
51 G28,ODQ
$.,008Q0 5.2100Q.
„: ,761700:
ftj�0
51355$,5()¢
>.3X,i50,75b; N, ..992
`-NOTES
1. Costs donut Include sheets and utilitiesu thin deveiopmentprojectstypicallY constricted by the developer as normal improvements.
2 'Development Impact FeeFund• will consist d eight separate funds, one for each =0901"Y of facility.
a Sewer service does not Include the waste-waterplant expansion which Is funded by the existingwaStOwater connection fe(L
4, Lift station area of benefit fees.
5. Hutchins Street Square Fund
6. Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1992-
991/1992Page
Page1 of i
i
I
>_ Development of new residential land will be limited such that the
population will grow at 2% based on the September 1989 population. This
Mows more units (acres) in the early years than in middle years due to
"catch up" after the wastewater moratorium.
• Commercial development will tend to follow residential development, except
where one major development is currently being processed (Lodi Shopping
Center, also called Sunwest Plaza, at the SE corner of Lower Sacramento
Road and Kettleman Lane).
• Industrial development was assumed to grow uniformly.
• The implementation of the Growth Management Plan will discourage new
developments that require extraordinary extension of utilities or other
improvements, such as trunk lines through agricultural property. This
will help lower the cost of development and reduce disruption of
agricultural activities.
Procedure for Staging Public Improvements
The specific steps that led to the staged Capital Improvements Program are
described in the following paragraphs.
The annual number of units to be allowed was converted to acres based on
an average of seven units per acre per the Draft General Plan.
Sub -areas surrounding the City were identified based on available storm
drain basins, utility trunk lines, major streets, General Plan limits, and
natural boundaries.
The acreages were matched with the sub -areas and broken into three phases:
one 6 year block followed by two 5 year blocks.
• The above two steps were repeated until the acreage provided in each phase
matched the number of units in the first step.
The majority of the projects were then placed in the appropriate phase
coinciding with development of the adjacent area. This would include projects
in which the impact fee fund would be used in conjunction with frontage
improvements by a developer such as for oversized lines and major street
crossings. As noted in the assumptions, there should be few cases in which a
utility must be extended outside the development. (Exceptions and
clarifications are noted below.)
Careful attention was paid to the timing of construction of public
improvements, compared to increases in development and demand for services.
Each improvement was staged to insure that it would be completed and in place
6 RPM334
'I
im
before the actual level of service had declined below the City's Level Of
Service target.
In support of the cbjective of avoiding degradation of service level, the City
of Lodi intends to collect development impact fees in advance of the date of
final inspection or the date a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Delaying
residential fees to the time of occupancy would assure that completion of
public improvements would considerably lag the residential development that is
creating a significant percentage of the demand for the improvements. To
avoid this situation, the City's fee ordinances will provide that development
impact fees are due at the time that a final subdivision map is filed. Public
capital improvements can then be constructed in parallel with the process of
readying parcels for development and constructing residences. The service
capacity provided by the public improvements can be in place at the time that
increased demand actually occurs.
It is possible that developed parcels within the existing General Plan will
undergo redevelopment or a change in the land use resulting in assessment of
additional fees. In such instances, fees would be collected upon issuance of
the building permit. In addition, parcels that are permitted to develop
without a final subdivision map (which happens often for commercial and
industrial development) will also pay the fees at building permit.
The present document constitutes a "...proposed construction schedule or
plan—" for seventeen years. The various fee ordinances will ensure that
...an account has been established and funds appropriated..." Accordingly,
the quoted requirements of Government Code Section 66007 have been met. Lodi
can collect residential impact fees in advance of final inspection or
occupancy.
Comments on Specific Projects and Services
The following paragraphs explain the reasons for the staging of certain key
projects.
1.2 Streets and Roads
• The Highway 12 (Kettleman Lane) Project Study Report was placed early in
the program. This Report will take some time to do and the results will
affect the scope and cost of subsequent projects.
Y Street capacity improvements were phased based on examination of the
present and future volumes, capacity of existing improvements and the
capacity after the new improvement.
Y_
7
vee
RM0118
E
0
Parks and Recreation
The Master Plan Study was placed early since it will take some time to do
and the results will affect the scope and cost of subsequent projects.
Parks would be completed by the end of the phase in which adjacent
development occurred.
Police, Fire and General Facilities
Projects were phased based on discussions with the Police and Fire Chiefs
,.W
and other department heads.
• The west side fire house was placed in the first phase since it is located
in the corresponding area.
Identifying Projects Curing Existing Deficiencies
The entire list of capital improvements was reviewed to identify projects
which primarily cured existing deficiencies. Projects that were excluded frcm
the fee progrzm based on this evaluation are any type of replacement, repair
or renovation of an existing facility which provides for little or no added
capacity.
In addition, large projects, or groups of projects, in Parks and Recreation,
Police and General City Facilities were evaluated on an individual basis. The
results of this level of analysis is that certain projects were split between
new development (fee program funded) and existing development (other financing
source).
{
Interfund Borrowing
The staging of capital improvements frequently produces cash flow deficits in
one or several of the fee funds. This is the result of large projects that,
once completed, provide capacity beyond the year of construction - and beyond
the time in which the funds are required to construct the project. One
approach to deal with cash flow deficits is through interfund borrowing.
Interfund borrowing is predicated on the creation of a "Pooled Marey Fee
Account" into which the annual surplus from each fee account flows and from
which borrowing to cure cash flow deficits occurs. Each fee (i.e. Water,
Sewer, etc.) is calculated and accounted for separately. Positive fund
balances earn interest revenue and negative fund balances accrue interest to
be paid. Under this approach the development impact fee has two parts.
1. Portion Of The Fee From Construction Of Improvements: This
part of the fee is equivalent to the average cost of the
programmed improvements per RAE.
a RPOO718
^)i"f :...e- ...... ...�., n�v ..:. ).'�-��: • � r..'r,' e. ....�:J--.. •.. .. i.• +... t.. � �.. „ ..�M.H .`tiv.: . J r..... ...... ....y�:.,.,
Sri
i�
2. Portion Of The Fee From Finance Charge: The finance charge is
set such that the ending balance in the particular fee fund is
as close to zero as possible. In cases where the cash flow is
relatively smooth such that no borrowing will take place, it
is entirely possible that the "Finance Charge" will be
negative. This is the result of interest earninss over the
course of the program -
On the other hand, when funds must be borrowed a positive
finance charge, and thus higher fee, is required to pay the
interest cost involved in borrowing among funds.
The test of whether or not interfund borrowing is successful in compensating
for the cash flow deficits is the ending fund balance in the Pooled Money Fee
Account. If this figure is positive throughout the program then interfund
borrowing has served its purpose and cured the cash flow problems. If any of
these figures are negative, interfund borrowing has not fully alleviated the
cash flow deficits. Adjustments to the project staging, or borrowing from an
r outside source would be necessary to fund the program using the interfund
borrowing approach.
The cash flow analysis indicates that almost every fee has cash flow problems.
These issues have been resolved through inter -fee -fund borrowing such that the
program of capital improvements are funded in the year required. The inter -
fee -fund borrowing mechanism is such that funds borrowing money pay interest,
and funds lending money receive interest. As a result, the fee in a fund
which lends money to other fee funds is not any higher than it otherwise would
be to fund the public improvements.
Alternatives to this approach include borrowing from other City funds, which
would also entail repayment with interest, and "borrowing" from developments
early in the program. This would entail charging a higher fee to the initial
development projects and repaying it in later years with fees from subsequent
development. Both alternatives require additional administrative effort and
result in a higher fee.
Detai led Methodology
A project phasing schedule is prepared, as determined by the development
forecast and the adopted service standard, showing the timing of the
expenditures required for each improvement. A forecast of Residential Acre
Equivalents is prepared, then converted into a forecast of revenues collected
from the fee in each period. The fee and cost of capital improvements are
inflated, for purposes of analysis, at the same rate. However, it was assumed
that the inflation effects on the fee are lagged one year due to the fact that
the fee is only updated at the end of each year. Because the General Plan was
not completed in the 1990-91 fiscal year, all capital costs were inflated to
January 1991 dollars and the fees then calculated.
9 RWIO�16
CCl�
The amount of the finance charge is manipulated until:
O All projects have been constructed at their then actual year
cost ;
Only a nominal surplus remains in the Development Impact Fee
account at the end of the planning period.
Summary of Fees
A summary of the development impact fees is presented by major land use
category in Table 2-2. This summary presents the summation of the impact fee
imposed for each of the relevant facility categories in the development impact
fee plan. The fee for each particular category of public improvement is
presented in the applicable chapter (e.g. Streets and Roads - Chapter 6).
Each fee, except portions of the sewer impact fee is imposed citywide
throughout the entire planning period.
Each fee will be fine-tuned annually to reflect inflation and other minor
adjustments. Annual updates of the fee should be based upon the increase in
construction costs for the year as determined by comparing the ENR 20 Cities
Average Construction Cost Index for the beginning and end of the year. The
first two annual fee updates (1989-90 to 1990-91 and 1990-91 to 1991-92) is
reflected throughout the report. Fee calculations for this report were done
to the nearest $1.00 and have been rounded to the nearest $10.00.
Changes In Land Use Entitlements
Parcels may undergo redevelopment or a change to a more intensive land use.
The development impact fees that will be due reflect the difference between
the fee appropriate to the more intense use and the fee that would have been
appropriate to the previous use. In concept, the various classes of
infrastructure had the capacity to meet the demand placed by the original land
use. The intensification of use will create additional demand. Additional
capacity must be purchased through the incremental development impact fee_
For the case when a proposed development would result in a more intense demand
upon infrastructure than planned, it may be appropriate to assess a special
fee. Purpose of such a special fee would solely be to insure that
services/benefits provided by the City are fairly paid for by the user. Of
course, by the nature of setting fees based upon a service standard, the focus
is upon the City and neighborhood averages. Therefore, demand deviation above
and below the average is assumed. Defining the maximum permitted demand
deviation before assessing a special fee should be up to the Public Works
Director.
10
RP 33.6
I� Ide71e tllas8lel aasewa soon mumm tsws,sa r..W.r ...r .....w. ....s ...r. ..�.... . ,
TABLE 2-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
ALL SERVICES
Source: Nolte S Associate and Angus McDonald b Associates
NOTES:
(1) Residential Acre Equivalents
(2) Fee amounts drown are kw fiscal year 199111992.
Parks and General City
Total Water RAWAr Storm Drainage Streets & Roads Police Fire Recreation Facilities
Land Use Categories Fees RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee IRAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Iow Density $40,170 1.00 $5.710 1.00 $1,090 1.00 $7,910 1.00 $5.470 1.00 51,110 1.00 $520 1.00 $11,880 { 1.00 $6.380
MediumDensity $81,190 1.96 $11,190 1.98 $2,140 1.00 $7.900 1.96 $10,720 1.77 $1,960 1.96 $1.1120 1.43 $17.1301 1.43 $0.120
High Density $107.210 3.49 $19,930 3.49 $3,800 1.00 $7,910 3.05 $18,680 4.71 $5.240 4.32 $2.250 2.80 $33,540 2.8D $17,880
East Side Residential $42,180 1.0D 55.710 1.00 $1,090 1.00 $7.910 1.00 $5.470 1.09 $1.210 1.10 $570 1.10 $13.180 1.10 $7,020
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
LowDenQy I $40,170 1.00 $5.710 1.00 $1.090 1.00 $7,910 1.00 $5.470 1.00 51,110 1.OD $520 1.00 $11.98D 1.00 $8,380
Medium Density $61,190 1.96 $11.190 1.96 $2,140 1.00 $7.910 1.98 $10,720 1.77 $1,960 1.96 $1.02D 1.43 $17.130 1.43 $0,120
1lighDensity $107.210 3.49 $19,930 3.49 $3,800 LOD $7,910 3.05 $16,600 4.72 $5.240 4.32 $2.250 2.8D 333.640 2.80 $17,860
COMMERCIAL
NeighborhoodCommercia $41.280 0.84 $3.850 0.94 $1.020 1.33 $10,520 1.90 $10,390 4.28 $4.750 2.77 $1,440 0.32 $3,830 0.89 $5.680
Genal commercial $49,470 0.84 $3,650 0.94 $1,020 1.33 510,520 3.82 $20.900 2.59 $2.870 1.93 $1,000 0.32 $3,830 0.89 55.880
Downtown Commercial $41.280 0.64 $3.650 0.94 $1.MD 1.33 $10,520 1.9D $10,390 4.28 $4,750 2.77 $1,440 0.32 53.830 0.89 $5.680
Otfice Commerclal $54,720 0.64 $3.850 0.94 $1,020 1.33 510,520 3.27 $17,890 3.72 $4.130 2.46 $1.280 0.54 $6.473 1.53 $9,780
INDUSTRIAL
Ughtindustrial 530,900 0.28 $1.480 0.42 $480 1,33 310,520 2.00 $10,940 0.30 $330 0.64 $330 0.23 $2,760 0.64 $4.080
Heavy Industrial $
29,820
0.26
51,480
0.42
$460
1.33
510,520
1.27
$6.950
0.19
$210
O.El
5320
0.33
$3,950
0.33
$5,930
Source: Nolte S Associate and Angus McDonald b Associates
NOTES:
(1) Residential Acre Equivalents
(2) Fee amounts drown are kw fiscal year 199111992.
Parks and General City
Total Water RAWAr Storm Drainage Streets & Roads Police Fire Recreation Facilities
Land Use Categories Fees RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee IRAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Iow Density $40,170 1.00 $5.710 1.00 $1,090 1.00 $7,910 1.00 $5.470 1.00 51,110 1.00 $520 1.00 $11,880 { 1.00 $6.380
MediumDensity $81,190 1.96 $11,190 1.98 $2,140 1.00 $7.900 1.96 $10,720 1.77 $1,960 1.96 $1.1120 1.43 $17.1301 1.43 $0.120
High Density $107.210 3.49 $19,930 3.49 $3,800 1.00 $7,910 3.05 $18,680 4.71 $5.240 4.32 $2.250 2.80 $33,540 2.8D $17,880
East Side Residential $42,180 1.0D 55.710 1.00 $1,090 1.00 $7.910 1.00 $5.470 1.09 $1.210 1.10 $570 1.10 $13.180 1.10 $7,020
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
LowDenQy I $40,170 1.00 $5.710 1.00 $1.090 1.00 $7,910 1.00 $5.470 1.00 51,110 1.OD $520 1.00 $11.98D 1.00 $8,380
Medium Density $61,190 1.96 $11.190 1.96 $2,140 1.00 $7.910 1.98 $10,720 1.77 $1,960 1.96 $1.02D 1.43 $17.130 1.43 $0,120
1lighDensity $107.210 3.49 $19,930 3.49 $3,800 LOD $7,910 3.05 $16,600 4.72 $5.240 4.32 $2.250 2.8D 333.640 2.80 $17,860
COMMERCIAL
NeighborhoodCommercia $41.280 0.84 $3.850 0.94 $1.020 1.33 $10,520 1.90 $10,390 4.28 $4.750 2.77 $1,440 0.32 $3,830 0.89 $5.680
Genal commercial $49,470 0.84 $3,650 0.94 $1,020 1.33 510,520 3.82 $20.900 2.59 $2.870 1.93 $1,000 0.32 $3,830 0.89 55.880
Downtown Commercial $41.280 0.64 $3.650 0.94 $1.MD 1.33 $10,520 1.9D $10,390 4.28 $4,750 2.77 $1,440 0.32 53.830 0.89 $5.680
Otfice Commerclal $54,720 0.64 $3.850 0.94 $1,020 1.33 510,520 3.27 $17,890 3.72 $4.130 2.46 $1.280 0.54 $6.473 1.53 $9,780
INDUSTRIAL
Ughtindustrial 530,900 0.28 $1.480 0.42 $480 1,33 310,520 2.00 $10,940 0.30 $330 0.64 $330 0.23 $2,760 0.64 $4.080
Heavy Industrial $
77pp
An example of more intense demand for service than provided for in the fee
structure is a shopping center that is located in a neighborhood commercial
land use. The specific use (shopping center) is allowed in the land use
(Neighborhood Commercial). In the case of the Streets and Roads Fee, a net
trip rate of 10.5 peak hour trips is assumed for Neighborhood Commercial but
the City Circulation Plan assumes 30 peak hour trips for shopping center uses.
r' In this case, the deviation above the service standard provided by the fee is
approximately 200%. Therefore, a special fee is recommended.
The opposite example to an intensification of use would be a parcel that
develops at a use that is less intense than its land use entitlement. The
various fee ordinances should provide for a "exception procedure" to deal with
instances that simply were rot Contemplated at the time that the ordinance was
adopted. As a generalization, exceptions should be granted sparingly.
Facilities were sized based on the expected land uses and in many cases
capacity will be provided in advance of total demand because of the inability
to build certain classes of projects in stages. If exceptions are granted
easily, particularly in the later years of the planning period, sufficient
development impact fees will not be available to complete the Capital
Improvements Program.
An additional consideration is that although a parcel may be developed
initially in a less intense use, it may undergo redevelopment in future years.
The full fee would be due. If, subsequently the parcel was redeveloped, it
would receive credit for the fact that the full fee had been paid. Only if
the future use was more intense than the original land rise category would a
higher fee be due.
The development forecast on which the fees were based includes new development
and an estimate of redevelopment. If proposals for significant amounts of
redevelopment cr reuse are forthcoming in future years, the effect of this can
be considered during the annual update of the fee ordinances.
Successfully implementing a 16 year, $124,000,000 Capital Improvements Program
is a major undertaking. It will require a very serious effort at program
management and monitoring of actual performance as compared to plan.
The Capital Improvements Program contains specific line items to provide the
cost of staff or consultant services for Program Management for the fee
program. A budget is also provided for a major General Plan Update/Capital
Improvements Program and Development Impact Fee Update every fifth year.
The program management function should include the responsibility of
mcnitoring actual performance compared to that planned. This monitoring
function can be combined with any environmental impact monitoring program as
12 RP0033A
is reconxnended either in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which are a part
of revisions to the City's update of the General Plan or in the EIR' s for
major projects or Capitol Improvement Projects.
s The City is required to make findings each fiscal year regarding any fees
unexpended or uncommitted in its account five or more years after deposit. If
the findings indicate that there is not a reasonable relationship between the
fee and the purpose for which it was charged it must be refunded to the then
current property owners. Additionally, the City must, each year, prepare an
accounting of each fee account. This is to include the beginning and ending
balances, interest and other income, and expenditures and refunds made from
the account. The annual accounting of each fee account is to be prepared
within 60 days of the close of each fiscal year and must be made available to
the public.
C
M."
13 RP00738
OVERVIEW
9
CHAPTER 3
WATER SERVICE
Water service to Lodi residents is provided by the City. Major components of
the water system include wells, distribution piping and a single elevated
storage tank. The following sections will describe the City's existing supply
and distribution facilities, current planning for expansion of the system,
policy relating to cost sharing for mayor facilities, and existing water
service deficiencies.
SUply
Water for the City of Lodi is pumped directly from wells located within the
City limits. At present, wells discharge directly into the distribution
system. Of the 25 wells needed to serve the exist ng City, 20 are currently
producing. Three wells are not producing due to contamination. Funds have
been appropriated to construct two new wells and to construct two replacement
wells. Also, funds have been appropriated to design treatment facilities for
the removal of DBCP.
Water quality in the aquifers tapped by City wells is generally good.
Recently adopted Department of Health Service (DHS) standards for
dibromochloropropane (DBCP) will impact the City because the DBCP
concentration at 11 well sites exceeds the new State standard. Presently, the
City is preparing to conduct pilot studies of granular activated carbon
filtration units to remove the DBCP from the water. With respect to DBCP, the
better wells are located in the northeast sector of the General Plan area.
Groundwater levels within the basin have steadily dropped over the last years.
Concerns for salt water intrusion is a regional concern but may not be a
threat to Lodi due to influence of the Mokelumne River as a major contributor
to replenishment of the groundwater basin.
Well yields in Lodi are good. Individual wells produce an average of 1,600
gallons per minute. Pumping levels vary across the well field by
approximately 80 feet, with the shallowest water in the northeast area and the
deepest water in the southwest area. The City operates a Supervisory Control
and' Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to assist in operating the well field,
maintaining pressures in the system and recording operating data.
Distribution System
Existing distribution piping within the City ranges in size from 2 to 14 inch.
By current standards, any distribut on piping smaller than 6 inches is
t
14 RM031.6
_V10
i
substandard. Smaller pipe was primarily used in the older portions of town
and it has, in many cases, been constructed in backyards and alleys.
Backbone of the City distribution system consists of a network of 10 and 14
inch pipe laid on an intersecting grid. Grid intersections are typically
separated by a distance of 1/4 to 1/2 mile.
Pressures within the distribution system are maintained using an elevated tank
and with assistance from the SCADA system. Water elevations in the tank are
consistently 165 to 180 feet, resulting in a 49 to 55 pound per square inch
pressure at the tank.
Water Master Plan
Current planning for the expansion of water supply and distribution facilities_
to serve the City through the period of the General Plan is embodied in the
"Water Master Plan" prepared in 1990. Based upon the General Plan: projected
population and average water demands of 285 gallons per capita per day, total
average day water demand at 2007 will be 22.1 million gallons per lay.
Existing (1987) average day demand is 12.58 million gallons per day.
A number of planning and design recommendations were presented in the Water
Master Plan. Those recommendations that affected the information presented in
this report are summarized below.
I. Design for future wells should conform to that for recently
constructed wells: 21, 22, and 23.
2. Well and distribution system should be capable of meeting maximum day
demands with 20% of the wells out of service.
3. For each 2,000 equivalent persons added to the system, a new well
should be constructed.
4. One of every three wells should be equipped with standby power.
5. Re-waluate the Water Master Plan at least every 5 years.
Water Reimbursement Policy
Under the City's Water Main Extension policy, applicants are reimbursed a
portion of the construction cost of oversize mains and major crossings.
Commonly, city's and agencies share in the cost of constructing special items
of infrastructure, especially, since these special items are typically part of
the backbone of the system.
For oversize mains, the reimbursement policy applies to water mains larger
than 8 inches in diameter. Major crossings covered by this policy are
Woodbridge Irrigation District canals, Southern Pacific Transportation
15 avoo�re
6�
P Company, Central California Traction Company, Highway 99, Highway 12 west of
Highway 99, Lower Sacramento Road, and Hutchins Street south of Kettleman
Lane. For major crossings, the City will reimburse one half the cost of
construction.
City water reimbursement policy is reasonable for the facilities to which it
applies. In developing the fee program for water service, the existing policy
has been applied to oversizing of water mains and construction of major
crossings. For the purposes of this report, reimbursable construction costs
are assumed to include materials, construction, administrative, engineering
and inspection. Administrative and engineering reimbursement is limited to
10 by City ordinance.
Existing Deficiencies
The Water Master Plan identified a number of existing deficiencies in the
water distribution system. These deficiencies generally include replacement
of older pipe and construction of additional mains to reinforce the
distribution network in older areas of the City. The work on main replacement
will continue to be an ongoing program throughout the City. Funds to provide
capacity (wells) for existing City development(s) have previously been
appropriated. Significant water quality (DBCP) deficiencies exist at 12 of
the 20 producing wells. Estimated cost to correct the pipeline and water
quality deficiencies is 58.2 million. Pipeline reconstruction will be funded
through the City water fund. DBCP facilities for existing wells will be
constructed using borrowed State funds that will be repaid with water service
rates.
Specific listings of the projects earmarked to correct existing deficiencies
are not included in this report. Estimates of probable construction cost have
been developed for the existing deficiency projects identified by the City.
Total estimated cost to construct these projects is 51,628,000. Funds to
construct these projects will come primarily from the Water Fund.
PLANNED WATER FACILITIES
Water facilities to serve buildout of the General Plan were identified in the
t Water Master Plan. As part of the public facilities financing effort of the
General Plan, specific project descriptions were generated for those
improvements identified by the Water Master Plan. Generally this effort
included defining the length and size of pipe and appurtenant facilities;
I defining the additional equipment to be provided at the wells; and identifying
3 the canal, street and railroad crossing that involve cost sharing by the City.
A summary of these facilities is presented below and described in Table 3-1.
Project numbers listed in Table 3-1 are used to identify the project locations
on Figure 3-1. Minor projects, (mainly water main extensions) are shown
separately for administrative purposes; they are subtotaled as one project
under the fee program. This will allow greater flexibility in providing
16 RP0033.6
0000 pmw PI pm no M am no Me wilim tOr®5 trite
TABLE 3- i 21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITALCOSTSAND PHASING
WATER
...
IRVI-
program
unPsU
Ntanbx
Cost
Foe Fund
1991192
1992183
1993194
1994"
1995196
1988107 -
- 100-2002
2002-20071
WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS
. MWSWI Turner Rd. tranamfesfon main
$16,000
310.000
to
to
to
W
30
$0
57813
$13,387
cendeft of 2.050 It 10-hrch
water main west ban the
Central CaRI traction Co.
(—Sim main)
MWSMO Turner Road tranwnisdon main
520.000
$20.000
$0
to
to
to
W
W
$0
520,000
- "- (AIWS1001)inekrdesconstruction
_
-
0111a main under the Central C40L-
Traction Co. (cost darfrp)
MWS1002 Lodl Avenue tratsmfadon main -
;�.
$9.000
$9.000
to
s0
so
to
W
s0
$1,470
$7,530
oondstirtp 011,290 H 10 -inch.
,
water main easterly ftas Milld. '
Ave. to Central Ca9l Traction - -
-
ComP&F1Y(wa3hed mato)
LWr-R 3 1.350 it 10-1oth water main -
$11.000
311.000
$5,500
TO
s0
i0
$5,500
W
.. W.
s0
southedy from Lod Avenue. .
'(amdtted mak* puUAve.
eouenetm)
MWSM04. Guild Avenustranemiveion .
$35.000
$30.000
W
so
so
so
s0
Yy
$,90.000
io
main consisting of 6.000 IF
10 -Inch war main along
4dure Guild Avenue between . .
Pine aiid KsOternan. (ratted main)
...� MWVW11 Guild Avenue Main (MSW1004) *iso
$20.000
$20.000
W
50
f0
so
t0
s0
$20,000
t0
includes construction of the main
under the Central Calif. Traction
Co. RR Tracks. (cot slating)
PAGE1OFO
TABLE 3 — 1 21 -Aug -81
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITALCOSTS AND PHASING
WATER
'...-
Project Descriptio
Program
Impact
Nun"
Cost
Fee Fund
1891182
1882M
1083/84
1894185
1995M
WNW
1897-2002
2002-2007
MWS1005 Transmission main parallel to and
$51.000
$51.000
$0
so
so
$0
$0
s0
s0
$51.000
ad{acent to Central Calif. Traction
Co. RR tracks. ConSifdng of approx.
-
0.600 ff of 104nch water line
-
between Pine and Kettlsman.
-
(oversized main)
-
-MWS)M12 Transmission Main(MSWi005) also
$20.000
$20.000
SO
$0
so
so
so
so
so
$20.000
-.: Includes construction of the main
under the Central Cal. Traction
. Co. RR Tracks. (coat sharkW
;. MWSMS industrialWaytranemisionmain37.000
$7.000.
$7,000
$O
SO
so
s0
$D
SO
SO
conelaft of NO It 10 -inch
.
water main to the west of Ciu1f
Avenue. (oversized main already
- Constructed)
MWS1007: lndusldal Waytranamisslon main
- 59.000.
59.000
so
so
so
$9.000
so
s0
$0
:0
_ Consisting of 1,180 If 104neh
- water main to the east of Clutl
Avenue extending MWS1006. -
',r[:. (overslzedmain)
-
MWSt008 Beckman Road transmission main
$10,000
- 510.000
$0
$10,000
$o
so
so
$o
so
so
. Consisting of 1,300 If 104neh
water main to the north of
Kaufmann Lena. (oversized mato)
.-MWS1009 Clutl Avenue transmisclonmain
$20,000
$20.000
$0
so
so
so
$20,000
SO
SO
Sp
Consisting of 2.800 If 1C -inch
water main Wong hAure street
between Kettieman and Vine.
(ovetsized main)
PAGE2 CF
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
...-,1Project.
&.3.a-..rieee.;
D, -.d
Program
ImWa
Wmmxbar
Cwt
Fee Fund
1901,92
199293
1993,01
1904M
1995M
WNW
19077-2002
2002-2007
MW=10 Kettle nAn Lana transmission main
157,000
557,000
s0
So
m
so
$17,000
t0
to
$0.000
... ". consisting of 3.680 It t2 -loch
. - water main easterly from Beckman
Road. (awwsize main)
MWS1011 Tumor Romd transmission main
$20,000
$20,000
19,714
$3,007
$3,065
13,130
$1.084
to
s0
to
consisting of 2.600 It 10 -inti
water main from Lower Sacramento
Road. (oversized main)
MW51072 Applewood Drive transnisdoo main
$10,000
$10,000
$4,857
$1,503
$1,532
$1.565
$542
t0
to
to
eonsiatkxg of 1.300 tl 104nch water
main ccon tiripof.,i.3WN104nch
water main soutWrly born Turner Road
tothe exdstinp m.G1:: te�rerake math)
MYVSp13 Lower Sacramento Road transmissicr.
$4.000
$4.000
UAW
$0
to
to
to
t0
to
to
main con"Cnq of 560 If 10 -Inch .
". water main northerly from Yosemite
Avenue. (oversize main) -..
MWSWt4. Applewood Drive trummisslon main
$105,000
$105,000
$0
$7.000
to
to
10
$0
to
$98.000
- - consisting of 13,480 It 10 -inch
" water main southerly from existing
Ap*wood to Harney Lane. (oversized
main)
Appiewo cl Drive transmission main
$9,000
$9.000
so
m
to
so
to
$0
$9,000
to
-UWSX001
MWS1014 also includes construction
of a 10 -inch water line under the
W,I.D. Cartel (cwt sharing)
PAGE30FO
mac
&.3.a-..rieee.;
.:_� ""•••!' � Mrwp � lull 10� Rini � ® Il�1! � !� 6�i i� � �
TABLE 3 -1 21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
PAGE40F7
IPr Description
Program
Inrpact
jlhaewr
Cost.
fee Fund
199U82
1882/03
1983104
1984M
1705M
1088107
1867-2002
2082-2067
MWSXM Appiewood Drive transmission main
$0.500
39.500
$0
s0
so
so
$0
$0
$8,500
s0
(MWS1014) also includes construction
-
of a 10-Uroh water fine across
- -
KAtleman lane (cost aharing)
MWSIOIS. Evergreen Drive tranamisslon main
$25,000
325,000
$12,143
$3.759
$3,831
33,612
$1,355
$0
$8
$0 -
_ . consisting of 3,2601! 10 -Inch water
southerly and easudy from existing
Evergreen Drive to Lower Sacramento
_
. (oversize main)
MW5)M08 Evergreen Drive main (MWSI015)
$9.500
$9.500
s0
to
$9.500
to
to
so
30
$0
N " - ... Includes construction of the main
0
under Lower Sacramento Road (cost
sharing)
MWS1016 _ Lodi Avenue transmission main
$20.000
$20.00
so
so
so
so
so
to
$3.268
$19.734
consisting of 2,800 If 10 -inch.
- water main westerly from Low3r
Sacramento Road to General Plan
- - Boundary. (oversized main) .
_ . LIWS1017 Vme Street transmission main
$18.000
$18,000
$0
$0
s0
s0
s0
s0
$18.000
s0
consisting of 2.250 It 10 -Inch
water main westerly of Lower
Sacramento Road along a future
street alignment. (oversized maln)
UWS1018 Ket9eman Lane transmission main
$34,000
$34,000
$12,000
$0
s0
s0
$0
so
$22.000
s0
owsleting of 4.350 if 104Inch
water main from 112 mi. west of
Laser Sacramento Roadto Sylven
Way. (oversized main)
PAGE40F7
TABLE 3 —1 21-Au0-91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
PAGE50FB
Ropet De.cdpia+
Program
Impact
t4urrmisr
cost
rw Fund
loot/02
too=
1003M
1994M
19z"
199M7
1997-2002
2002-2007
MWS1019 lona Swwnsnto PAW transmisslor
$41,000
$41.000
$0
so
so
to
121.000
so
$3.256
$10.734
main oonaisdng of 5,200 if 104nch
wa sr main nor0merly to Ket0eman
Lane a"W.I.D. carve.
(oversized main)
MWSX003 KnakmanAAwa Sacramento goad
$13.ODO
MAN
s0
so
$0
so
to
to
$13,000
to
transmission mains (MWS101$ and
MWS1019) moo Includes boring under
0m two wds0ng roads. (cat WwkvW
' MWSI020 We Avenue transmission mall
$11,000
$11.000
to
so
to
to
to
so
$11,000
$0
... cmelstkq o11.400It 10 -inch
nater main nonhedy from K*Ulo~
Lens to W.tA. Csaat(ovarsizsd main)
MWSX004 Mics Avemww transmission main
$9.000
$9.000
to
so
to
so
to
$0
Mo00
$D
. (MW=20)also Includes conWuetion
of the main under the W.I.D. Cand.
(sat sharing)
..,..MWWWW We Avon etransmfselon mai
:9,500
$9.500
so
so
to
so
to
so
$9.500
s0
(MWS" also kteludes aonstrucdon
of the main ander Kedeman Lane
(cosi flaring)
-.-- MWS1021 CenturyBtvd transmalnkn maks
$5.000
$5.000
to
so
so
so
15.000
so
so
to
. consisting o11.300 B 10 -loch -
-
- water main nastedy from sag.
-
. - way along linos century Blvd.
aCgmnent to on the wdeting
main. (oversized main)
PAGE50FB
Rood D—dpdon
Program
Impact
Number
Coat
Fee Fund
1991/92
1992I93
1993'89
1994195
1995M
1996W
1997-2002
2002-2007
-; IAWSK122 CaduryRNd.transmission main
522.000
$22.000
to
to
to
to
to
to
$3.592
$19.409
consleftW2,76011104r4h
- _- water main along futurea9gnment
- barn Lower Sacramento Road to
- general plan boundary. (ovaral-d
- - -- main)
MWSXD0709WAwy0k,&traimnisdonnwn
$9.500
$9.500
t0
59
t0
t0
t0
t0
$3
$9.500
..:.(WWSI021)aadMWM022)dsoindudee
-
construction W bre main wider Lower -
- Sacramento Road. (cost aharing)
A N
Fuhne Inuarladon mein condddW
$51.000
$51.000
to
$0
50
to
to
$10.000
$41.000
$0
-, W 2AW MU"aeh aligned between
- --andpan9atsoCarhuyandHamey.
thencesoullmlyfrom the .:analto -
- - HarneY. (Werdza nmkr)
MWS1024 Hamay Lanetra9amissionmain
$33.000
$33.000
t0
m
70
$0
to
$0
$21.000
$12.000
_ - -- ecnddbq W 7.900lt1O4neh
- - - main wedertyfrom Hain Lane --
_-water
--:--togwwedanbo0ndaryWMegarreral
' . Plan ares (overdzed mam)
.
-.-'.►Mf"..7g06� HemeyLam brnmission(MWSM4)
$9.000
$9.000
$0
to
to
$0
to
to
$9.000
$0
- - - includes construction W a 104nch
_ - - water Wm under the W LD. Canal.
--- (codsharbq)
- MWS)MOS Harney Lane transmicdon main
$9.500
$9.500
$0
30
to
$0
m
$0
to
$9.500
-----. (AAWS1024) inehrdes construction
--:.
- - of the main under Lover Sacramento
Road. (cost duwhq)
PAGES OF 9
_. .
f!a! ! plrw WAING F1 " P'a°'°! 001064 PNOti laid 9 Oft ® IIIA
TABLE 3 —1
DNELOPMENTRELATEDCAPUAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
21 -Aug -91
Project Description Program Impact
Number Cod Fee Fund 1981192 1992193 1803'84 1904MS 1085/88 1998187 1967-2002 2002-2007
- MWSI025 Century Blvdtrans dsslan main
$8.000
$9.000
$3.666
$1.203
31.225
51.252
5434
50
$0
SD
consisting of 1,0$01(-104ndn water
main eastedyfraa Stockton SL to
-
Chlelmdaa lar a (overstted main)
- - MWSMM CheroheaMgneytranamisslon man -
573,000
573.000
$25.466
510.07.5
$11.186
$11.424
$3.957
$0 -
50
gp
eondstingof4,700810-inchwaler
_ ---. mein aasteiy hon SP rallmad alcag
Harney. the—.Nattherlyalong -
- (berdmetoCentury Blvd .(aaensbad
-
aainy .
� �-- SUBMAL - WATER MM
ai
5653,500
$853.500
594.550
$37.447 .
330.939
- $30.293
$75.673
$10.000
$242.206
1332.764
.- WATER WELLS. -
-
-
-
- -
- -
MW W1001 Inda6a6an d Water Wed •A'
S723.000
5723.000
SO
30
$0
$0
30
$723.000.
.. $D-
$D -
_
- - A pumping cepadtyof 1.600
_
C -PM mW a GnmularAe6vated
-
- -
-
-., Carlion1,04.-
; MWW1002 Indalleticn ofWaNr Wed'B'
$723.600
$723.000
$0
$0
W
SO
$0
$0
$0
5723,000
.1rah pumping capacity of 1.600-
- - - - --- -GPM and a Gunuiar Activated
-
cadm row.
MW WMM Indadatian of Water Wait -C-
$773.000
$773.000
$o
So
SO
W
$0
$D
$D
5773.00
- -. with pumping Capacity of 1,6DD
- _ GPM. aGrar:WarActivated Carbon
-Filer,
-
- ...
end Smadby Power.
PAGE70FO
TABLE 3 —1 21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
Project Description
Number
Program
Cost
Impact
Fee Fund
1991192
1992M
1993194
1994195
1995/8E
1998187
-
1997-2092
2002-2097
....
3+WW1004 Installadom of Water WON 'Ir
5723,000
$723.000
$0
SO
SO
:A
SO
so
$723.000
SO
with pumping capacity d1.SW
GPM and a Granular Activated
Carbon Finer.
. MWWM tna wl don of Water WeN -E'
$723.000
$723.000
SO
to
30
30
SO
30
SM3.000
30
With pumping capacity of 1.600
GPM and a Grammar Actlwted
. CarbonFi9er...
MWW1006 Indetiationof Water Wap•F'
$345.000
$345.000
30
so
to
SO
SO
SO
$345.000
SO
with pumping capacity'd 1.600
GPM and Standby Power-
-'.
. ' ._...
MWWW07 Instadadon d Water Wait'G'
5285,000
$295,000
5295,000
30
$0
SO
SO
SO
30
to
with pumping capacity of 1.800
GPM.
MWW81na411811 nofWaterWON'N'..
W0
$345.000
2345.000
30
$345,600
30
30
SO
SO
50
SD
with pumping capacity of 1.600
GPM and Standby Paver.
MWWW09InetatlationofWa�rWeti'N
$345.000
$345.000
SO
SO
to
.�
SO
SO
SO
30
Vft pumping capacity of 1.600
. GPM and Standby Power.
' MWWW10InataItationofWater WsU'J'
5295.000
$295.000
30
SO
$295.000
SO
SO
30
to
$0
... , 'with pumpingoapacitydt.W 0
GPM.
14WWloll Inatatladan of Water Wed 'K'
$345.000
$345.000
30
SO
$0
SO
5345,000
SO
30
$0
with pumping capacity of 1.600
GPM.
PAGE 8 OF 9
-.r.s.x—�r�cc:suex.,:_.:a_Rea'^__,�s:"1:.;�3N'e,.�i'iKF3.d'1'.�."C+y'..
-..r-•�tOttRS"di4':+"5i.`'^"xAr::.u...'�."'.._._._.�.�...`......_
'w4:i��r:..x.'vi3:+"
TABLE 3 -1 21 -Aug -91
DNELOPMENTRELAT.ED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
FPQW Description
I
Program
ImPact-
Numtar
Cod
Fee Fund
1991102
loam
1993m4
1994195
loom
1996187
low -4002
2002-2007
' MW WW 12 lndalladon of Wator Wal •L'
5723.000
1723.000
so
so
$0
30
- _ SO
SO
$723,000
with pumping os 1a.3yot 1.000
iiN i warn.ar AdmAea
50
i
-
- -. Carbon Fluter.
- ._ -. MWW1013 Iaeta9attw of Water WeN IM'
1773.000
5773.000
$0
so
SO
SO
30
SO
SO
1773.000
_ wWh pumping capacity of 1.600
- : GPM. a Gramdar Activated Carton
- - - Fater. and Standby Powe:.
--_.MW1M.4-Inda9ationofwater won IN*
5295.090
-5295.000
so
3o
So
so
$(
So
t0
S295.000
- --um PumPk9 espadtyof 1.800
OPAL
--=N MWSMI Water Mader Plan -1990 -
$57.38-
$57.309
$57.386
$0
$0
SO
$C
SO
SO
$O
- UWS0002Wa1eyModerP1an- .. -
_ - $20.000
$20.000
10
$o
-
$o
m
s9
S20.00e
m
30
and C.LP. update -1997 -
MW90003WAterMaderMart - - - -
- -Mow
$28,009
5o
_so
50
50
$0
so
$20.000
SO
- - - --. end CIP. t)pdate-2002
-: MWS0004 Puble Warks Admin.8ldW 8cp (0%)
1341.500
53/1.500
$0
$341.500
so
$0
m
-
_
SO
SD
SD
MWS0005 Pubec Woks t3eraga FacN[y (50%)
5235.000 -
$235.009
So
30
523s.0oo
$0
aro
3o
$O
$O
14SO0t15PubkWorksGereirdWaahFae9j33%-
- - :188.667
1166,867-
1188.887
- $0
So
$0 -
SO
3o
SO
t0
;. UpgredestoBdathp FaeOWies -
$1.629.000
- 50
-- $0
10
So
$0
5o
$0
3o
t0
New Dmretopment Share of Existing
- -_- Water Tank(3141) . - -
_ SIM488
$193.469 -
511.469
- 111.488
371.466
511.469
111.489
511.465 _
- 557,340
. -. 357.341
TdTAI WATER COST
$10,931.525
9.303.525
- -'- PAGE 9OF9
PTI
!' developer credits should actual development costs deviate from the program
s schedule.
In Table 3-1, two columns are shown, Program Cost and Impact Fee Fund.
Program Cost is defined as project costs to be provided through the City Water
Fund. The Program Costs do not include costs borne by the developer. Costs
listed in the Impact Fee Fund column represent those costs for specific
projects allocated to future developed identified in the General Plan. Where
the cost in the Program Cost and Impact Fee Fund columns are the same, the
entire project cost has been allocated to future development. The usefulness
PO of differentiating the costs will be evident in latter sections when Program
f= Costs are to be funded by other sources or include costs to correct existing
deficiencies.
At the end of Table 3-1, an item is listed as 'New Development Share of
Existing Facilities". This item summarizes already incurred City costs to
construct projects with capacity reserved to serve future development.
Depending on the project, a percentage of the actual construction cost has
f been allocated to future development as shown in parenthesis.
�i
1A
P4
C
i
:3?
be
In the case of water service, the rev water tank falls into the category of
existing facilities serving future development. A indicated in Table 3-1, 31
percent of the actual construction cost adjusted to January 1990 dollars has
been al located.
Supply
Through buildout of the General Plan, the City will continue to rely upon
groundwater as the sole water supply. Project average day demand at buildout
is 22.1 million gallons per day. A total of 14 ruw wells will be required to
supply to water to the General Plan area. Proposed locations of the rev wells
marked on Figure 3-1. Five of the rev wells will be equipped with standby
power generators.
Distribution System
Additional water mains will be required to distribute water to the area. With
regard to funding water main extensions, the City i s responsible only for
water mains 10 inches and larger in diameter. Approximate location and limits
of these water mains are shown on Figure 3-1. Actual location and alignment
of the water mains may slightly change when site specific planning is
completed.
Treatment
Two types of treatment are assumed to to provided at the wells sites:
emergency chlorination and granular activated carbon filtration. Chlorination
of the water is not routinely required, however, permanent chlorination
facilities will be constructed at selected Ael7 sites. The cost of
27 RM338
chlorination facilities (approximately 57,500 per well) is small compared to
i' the cost of a well and is not listed separately. The totals for all wells
include sufficient contingency to cover this expense at selected wells. It is
assumed, granular activated carbon filtration units will be cunstructed at 5
of the 15 new wells.
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
°$ In Table 3-1, a summa)y of the water projects and estimated costs is
presented. Estimated costs are referenced to the Engineering News Record 20
Cities Construction Cost Index for January 1, 1990 of 4,673. Water main
1i extension costs represent only the City's funding responsibility per the City
Reimbursement Pclicy. In actual fact, the developer will be constructing the
improvement and will receive back from the City a portion to cover the cost of
t oversizing the pipelines and the City's share (50%) of major crossings.
Phasing of the improvements is presented in Table 3-1 and is based upon the
Forecast of Units Constructed Over the General Plan Period (Appendix A)
Si provided by the City. In Table 3-1, the phasing is divided by year for the
first 6 years followed by two 5 -year increments. Costs for projects serving
General Plan development funded on or before July 1, 1991 are shown in the
current year (1991/92). Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to
the January 1, 1990 dollars.
Many of the projects listed in Table 3-1 are oversizing projects wherein the
City's participation is limited to reimbursement to the developer for
oversizing costs. It is not intended that the Program Cost shown in the table
reflect the total cost of construction. Similarly, for projects such as the
Public Works building expansion, the costs have been divided between the water
and sewer impact fee funds and the costs shown are the portion allocated to
the water impact fee fund. Also, where a project partially serves the
existing community and partially the general plan expansion areas, only the
cost allocated to the general plan areas are shown.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Water Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between (1) a fee's use and (2)
the type of development on which the fee is imposed. To establish such a
relationship, it must be shown that the type of development that is going to
be charged the fee actually uses, is served by, or benefits from the public
�+ facilities that are to be financed by the fee revenue.
Because of the logical growth patterns conceived in the Proposed General Plan
„ and because of the planning effort set down in the Water Master Plan, the City
ensures that all water facility improvements will primarily benefit the
residential, commercial, industrial and quasi -public land uses within the
# General Plan area. Each and every water project to be financed by the fee
28
RPJOJ}R
'. ws3
on
"O program will provide the same level of service to the Proposed General Plan
i area as currently provided to the existing community of Lodi. Although other
projects have been identified that will correct existing deficiencies, these
t;
project costs will not be included in the fee program.
{
Relationship of Water Projects to Land Uses
On the basis that all land uses will benefit from the facilities to be
H constructed, the burden of financing will be distributed to each land use in
proportion to their use of, or benefit from, the improvements.
This i s accomplished through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates the relative responsibility to pay for
improvements for each land use category in relation to the single family
detached residential category. A stzmnary of the RAE factors for water is
presented in Table 3-2. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship
between the cost of the required water projects and financing burden placed on
each land use.
v
Reoonmxnded Fees
A armnary of water fees for each land use benefitting from the water projects
is provided in Table 3-2. The total fee for low density residential use is
55,504 per acre.
}1
bo
I
29 0003Y8
w+
aw
S
TABLE 3-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
WATER
La; d Use a eg0nes
Unit
KAh Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
Low Density
Acre
1.00 $5,710
Medium Density
Acre
1.96 $11,190
High Density
Acre
3.49 $19,930
East Side Residential
Acre
1.00 $5,710
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$5710
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$11,190
High Density
Acre
3.49
$19,930
MMER IAL
INeighborh000 uommercial
Acre
0.64
$3,650
General Commercial
Acre
0.64
$3,650
Downtown Commercial
Acre
0.64
$3,650
Office .Commercial
Acre
0.64
$3,650
INDUSTRIAL
a,ighIt Industrial
Acre
0.26
11498
Heavy Industrial
Acre
0.26
Note: Fee amounts shown are fat' fiscal year 199111992
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald 8 Associates
30
p
CHAPTER 4
SEWER SERVICE
OVERVIEW
The City of Lodi has provided sewerage services to its residents since the
early 1920's. Major facilities owed and operated by the City include a city-
wide collection system, sewer trunks to the treatment plant, and the White
Slough Water Pollution Control FaciIit— located approximately 6 miles
southwest of the City.
Collection System
The sanitary sewer collection system within the City includes more than 155
miles of pipeline. Sizes of the main sewers range from 4 to 48 inches in
diameter, with 6 inches being the most common. Domestic and limited
industrial wastewater flows (mainly the PCP Cannery and other industries along
Sacramento Street) are kept separate. The separate industrial system is not
addressed in this study.
Five sewer lift stations provide sewerage service to outlying areas of the
City where conditions prohibit gravity systems. These existing lift stations
are: Cluff Avenue Station, Mokelumne Village, Rivergate, Woodlake, and Park
West.
Treatment and Disposal
White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility is owned and operated by the
City. Currently, the plant is operating at the design capacity of 6.2 million
gallons per day (MGD). Expansion of the plant to a capacity of 8.5 MGD is
currently under construction. Future expansion to 10.3 MGD is planned.
Facility costs and financing for wastewater treatment and disposal are not
addressed in this report. These issues have been addressed in separate
studies and a financing mechanism, the Wastewater Connection Fee, has been
established.
Master Sewerage Plan
Planning for sewerage collection facilities to serve the expanded General Plan
area are addressed in the report by Black and Veatch, "Sanitary Sewer System,
Technical Report for the 1990 General Plan Update." Included in the report
are results of a comprehensive hydraulic evaluation of the existing collection
system and proposed expansions of the collection system to serve an expanded
City.
,14 31 RP0033.5
The Master Plan presents resommendations for gravity and pressure sewer
design, sewer lift station design, and collection system maintenance.
Recommendations for sizing and location of new facilities are presented that
will serve the General Plan expansion areas as discussed in the section
` "Planned Sewerage Facilities". In addition, Master Plan identifies a number
of collection system deficiencies that are described in the subsection,
"Existing Deficiensies".
t :x
Sewer Reimbursement Policy
Commonly, developers are required to construct sewer trunk lines with greater
capacity than needed in order to provide service to expanding areas of a
community. It is not very common that a City or agency is able to get
property owners to pay in advance for sewer capacity that they do not plan to
use in the near future and, as a result, cities and agencies pay for the
oversizing of sewer trunks. Policies for reimbursing for oversizing costs
vary from community to community.
t Under the City's Sewer Trunk Extension policy, applicants are reimbursed a
portion of the estimated construction cost of oversize trunk sewers. For
oversize trunks, the reimbursement policy applies to trunk sewers larger than
10 inches in diameter. For the purposes of this report, reimbursable
construction costs are assumed to include materials, construction,
administration, engineering and inspection. Administrative and engineering
reimbursement is limited by City ordinance to 10%.
City reimbursement policy as it relates to oversizing of sewer trunk lines is
reasonable. Historically, the oversize cost of gravity sewer lines has been
spread throughout the City. In preparing this report, the existing policy and
historic practice are assumed to continue in force during the General Plan
period.
` Existing Deficiencies
A number of existing sewers within the City are operating above design
capacity as determined by the methods presented in the Master Sewerage Plan.
Correction of the problem requires the construction of parallel sewers to
relieve the surcharge condition. Listing of these sewers is presented in the
Master Plan. Maintenance deficiencies within the collection system were also
identified consisting primarily of sewer cleaning that had not regularly been
performed in the past.
1
Based upon construction costs referenced to January 1, 1990 dollars, the
estimated cost to construct those parallel relief sewers is $1,005,500.
Estimated cost to clean the existing sewers is $165,000. Source of funding
for these deficiencies has been identified by the City to be the Sewer Fund.
32
.: V.F. ...... .....� __..._. s.
RP0033-8
PLANNED SEWERAGE FACILITIES
Sewerage collection facilities to serve the expanded City have been identified
in the Master Sewer Plan. A summary of these facilities is presented below
1 and in Table 4-1. Project numbers listed in Table 4-1 are used to identify
the project locations as shown on Figure 4-1.
Collection System
3
Expansion of the existing collection system to serve new areas will require
construction of new gravity sewers and lift stations as described in
14 Table 4-1 and shown on Figure 4-1. Two new lift stations and expansion of an
existing lift station are planned; one near Kettleman Lane (Highway 12), a
0 second near Harney Lane, and expansion of the existing Cluff Avenue Lift
Station. Additional gravity sewer trunks will be required to serve the
General Plan areas. Only those trunk lines that are larger than 10 inches in
diameter are considered in this report and are listed in Table 4-1.
Sewer collection facilities can be divided into two categories: gravity
facilities and pressure facilities. As previously mentioned, City poliy has
historically provided for reimbursement of oversize gravity facilities and for
payment of oversizing costs from the Sewer Fund, thereby, spreading the costs
City-wide. Pressure facilities costs (i .e. lift stations and force mains)
have been spread over areas of benefit. For each lift station in the City a
specific area of benefit is defined. In this report, it is assumed that lift
station and force main costs would be spread over individual special fee areas
corresponding to the areas of benefit. Also, it is assumed that gravity
facilities costs would be spread City-wide and oversizing costs for facilities
serving future growth would be paid from development impact fee funds.
Treatment and Disposal
'i
' Expansion of the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility is currently
under construction. Costs of the expansion and future planned expansions are
not considered in this report. Funding for these improvements has been
arranged by the City and reimbursement will come from rates and the City
Wastewater Connection Fees collected at the time of building permit issuance.
ESTIMATEO COSTS AND PHASING
In Table 4-1, a summary of the sewer projects and estimated costs is
presented. Estimated costs are referenced to the Engineering News Record 20
Cities Construction Cost Index for January 1, 1990 of 4673. Sewer trunk
extension costs reflect only the City's funding responsibility per the City
r Reimbursement Policy and do not reflect the total estimated construction cost.
Phasing of the improvements is based upon the Forecast of Acres Mapped Over
the General Plan Period (Appendix A) provided by the City. In Table 4-1,
33 RP0032-8
rat
f Sat
mar ?NPm 4-01A 10— PM", rmn room, I>Ift" !ser°4 ....w Mwry wrrw titsltey
TABLE 4 —1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
SEWER
21-Aup-B1
' DecctiptionPrC
s�
Impact
HrrrriPr
Fee Fund
1981ne
1982/83
189394 198495
1895798
1998137
1907-2062
2002-2007
MSSIM Beckman Road rower trunk
$48.000
$49,000
W
W
so
s0
$0
s0
$0
149.000 -
comprising 1,100 If of 10 -Inch
sanitary sewer pipe and manholes
from Pine Street to Lodi Avarua.
MSSIOo2 Westein boundary sewer trunk
$300.000
1300.000
10
m
SO
W
SO
so
$0
$300.000
consisting of 600 K 124nch.
500 If 115 -Inch. 2.000 it of
184nch. 2.0001f of 21 -inch.
and 2.50011 of 244nch se"r
PIPo connectingto fife existing
48 Inch 66wettrunk tothe
treatment Ptah. (oversize)
YSs111163 OvsralieWaft mise. to Hervey -
Sas 000
$49,000
SO
to
W
W
to
W
$49,060
m
Lane Ut station comprising 2.700
:w�.. `: `Mott2-Midi andf.00�BoftS-
to Mkhsewertrunk.- '
. .' 'USSW04 Honey Low rifistation and
$262.500
so (1)
10
SO
s0
$0
so
W
30
SO
Wrce mater comprlWp 3 -tan
lioreepow r pumps having a
combhned IIAW GPM capacity and
2.0001( of 8.4 nelt_Plpe-
MUM Kettleman Low .94 station and
$192.000
$0 6
SO
W
SO
30
W
W
$0
g0
tame main W62-0- .
horsepower pumps and 450 GPM
capacky and short force main
under Kettleman Lank,,
MSSIOMS Guff Avenue Gk dation upgrade
$0 (3)
S0
W
S0
10
W
W
SO
$0
and parakel force main with 2
-
fifteen horsepower pumps and a
1.500 GPM capacity
. MSS1007 1.40011 of 184nen parallel
$42.000
$42.000
So
SO
W
SD
W
$0
$42.000
$0 - -
from Taylor Ad. to Kettleman Lane,
"-.PAGEIOF2--
J
SUBTOTAL -SEWER MAIN PARTICIPATION: $1,142,500 $503,000 SO SO so SO $49,000 $o $105.000 $349.000
.- GCFI008 Public":. %a Administration $341.500 $341.500 SO $341.500 S 0 S 0 SO SO
SO So
TABLE 4 —1
21 -mg -91
GCFW7 PulAcWorkeStorage Facility (50%) $235.000 $235,000 so $o $235,000 so so so
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
� GCF1008 pub. Works Garage/Wash Faail.(33%) $186,667 $158,687 $186.667 s0 S 0 S 0 so SO
SO SO
. `. MSS000 Sewer Mader Plan -1990 $82.753 $82,753 $82,759 SO So m SO S0
SO s0
SEWER
0 s0
Projed Description
Program
Impact
Update -2002
Number
Coe[
Fee Fund
1991192 199=1 1993184 1904M 199598
199W 1967-2002 2002-2%7
MSS1008 2.500 If of i5 -Inch parallel
$49,000
$48.000
SO s0 SO SO $49,000
SO SO s0
trunldina in Lower Sacrarrrae stolid.
'�%
..
/��/�.
front Lod) Avenue iDElm Street.
$1,368,920
$2?420;
$34i\,.riC(?;:$ll,
USSION Oversize gravity sewer In Harney
$15,000
$15.000
s0 s0 $D so 30
$0 515,000 50
Lane to 0g station. consisting of
Notes
1. HameyLaneflft stationcosts wIH be funded by a Supplemental Feeassessed upon development within the area of benefit. Therefore, costs
_
1.4001f of 124nch pipe west from
2 Kettlemar) Lane 11 it station costs will be funded by a Supplemental Fee assessed upon development within the area of benefit. Therefore. costs
- -
of the projects are not shown in the City -Wide Impact Fee Fund column. Forecastod liming of the project construction is in the 1992-1993period.
--L,owarSaeramerdoRoad. (oversize)
3 Cluff Avenue lift station modificationcosts will be funded by a Supplemental Fee aSSOSSed upon development within the area of benefit. Therefore,costs
of the projects are not shown in the City -Wide impact Fee Fund column. Forecasted timing of the project construction is in the 2002-2007 period.
SUBTOTAL -SEWER MAIN PARTICIPATION: $1,142,500 $503,000 SO SO so SO $49,000 $o $105.000 $349.000
.- GCFI008 Public":. %a Administration $341.500 $341.500 SO $341.500 S 0 S 0 SO SO
SO So
Bldg %:Xpanslon. (50%)
GCFW7 PulAcWorkeStorage Facility (50%) $235.000 $235,000 so $o $235,000 so so so
SO s0
� GCF1008 pub. Works Garage/Wash Faail.(33%) $186,667 $158,687 $186.667 s0 S 0 S 0 so SO
SO SO
. `. MSS000 Sewer Mader Plan -1990 $82.753 $82,753 $82,759 SO So m SO S0
SO s0
MSS000 Sewer Master Plan and C.LP. $20.000 $20.000 $0 SO S 0 S 0 SO 220.000
0 s0
Update -1997
-- .: MS5000 Sewer Master Planand C.LP. $20.000 $20.000 SO s0 $g $o $0 $0 520.000 m
Update -2002
Upgrades to Existing Facilities $1,005,500 SO SO SO S 0 S 0 SO SO
$0 SO
'�%
..
/��/�.
TOTAL $3,013,920
$1,368,920
$2?420;
$34i\,.riC(?;:$ll,
$4SQ.._
Notes
1. HameyLaneflft stationcosts wIH be funded by a Supplemental Feeassessed upon development within the area of benefit. Therefore, costs
of the projects arenotshow.. intheCity-Wide Impact Fee Fund column. Forecasted limingof theproject construction is inthe 1997-2002 period.
2 Kettlemar) Lane 11 it station costs will be funded by a Supplemental Fee assessed upon development within the area of benefit. Therefore. costs
of the projects are not shown in the City -Wide Impact Fee Fund column. Forecastod liming of the project construction is in the 1992-1993period.
3 Cluff Avenue lift station modificationcosts will be funded by a Supplemental Fee aSSOSSed upon development within the area of benefit. Therefore,costs
of the projects are not shown in the City -Wide impact Fee Fund column. Forecasted timing of the project construction is in the 2002-2007 period.
PAGE 20F 2
i
G P STUDY AREA
1! 71fll—a 0,
'T
cLu
Lt oSTATION
f mssf iOO6
I rm-: r I mclql tun
JEJEFIM
8
Lj
cm
0
0
r+
ti r A
LlaS5
[MRIT-fom.,
—HAgN—El LANE
LIF
mssl
Ssl 003
MI;ST
(-SERIACE
AREA
I1 y
LEGENDNOTE
Aa.vw� LOW�am
Fvitm Lift StationS" Pfoito D�onm
— RAn Pipe
MSSI 005 Sewer Sys:em
Project Number
LOO' 1044.I, PL�"
FIGURE 4 —1 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
36
°`the phasing is divided by year for the first 6 years followed by two 5 -year
increments. Costs for the projects serving the General Plan development
funded on or before July 1, 1990 are shown in the current year (1990/91).
Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to the
January 1, 1990 dollar reference.
Some projects listed in Table 4-1 are not included in the overall development
impact Fee program. These include projects related to serving the Cluff
fg Avenue Lift Station Service Area, the Harney Lane Lift Station Service Area
and the Kettleman Lane Lift Station Service Area. Since lift stations are
unusually large and expensive facilities and, the service area is specific, a
separate supplemental fee is calculated for each area. A separate calculation
for these sub -zones is presented in the section, BURDEN ANALYSIS FOR SEWER
SUB -ZONES.
' Relationship of Sewer Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between: (1) the fee's use and;
(2) the type of development on which tho fee is imposed. To establish such a
relationship, it must be shown that the type of development that is going to
� be charged the fee actually uses, is served by, or benefits from the public
facilities that are to be financed by the fee revenue.
Sewer collection facilities are used by residential, commercial, industrial
and quasi -public land uses. Benefit to each land use is based upon peak
�► wastewater generation rates as set forth in the Sewer Master Plan. Because
each land use mentioned above benefits from the sewer projects in the capital
i S
improvements program, each land use is also a part of the fee program.
Relationship of Sewer Projects to Land Uses
Once the relationship between the facilities to be constructed and the land
6 uses has been established, the burden of financing is to be distributed to
each land use in proportion to its use of, or benefit from, the improvements.
This is accomplished through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates the relative responsibility to pay for
improvements for each land use category in relation to the single family
detached residential category.
According to the definition of RAE`s an acre of low density single family
residential land sue has an RAE factor of 1.0. All other land use categories
have RAE factors that relate their demand for sewerage facilities relative to
one acre of low density single family land use. Based upon wastewater flow
projections presented in the City's Sewer Master Plan for each land use in the
its General Plan, an RAE schedule has been developed. The RAE schedule shows a
reasonable relationship between the cost of required Sewer Facilities projects
and the burden placed on each land use. The RAE schedule that has been
developed for the Sewer Facilities is presented in Table 4-2.
tee
37 RPOQ]18
TABLE 4-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
SEINER
[Land Use Categories
Unit
RAE Fee
RESIDENTIAL
1.96
$2,140
Low Density
Acre
1.00 $1,090
Medium Density
Acre
1.96 $2,140
High Density
Acre
3.49 $3,800
East Side Residential
Acre
1.00 $1,090
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Downtown Commercial
Office Commercial
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Acre
1.00
$1,090
Acre
1.96
$2,140
Acre
3.49
$3,800
Acre
0.94
$1,020
Acre
0.94
$1,020
Acre
0.94
$1,020
Acre
0.94
$1,020
Acre
0.42
$460
Acre
0.42
$460
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1992-
Sources:
991/1992Sources: Nolte 8 Associates and Angus McDonald 8 Associates.
38
Recommended Fees
The Sewer Facilities Fees for each land use are summarized in Table 4-2. The
total fee is $1,090 per low density residential acre.
BURDEN ANALYSIS FOR SEWER SUB -ZONES
There are three sewer sub -zones which are not served by the improvements in
14 the fee program and cannot be funded by the sewer development impact fee.
These areas require 'lift stations and other improvements that will benefit
only a specific area of undeveloped land. ;he sub -zones are the Kettleman
Lift Station Area, Harney Lane Lift Station Area, and the Cluff Avenue Lift
Station Area. Each area has only one land use type within its boundaries.
Since the improvements will have to be constructed prior to any development
taking plac.�, development impact fees do not provide a viable means to finance
these projects.
The total cost of lift station facilities equals 5639,500. In practice, this
amount would best be obtained by borrowing from another City of Lodi fund. A
special sub -area Impact Fee could then be collected in the three sewer sub -
zones sufficient to repay the Sorrowing plus an appropriate rate of interest.
The alternative, three sub -area financing districts (Special Assessment
Districts or Mello -Roos Community Facilities Districts) would not be economic.
X14 The cost of processing would be excessive compared to the funds required.
Other alternatives include financing by the "first" development in the area
with establishment of a reimbursement program from future development, or the
installation of temporary facilities plus payment of the fee. Each case
should be evaluated separately as development is proposed.
A series of analyses presenting the burden of financing the improvenents in
each of these sub -zones is provided in Table 4.3. The calculations indicate
the approximate amount each acre of land in each sub -zone will need to
contribute in order to finance the needed improvements. It should be noted
that the cost of financing has not been included.
�+ In the case of the Harney Lane lift station service area, existing development
has been included in the sizing of the facilities. At the time of annexation,
it is expected that this area will be required to pay the supplemental fee
and, therefore, it has been included in the supplemental fee calculation.
39 RPM3."
116.4
Total
RAEs
225.0
28.0
63.0
315.0
Total
Burden
Per Acre
$ 830
S 1,630
$ 2,900
RP00I18
Total
Total
Burden
RAEs
.Par Arra
69.9
S 1,610
8.8
$ 3,160
19.5
S 5,620
f'
$ 1,510
TABLE 4-3
SEWER SUB-ZONE
FEE CALCULATIONS
Kettleman
Lift Station
Sub-Zone
Total Planned Residential Acres:
80
Total Planned Commercial Acres:
22
Total Cost of Improvements:
$192,000
Cost Per RAE:
$ 1,610
i
«4
Total
RAE
Descriation Units
Developed
Factor
PR - Low Density Acres
69.9
1.00
PR - Medium Density Acres
4.5
1.96
PR - High Density Acres
5.6
3.49
0 f f ice Commerci al Acres
22.D.
0.94
102.0
Harney Lane Lift Station Sub-Zone
Total Planned Residential Acres:
292
f f
Less Basin and Park Acres:
35
Net Planned Residential Acres:
257
Total Cost of Improvements:
$262,500
Average Cost Per RAE:
S 830
Total
RAE
Lj
DescriQtion Units
Developed
Factor
PR - Low Density Acres
225.0
I.00
PR - Medium Density Acres
14.1
1.96
PR - High Density Acres
18.0
3.49
257.0
4.s
40
116.4
Total
RAEs
225.0
28.0
63.0
315.0
Total
Burden
Per Acre
$ 830
S 1,630
$ 2,900
RP00I18
Total
Total
Burden
RAEs
.Par Arra
69.9
S 1,610
8.8
$ 3,160
19.5
S 5,620
20.7
$ 1,510
116.4
Total
RAEs
225.0
28.0
63.0
315.0
Total
Burden
Per Acre
$ 830
S 1,630
$ 2,900
RP00I18
I .f
Nth
4
i;
Cluff Avenue lift Station Sub-Zone
Total
Industrial Reserve Acres: 158
Total
Cost of Improvements:
$185,000
Average Cost Per RAE:
$ 1,170
,.,
Total
Total
Burden
tis
ne.�� ager
r.
o
Light
Industrial Acres
93.0 0.42
39.1
$ 1,170
Heavy
Industrial Acres1
80 0.42
27.3
$ 1,170
Note:
Dollar amounts shown
are for fiscal year
1991/92.
Source: Nolte and Associates
and Angus McDonald
and Associates,
1991.
f
3
4 �
1
f�
z
,ys
= `
S
41
aP003"
i
CHAPTER 5
STORM DRAINAGE
i.
OVERVIEW
Storm drainage services are provided by the City of Lodi. Major features of
the storm drainage system include collection system, runoff storage/detention
facilities, and pumping plants. Terminal drainage for the City is provided by
:+ the Mokelumne River and the Woodbridge Irrigation District (MID) canal.
Characteristics of these facilities are described below.
Collection System
„., Storm drainage services are provided to an area encompassing approximately
7,700 acres. For facility planning purposes, the drainage area has been
-s divided into planning areas. Storm drainage facilities for these planning
areas are incorporated into a City wide storm drainage facilities plan.
Approximately 1,340 acres directly discharge to the Mokelumne River via
gravity pipelines. Approximately another 2,290 acres is pumped to the river.
The remaining approximately 4,070 is pumped to the WID canal from two pump
.�. stations.
Discharges to the WID canal are controlled by the flow capacity of the canal
system. By agreement, the City is limited to a combined total discharge of 80
cubic feet per second at the two existing pumping stations. Additional
discharge locations are not currently permitted by the agreement. The City
operates a series of interconnected detention basins within this area to store
runoff prior to pumping to the canal. The City utilizes detention basins in
other areas also to store runoff prior to pumping to the Mokelumne River.
Existing facilities for the collection of storm runoff include surface
improvements like alleys, ditches and gutters, and underground pipelines.
-a Present design standards for storm drainage collection facilities only allow
gutter and underground piping. The use of ditches and alleys for conveyance
of storm runoff is currently substandard and not allowed.
New development in the City is required to construct all storm pipeline
smaller than 30 inches in diameter. Pipelines 30 inches and larger are
considered to be part of the Master Storm Drain Plan improvements and are
-� currently funded by Storm Drainage Fees collected by the City.
A number of relatively minor deficiencies exist within the collection system.
�. For the most part, these consist of substandard surface drainage facilities
(for example, ditches and alleys), deteriorated curb and gutter, and
undersized pipelines and catch basins. Many of the system deficiencies can be
found in the older central and erstern parts of the City.
x
42 RP0033.8
large scale replacement of deficient facilities, if it occurs, will be part of
major street reconstruction projects. As part of the East Side Residential
Study (1981), a number of Storm Drainage deficiencies were identified.
Estimated total cost to correct the deficiencies was $854,000 in 19-27 dollars
and $930,000 in 1990 dollars, Small scale projects have been performed by the
City to repair sections of curb and gutter. Replacement of the alley systems
is not expected due to high cost and grade conditions.
�» Detention Basins
As mentioned above, the City operates a system of interconnected detention
basins that store runoff prior to pumping to the WID canal or the Mokelumne
River. These basins also function as park -like areas when not utilized for
storage of storm runoff.
r- A total of eight basins exist within the City's drainage service area. Basins
in subareas C (Pixley Park), B (Glaves Park), and E (Westgate Park) store
runoff prior to discharge to the Mokelumne River. Basins in subareas A-1
(Kofu Park), A-2 (Beckman Park), 8-1 (Vinewood School), D (Salas Park), and G
(along with the future F and I basins) store runoff prior to discharge to the
-- WID canal from pumping stations located on Cabrillo Circle and at Beckman
Park.
Current design standards for the detention basins require storage capacity for
the 100 -year 48-hour storm. Changes in hydrologic design data over the past
years may have resulted in some earlier basins being undersized. Future
updates of the Master Storm Drainage Plan will address this issue.
Master Storm Drainage Plan
s
City of Lodi Engineering Division updated the Master Storm Drainage Plan in
1988. This plan forms the principal basis for future expansions of the
drainage service area to serve the General Plan area. Major collecticn system
improvements and detention basin improvements are identified in the plan that
have been included in this report.
Master Storm Drainage Fee
The City has adopted a capital improvement program and fee-based financing
mechanisms for storm drainage facilities. Recently, this program was revised
to comply with AB 1600 regulations. This study updates the program and fee to
serve the General Plan Area. Also, additional fee categories have been
created from the former drainage fee to establish general conformance with the
other fee categories,
PLANNED STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
,. Storm drainage improvements to serve cuildout of the Genera Plan were, for
the most part, identified in the Master Storm Drainage Plan A summary of
43 RPo03y8
t;
those facilities is presented below and summarized in Table 5-1. Project
�. numbers listed in Table 5-1 are used to identify the location of projects
shown on Figure 5-1. Two existing reimbursement agreements, which are an
obligation of the costs for storm drain fund, are included.
P! Collection System
1•s
Drainage subareas established during planning for storm drainage improvements
within the existing City limits had already incorporated much of the land in
the expanded General Plan area. Subareas C, D,- E, F and G were already
s'Y planned for expansion of service to the west, east and south. New subarea I
will be established to provide drainage services to areas west of Lower
Sacramento Road, south of Kettieman Lane.
Major storm drainage trunk pipes are planned to serve the expanded General
Plan area. locations of these trunk improvements are shown on Figure 5-1.
i
k -j Detention Basins
p4 Expansion of existing detention basins in subareas C, E, and G are identified
W in the Master Plan. New detention basins are planned for subareas F and I.
ESTDOM COSTS AND PHASING
In Table 5-1, a summary of the stor... dra?^age projects and estimated
construction costs is presented. Estimated costs are referenced to the
Engineering News Record 20 Cities Average Construction Cost Index for January
1, 1990 of 4673. In the table, reference is made to Program Cost and Impact
04 Fee Fund. Program Costs are defined for Storm Drainage Facilities to be the
total probable construction cost for the facilities described. In other
words, the private developer is not expected to pay any portion of the cost to
construct Master Storm Drainage Facilities. Impact Fee Fund costs represent
the portion of Program Costs allocated to serve future growth or otherwise not
funded from other sources. In the case of Storm Drainage, all Master Planned
Facilities are wholly serving future growth and no funding other than
'I development impact fees is expected. Therefore, the amount in the Prograw
Cost column generally equals the amount in the Impact Fee Fund column. The
exception is the item labeled "Deficiencies". Storm drainage trunk lines
represent the total estimated cost of construction.
Phasing of the storm drainage improvements presented in Table 5-1 and is based
pal upon the Forecast of Units Constructed Over the General Plan Period (Appendix
A) provided by the City. Costs for projects serving General Plan development
4% funded on or before July 1, 1990 are shown in the current year (1490/4I).
Actual costs of these project have been adjusted to the base dollar of January
1, 1990.
R�+p
44 aM033-8
t:�
Pe" "—Ili
r-14
PON"
�W" P-114ams
araewqSAMS
mom
TABLE 5 - I
21-Aug-91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
Project
Program
knpact
Cad
fee Fund
1997)02
1992M
1992194
1994105
1995"
1998W
1987-2002
2002-2007,
UWWl
Pbdey Park drainage basin.
$893.000
$693.000
30
5177.000
$0
so
$0
$222.000
5294.000
$0
i5cparkdon and development of
Basin -G- according to plan
adopted in 1988 O)wg 88EW4
MSDIM
Turner PA&d dorm drain. 80 It
$213.000
$213.000
SO
SD
so
so
so
$0
so
$213.000
016V MU0154-.8ad
1.150;10142- storm drains
In Turner Road and Guild Avenue.
1,45OWN
PlaelitrestdonadmIn
$42.000
$42.000
so
so
so
$o
to
$0
$42.000
so
consisting of Sw N of 3V
storm dAlin and menholes.
SDIM
Thurman litred storm drain
$70.000
$70.000
$30.000
so
so
so
to
so
$40.000
so
aj
conslighgoll.=1138'
i''
dorm drain and manholes.
Usow-Bads
c, done diiin
CoNection bowd"
$172.000
$172.000
so
so
so
$0
to
so
$86.000
1188.000
cassis ngofllll and3V
pipm exteaft mulls and
seer Expands eandoe area to
:i ,MSD1008.
&wW*en Drive tto(m drain.
$129.000
$129.000
$0
so
so
$43.000 $43.000
$43.000
so
30
covaction how"s extending;
�_..swvlce
was north wTurnw:
PiP68 did WIN CaFFYnMW 10
JF.
Everwom DYW storm drain
coilection bewdes
$83.000
$63,000
so
$21,000
$21.000
$21.000
$0
$0
$0
so
extendir.10
owvke south of S-b**L
improvements inchwo 30• "A
36, pipes that WN carry
PAGE I OF3
.;.n•;Y. ,...v.r...v y. ..•.,... 1. :.i' '::•.,;.n, ... ... .. :. ... 'n:.... r'.: r.:'. .. ..v ..� � .. may. � '. .�,ll. �:T
go" MIA" mom
PAGE 20F 3
TABLE 5 —1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
$Project
Program
Impact
Number
I
Cost
Fee Fund
1981!92
1992M
1993194
1994195
1985M
1996!97
1907-2002
2002-2007
MSDI010
Westgate Park expansion and
$1,934.000
$1,934.000
S0
$1.343.000
$157.000
$157.000
$277.000
s0
s0
s0
development Park Improvement,
are not included.
MS131011
Development of new Basin IF'.
$3,510,000
$3,519,000
s0
so
$0
s0
so
SO
$2,632.000
5887.000
located north of Kenteman Lane
and west of Lowvr Sacramento
Road. Service was Includes
land west of Lower Sacramento
_
Road. north of Ketfteman. and
south of the WID canal. Park
improvements are not included.
MMI012
Basin IF' storm drain
$367.000
$367,000
W
so
s0
$0
so
5o
so
$367.000
collection facilities extending
north of Basin IF' Including
A
l .
54'..48'. and 30' pipes.
MSDI013
Storm drain consisting of 35'
$149,000
$149.000
so
so
so
so
so
so
$149.000
so
and 30' pipes extending
easterly from the existing 64'
trunk One north of Kettlemsn
Lane. Exact tocat" not yet
determined.
MSDI014
Basin IF, outfalf storm drain
$164.000
$184,000
so
$0
$0
s0
W
W
$164,000
so
consisting of 30' pipes
extending easterly from the
basin to the existing 54' trunk
line.
11r1SDI0115
Basin 'G'storm drain
$281,000
$261.000
$0
$0
$0
so
s0
to
$261,000
$0
collection facilities
consisting consisting of 48'
and 38' pipes wdendtng
southerly wW easterly from
Basin'G'. Exact location not
yet determined.
PAGE 20F 3
!°0" 41-14 kill"
NOTE -
(1) PreviouslyApproprialed from Drainage Fees .
I
PAGE3CF3
TABLE 5 —1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTSAN3 PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
Project
Program
Impact
tNumber
Cort
Fee Fund
1981192 1982193 1993194
1984/85 1995198
1998197
1887-2002
2002-2007
MSDI018
Basin'G' collection facilities
$84.000
$84.000
$84.000 (1) m $0
$0 so
$0
$0
$0
consisting of 30' and 38' pipes
extending westerly and
northerly from the existing 38'
trunk in Orchis Way. Exact
Location not yet determined.
MSDIO17
Expansion and development of
$3.744.000
$3.744.000
$108.000 (1) 50 $2.000.000
$50,000 $0
$817.000
$769.000
$0
Basin 10'. Golf course
Improvements are not Included.
MSDi018
MaderPianRJpdetes
$50.000
$50.000
$10.000 (1) $0 $0
$0 $0
$20.000
520.000
s0
MSDIO20
Development of Basin 111
$3,819,000
$3.019,000
s0 SO SO
SO SO
SO
SO
f3.819.000
located south of Xattleman Lane
and west of Lower Sacramento
Road
MDSIo21
Basin 11, collection wiltias
$285.000
$285.000
SO SO SO
30 $0
s0
SO
$285.000
.
consisting of 30.38.42, and
48 inch pipes extended north
of the basin. -
- . MDS1022
Basin 'I* discharge consisting .
$275,000
$275,000
s0 SO SO
SO SO
SO
s0
$275,000
of 42' inch pipe extending north
and east to Basin 'G'
LWrades to Existing Facilides
$1,051,000
s0
s0 SO SO
SO SO
$0
$0
SO
Parkwest (E -area)
. -.
Reimbursement Agreement:...
$268.938
$268.838
SO SO SO
SO SO
$288.836
-$0
SO
Sumsest (G - area)
Reimbursement Agreement
$154,889
$154.869
s0 SO s0
s0 s0
$154.689
$0
s0
.
'"S',��„Tti 3 � �� �C,'rA _ :icy%x'_d .cwi:: Ef,%sn"K��.',1..`!;N'to ; <` c'r /✓i ^.:V ✓".,;,r :.y c °� ; 4 i.� .„, >'`'t',ON
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE COST:
517,285,707
$16,234,707p$212.00.,
.FS 3{1;00(f, 52,77.8,01)0..
5271,000 .fS$2000Q.::St,523,7,OTe
54,3a
,W','b5.8i2,
NOTE -
(1) PreviouslyApproprialed from Drainage Fees .
I
PAGE3CF3
i
G P STUDY AREA
'
co
p
DLF
'Op4
019
r E
-------t i e 6 P i i II �. 1��u l i ,i MSDI 005
F
S-tuwm
D
o MOI 022 ���.1S�, l
/ ty_..nMSDT 017
t
. MSDI 015
Pr�--
LEGEND
l=ame Basin
Fvue Poetine
MSGI 005 E;S:Apo,*- m . om �.
Drainoge Area 4'U
LOU c[wu.► . AM
FIGURE 5-1 STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
48
Relationship of Storn Drainage Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between the projects and
improvements funded by the fee and the type of development upon which the fee
is imposed. Essentially, it is incumbent upon the City to show that the
development is served by and/or benefits from the public facilities to be
h financed by the fee revenue.
City of Lodi Storm Drainage Master Plan presents a soundly conceived and
comprehensive plan for providing storm drainage services to all areas of the
General Plan. Only those improvement costs benefitting the areas included in
the fee program are included in the fee program.
Relationship of Storm Drainage Projects to Land Uses
�.. Once the relationship between the facilities to be constructed and the land
uses has been established, the burden of financing is to be distributed to
`-' each land use in proportion to its use of, or benefit from, the improvements.
This is accomplished through the use of a Residentiai Acre Equivalent (RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates the relative responsibility to pay for
improvements for each land use category in relation to the single family
detached residential category.
The concept of RAE is based upon defining a base demand that, in this case, is
selected to be an acre of low density single family detached dwelling units.
The base acre has an assigned RAE of 1.0 . All other land use categories have
RAE factors that show their relative demand for Storm Drainage Facilities
compared to the base acre of low density single family housing.
Based upon the cost of facilities to provide comparable levels of service to
residential and commercial/industrial areas, the City has adopted a
commercial/industrial fee that is 1.33 times the residential fee. Following a
review of tete methodology employed by the City, it is concluded the
methodology is reasonable and fairly compares the demand for storm drainage
facilities by the various land uses. Therefore, the City adopted (and
defacto) RAE schedule is incorporated into this study.
Recomended Fees
The Storm Drainage Facilities Fee is shown in Table 5-2. The total fee is
$7,910 per low density residential acre.
w.
49 RP00334
! ro
TABLE 5-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
STORM DRAINAGE
Lancia
RESIDENTIAL
an s a c atRESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
rot High Density
East Side Residential
6.4
.?" PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Acre
Low Density
rl
Medium Density
1.00
High Density
Acre
COMMERCIAL
$7,910
Neighborhood Commercial
1.00
General Commercial
Acre
Downtown Commercial
$10,520
Office Commercial
1.33
$10,520
Acre
INDUSTRIAL
$10,520
Light Industrial
1.33
Heavy Industrial
Acre
1.00
$7,910
Acre
1.00
$7,910
Acre
1.00
$7,910
Acre
1.00
$7,910.
Acre
Acre
1:88
7 7',
1 818
Acre
1.00
$7,910
Acre
1.33
$10,520
Acre
1.33
$10,520
Acre
1.33
$10,520
Acre
1.33
$10,520
Acre
1.33
$10,520
Acre
1.33
$10,520
NOW Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald 8 Associates.
Obi
too
50
I
OM
CHAPTER 6
STREETS AND ROADS
OVERVIEW
For as long as the City of iodi has been in existence, streets and roads have
been the primary system used in intercity travel. With the change in City-
wide growth, there welcome a need to improve the streets and roads in the
community. The Draft General Plan will expand the City and additional traffic
will be generated within the community. As a result new streets will be
needed and existing streets will need to be improved. The following sections
will describe these improvements, the City obligation for funding, and the
fees calculated to reimburse the City costs.
Existing Traffic Conditions
Existing traffic counts were collected by the City of Lodi Public WO&
Dep rtment in 1987 at numerous locations throughout the City by the City and
their traffic consultant. The data were used to establish the current Level
of Service (LOS) within the project study area. Currently, roadways and
intersections throughout the City are operating at a LOS of C or better with
the exception of Hutchins StreetNttleman Lane intersection, which operates
at a LOS D. The City of Lodi considers C to be the standard level of service
with anything less considered to be substandard.
Circulation Plan
In December of 1989, a City-wide circulation study was prepared by the Traffic
-� Consultant, TJKM, that identified the impacts associated with the envisioned
General Plan. As mentioned earlier, the existing traffic counts were done by
the City's staff. Incorporating this information along with using a computer
based travel demand model, TJl4111 was able to forecast future traffic conditions
throughout the project study area. Based upon these forecasts, road sections
of future streets and improvements to existing streets were identified.
A listing of general street, intersection, signalization, and interchange
improvements was submitted to the City along with the circulation study.
Working with City staff and the City improvement standards, cross-sections
,.� were prepared for future streets and improvements to existing streets. These
are discussed in the following section.
Existing Deficiencies
Existing def-- ;ncies are relatively minor and mainly consist of deteriorated
pavement, and curb and gutter and drainage facilities on some streets.
Project costs to correct existing deficiencies are not funded by development
impact fees unless the correction is incidental to providing higher capacity
C1
' C 1 RPM"
a..
to serve future growth. For example, Lockeford Street between the Southern
,® Pacific Railroad and Cherokee Lane needs to be widened to four lanes and this
project is included in the fee program. Incidental to widening Lockeford
4.< Street, curb and gutter will be reconstructed along the widened stretch.
Reconstruction, overlays and other maintenance activities are not included in
. the fee program. funding for these activities is derived from the general
fund, gas taxes, TDA, Proposition 111 gas tax, Measure K sales tax, and other
sources. Typically, general fund allocations are strictly used for operations
and maintenance (0 a Vii) activities. Funds from other sources are allocated to
0 and M, capital and reconstruction activities.
" Based upon the current budget for capital maintenance and reconstruction of
$1.66 million, a forecast was prepared for the program cost for similar work
dcring the General Plan period. The total is shown in Table 6-1 as
r Enhancements to Existing Facilities in the amount of $26.56 million. Funding
for these program costs is anticipated to come primarily from General Fund,
Gas Tax and Transportation Development Act (TDA) sources in proportion to
7 existing funding levels of 52%, 26%, and 22%, respectively.
PLANNED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
r±
TABLE 6-1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Major Planned
Program
impact
�Projed
Number
Facilities
Casts
Fee Fund
1991192 1992!93
1993184
1994195
1995M
1996/97
1997-2002
2002-2007
MTS5001
Restriping of Kettleman Lane
$22.000
$22.000
$o so
$0
s0
s0
$0
$22.000
$0 _
(S -Lanes, Divided)from Lower
SacramentoRoad lo Hom Lane
MTSI002
ResbWng of Kettleman Lane
$22.000
$22.000
so so
so
so
to
$22.000
so
$0
(6-1aren. Divided) fromilam
Lane to StocFon Street.
MTSIOW
Restriping of Kettleman Lane
$12,000
$12.000
so $0
to
s0
$o
$12.000
$o
s0
(6- Lanes. Divided) from
Stockton Sleet to Cherokee
Lane.
MT="
Daefyn, Consuuctlan. WW
$5.106.000
$3.575.000
s0 s0
$0
s0
SO
$1.787.500
$1.787.500
to
engineering associated with
widening Kettleman Lane (Highway
12) @ State Routs 99. (Measure
w
•K• Funding . S700,000. State
Funding.=$831.000)
MTS1005
Widening of Kettleman Lane
$519,000
$519,000
s0 s0
SO
$259.500
to
s0
s0
3259.500
'(4-Lyut(a Divided) from
Beckman Road to Guild Avenue.
MTS1006
Widening of Lower Sacramento
$463,250
$278,000
so $0
so
SO
$30.580
$47.260
$200.160
s0
Road (8 - Lanes. Divided) from
Turner Road to Lodi Awnue.
(Measure'K' Funding a $185,250)
MTSt007
Widening d Lower Sacramento
$326,000
$195.000
So s0
5o
to
$21,450
$33.150
$190.400
s0
Road (6 = lanes. Divided) from
Elm Street to Taylor Road.
(Measure' K' Furl ing- $130,000)
MTS"
VAidening of LotverSacramento
$228,000
$137.000
s0 so
s0
$0
$0
$0
$137.000
SO
Road (6- Lanes. Divided) from
Taylor Roadto Kettleman Lane.
(Measure I K' Funding = :91.000)
Page t of 9
Project
Major Manned
Program
Impact
Number
Facditiea
Coats
Fee Fund
1991192
1902197
1993194
1894MS
1996M
1906107
19V-2002
2002-2007
MTS10o9
WldaningofLower Sacramonto
$235.250
$141,000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$0
$141,000
SO
Road (8 - Lades. Divided) from
Kettieman Lane t)Orchte Drive.
poseurs,'K' Funding-$04.250)
MTS*lIO
Widening of Lower Sacramento
$195.000
$117,000
30
SO
30
SO
SO
$0
$117,000
SO
Road (8 -Lanes. Divided) from
Orchis Drh4 to Century Blvd.
(Measure 'K' Funding- $78.000)
MTSI011
Widening of Lower Sacramento
$300.250
$180.000
30
50
SO
SO
$0
$0
$0
$180,000
Road (6- Lanes. Divided) from
century Blvd. to Kristen Court
(Measure'K' Funding- $120250)
MTS1012
W1denlag of Lower Sacramento
$130.000
$78.000
SO
$0
SO
SO
SO
30
SO
$78.000
.p
Road (6-Lanes.Dh4ded)fram
Kristen Courtto Harney Lana.
(Measure'K' Funding- $52.000)
MTS1013
Widening 6f Harney lana
$173.000
$173.000
SO
30
SO
SO
g0
$0
$173.000
SO
(4 - Lanes) horn Lower
Sacramento Road East 2,850 40L
MTSI014
Widening of Harney Lane
$173.000
$173.000
SO
So
$0
SO
S0
$0
$173.000
SO
(4 - Lanes) from W.I.D.
crossing Wed 2.650 feet.
MTSf015
Widening of Harney Lane
$120.000
$120.000
SO
SO
$0
SO
$0
$o
$120.000
90
(4 -Lanes) ban W.LD.
croseino Fast2.250 feet.
MTSI018
Widening of Harney Lane
$120,000
$120.000
30
$o
SO
SO
SO
SO
$120,000
SO
(4 -Lanes) from Hutchins
Street to Stockton Street.
MTSM17
Widening ofHamey Lane
$147.000
$147,000
SO
SO
SO
SO
S0
$o
$147,000
SO
(4 - Lanes) from Stockton
StreettoCherokee Lane.
P°'4 pmm room raw" wmw€ "v t P" rrrq some
_.
TABLE 6-1 21 -hug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project
Major Plermed
Program
Impact
Number
Faclades
Code -
fee Fund
1901102
1902/93
1993184
1994195
1995198
1998107
1997-2002
2002-2007
tATS1018
Widening of Harney Lane
$179,000
$179,000
s0
so
so
so
so
to
so
$179.000
(4- Lanes) from Lower
Sacramento Road to the
General Plan Boundary.
164TS1010
Highway 12
$90,000
$90,000
$00.000
s0
s0
so
so
so
s0
s0
Protect Study Report
--MTS1020
Design, construction. and
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
so
SO
SO
so
s0
s0
s0
$1,500,000
engineering associated vath
widening of Turner Road over
State Route 99.
UTS1021
Restriping of Lodi Avenue
$13,000
$13,000
s0
50
s0
SO
$0
s0
$0
$13,000
(4 -Lanes) from Cherokee
East 3.000 list
to
,
MTS1022
Reconstruction of Lodi Avenue
533.000
$33.000
SO
so
so
s0
s0
so
$33,000
sc
(4 - Lanes) from Guild
Avenue West 700 feet.
NITSI11123
Rewlphtg of Turner Road
$11.000
$11,000
so
SO
so
SO
$0
so
s0
$11.000
(4 - Lanes) frau Beckman Road
East 2.500 feel - < r
MYS1024
Widening ofTumerRoad
$22,000
$22,000
SD
so
s0
s0
$0
$0
s0
$22,000
(4- Lanes) ban Guild Avenue
West 700 feet.
MTSl02S
WideningofCenturyBW.
$240.000
$240,000
SO
SO
s0
s0
$0
$240,000
s0
so
(4 - Lanes) from Lower
Sacramento Road east 4,100
feet.
MTM26
Widening ofCentury Blvd.
$31.000
$31,000
$0
so
$31,000
so
so
so
so
SO
(4 - Lanes) from Stockton
Street to Chickadee Lane.
Page 3 d: 9
Page 4 of 9
TABLE 6-1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITAL
COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Prcim Major Planned
Program
6mpact
Number Fecgdias
Coate
Fee Fund
1991192
1982!93
19933
1994M
1996M
WNW
1997-2002
2002-,2007
MTS1027 Widening ofSlockion street
$81.000
$81.000
$40.500
SO
$40.500
$0
s0
30
s0
s0
(4 - Lanes) from Kettleman
Lame taHarney Lane.
MTSIM Widening of Guild Avenue
$168.000
$188.000
$20.160
$10.080
$10.060
$10.080
$10.080
Sta.080
$48.720
$48.720
(4-12mes)kam Lodi
Avenue toKettlernm Lane.
MTSW29. Widen rp of Tumor flood
$84.000
$84.000
so
s0
s0
$0
$42.000
$42.000
s0
$0
(4 - Land km Lower
SecramenEO RosQ Wert to the
General Plan Boundary. .
MTSIM Widening of Lodi Avenue
$84.000
$94.000
so
$0
so
s0
$0
$0
s0
$84.000
(4 - Lona) from Lower
Sacramento Road West tothe
(Yi General Plan Boundary.
rn
MTSW31 Widening of Kettleman Lane
$178.000
$178.000
s0
$0
s0
s0
s0
30
s0
$178.000
(4 ,- Lanes) from Lower
Sacramento Road West tothe
Gowal Plan Boundary.
MTSW32 Widening dLockeford Street
$1.267.000
$1.267.000
s0
30
s0
s0
s0
s0
So
$1.287.000
(4 - Lanes) from Smamento
-Street to Cherokee Lara
f tTSW33 Wildenhp of Victor Rd#iwy 12)
$342.000
$342.000
s0
s0
so
$0
s0
so
W
$342.000
to 4�an�e.
MTS0001 Master Plan 1987
$78.187
$78.187
$78.187
30
so
so
30
s0
s0
$0
MTS0002 Master Plan and
$20.000
$20.000
s0
W
so
$0
s0
$20.000
s0
$0
C.I.P. Update -1997
MT80003 5 Year Master Plan
$20.000
$20.000
so
s0
Sa
$0
s0
s0
$20.000
$0
endC.l.P Update -2002
Page 4 of 9
Page 5 of 9
TABLE 6-1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL
COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Major Planned
Program
Impact
�Pfo)sct
Number
Facilities
Costs
Fes Fund
1991192 1992193
1993194
1994.185
1995188
1998187
1997-2002
2002-2007
MTS001
Installation of traffic
$95,000
$95,000
to SO
$05,000
to
90
So
SO
to
signal located at the int of
Lower Sacramento Road and
Turner Road.
MTSo02
installation of traffic
$95.000
$95.000
So SO
$0
SO
1m
So
to
$95.000
signal located at the int of
Tumer Roadand the State
Route 99 Southbound Ramp.
MTS003
Installation oltraffic signal
595,000
$47,500
$47.500 $0
$0
$0
to
$0
SO
$0
located at the int. of Victor
Road and Cluff Avenue. (50%)
MTS004
installation of traffic
$95.000
$47,500
$47,500 30
90
$a
90
SO
$0
to
signal locatedal the Int. of
s�
Lodi Avenueand Lower
SacramentoRood. (60%)
MTS005
installation of traffic signal
$05,000
$47,500
So SO
$0
SO
to
SO
$47.500
SO
located at the Int. of Lodi
Avenue and Mills Avenue. (50%)
MTS008
installation of traffic
$00.000
$45,000
SO $0
to
$o
SO
SO
$45.000
So
signal locatedat the Im. of
Lower SacramentoRoad and Vine
Street. (50%)
MTS007
Installation of traffic
$95.000
$47,500
$47.500 SO
90
to
5o
$0
$0
SO
signal located at the int. of
Kettleman Lane and Mills
Avenue. '(50%)
MTS008
installation of traffic
$95.000
$95,000
SO SO
$0
to
$95.000
SO
So
SO
signal located at the Int. of
Kettleman Lane and the State
Route 99 Southbound Ramp.
Page 5 of 9
TABLE 6-1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETSAND ROADS
Project
Major Planted
Program
Impact
*m bw
Faciales
Coda
Fee Fund
1901/82 1902M
1993W
1994M
1995"
199M
1987-2002
2002-2007
MTS000
Iniellati n of traffic
195.000
595.000
50 so
so
$0
$0
$93.000
So
$0
signal located at bre Mc of
Kettleman lane and Beckman
Road..
MTS010
Installation of traffic
$95.000
$95.000
$0 $0
50
$0
$95.000
50
so
$0
aignd located at the kw. of
Lower Sacramento Road and
Haney tans.
UTS01I
lnstaddionoftralfio
$90.000
$90.000
so 30
$0
$0
so
so
;99.000
so
signal located at the lot. of
Harney Lane and M91s Avenue.
:UTSM.:Installation
of traffic -
$00.000
$90.000
$0 $fl
m
SD
m
$O
$D
$90,000
signal located at do Int. or
Harney Lane and Ham Lane.
- MM13
Installation of waft - ...
$90.000
$0.000
10 - $45.000
$0
$0
$0
$0
So
to
signal located at bre int. of
Hemet' Lane and SmcktoA
,.Steel (5096)
MTS014
li stelatim of trafflo
590.000
$45.000
$45.000 10
SD
$0
$0
SD
10
$d
^: signal located at1M lot. of ..
Elm Street and Lower Sacramento
1. .. MTS015
kfstanation of traloc -
$90.000
$45.000
SO So
$0
$45.000
$0
$0
$0
$0
.signal boated st file Mit. of
Lodrof rd Wed and Stockton
Street (5096)
MT8018
installation of tmmo
$90.000
$45.000
$45.000 $0
$0
$0
$0
So
$o
$0
.':.' signal located at the InL of
. Turner Road and Stock!on
`Street. (50%)
Pages of 9 .,
TABLE 6-1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITAL
COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project
L4a)or Planned
Program
Impact
Number
Facilities
Costa
Fee Fund
1991122
1992193
1963/94
1994M
1985199
1999197
1997-2002
2002-2W7
MTS017
Installation oftraffic c signal
$90.000
$45.000
$0
$0
545.000
$0
w
$0
$0
so
located at the InL of Pine St.
and Stockton Street. (500A)
MT80/9
installation of tramc signal
$90.000
$45.000
$0
$0
so
$0
$45.000
$0
$D
so
WAW at the Int. of Turner
Road and We Avenue. (60%)
w6019,
Installation of frame signet
$90.000
$45.000
$0
$0
so
x0
s0
$45.000
$D
so
loured at the int. of Turner
Road and Edgewood. (60%)
MTSM
installation of traffic
x90.000
$45.000
$0
$0
so
x0
so
$45.000
$D
so
signal located at the InL of
Ketlleman Lane and Central
Avenue. (50%)
co -
,." MTS021
fnstallsdon of tr&Mc
x9D.000
$45.000
so
x0
s0
$0
s0
$45.000
$0
$0
signal boated at the Int. of
Ehn Street and Mille Avenuo.(50%1
..
Wpm:
Installation of traffic signal
$105,000
$52,600
so
$0
so
$0
x0
50
$52.500
so
:.
located at the Int. of Cherokee
Lam and VIM Str"L (60%)
MTS028
Installation of traffic signal
$95.000
$47.500
x0
x0
s0
$0
50
$0
$47.500
so
located at the Int. of Ham Lane
and Century Blvd. (504b)
ifTS024
Installation oftratfscsignal
$105.000
$52.500
$0
x0
so
$0
s0
$0
552.500
$0
located et the int. of Cherokee
Lane and Elm Skeet. (60%)
mectio1, ":widening
of w1D Sox Culvert
$296.000
$290.000
x0
$0
so
$0
w
$295.000
so
so
e
a" Lower Sacramnto Road
approuL 13601set South of
Lodi Avenue.
Page 7 of 9.
r"
fsa"
..� .....
..ed.
.....,w
TABLE 6-4
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL
COSTS AND
PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project Major Planned
Program
Impact
Number Fadlttius
Coate
Fee Fund
199V92 1992/93
1993314
1994195 1905!98
1985!97
1997-2002
2002-2007
MSC002 Widening of W1D Scot Cuhred
$150,000
$75,000
30 50
SO
SO
30
50
$75,000
SO
along Turner Road approx.
2,400 toot West of Lower
Sacramento Road. (.SO% S.J. Co.)
MBC003 Widening of WID Sox Culvert
$141,000
$141,000
to 30
$D
$0
to
so
$141,000
$0
along Mills A+anue approx.
100 feet South ut Royal
Creat Drive.
MBC004 Widening of WM Scot Culvert
$218.000
$218,000
to So
5o
50
SO
$0
$218.000
so
along Hamey Lana approx.
3,300 teat West of Hutch!na
StreeL
MRRX001 Widening of S.P. railroad
$202,000
$101,000
$0 $0
$0
SO
to
$0
$101,000
$0
C> crossing on Lower Sacramento
Road 1,400 R. North of Tumer
Road. W% S.J CO3
MRRXo04 Widening and upgrade of
$202,000
5202.000
30 30
$0
50
SO
So
$0
$202,000
protection devices of the
railroad croaskq at goo int
of Loclebrd Street and GuM
Avenue...
MRRX005 Widening of Central California
$222,000
5222.000
$0 SO
50
$2
SO
$0
So
$222.000
Traction Co. crossing on Victor .
Rd. (Hwy 12)1.350 IL East of
Guild Avenue; .
MRRX008 Widening and upgrade of
$227,000
$227,000
$0 SO
So
So
90
to
$227,000
Sp
protection dWoes of dW
railroad crossing at Lha Udersedia
of Beckman, Road and Lodi
Avenua.
MRRX007. Constmcdon of reilosd
$215.000
$215,000
to So
50
$0
So
S0
$215.000
go
crossing at lA. of Lodi
Avenue and Guild Ave. .
Page 8 of 9
— ��� rrw .......� n.... ■r..�,� ^pro mot aaeiaYr+ wrr r.rr �.rn a.u.,n v�wr+1 WOY'� :aa�!
TABLE 6-1 -21-Aug-91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITALCOSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Projsd Major Piartned Program Impact
member Faeflitks Costs Fee Fund 19911192 1982/93 1993194 1994195 1995" 1998197 1997-2002 2002-2007
MRITM8 Construction of railroad $189,000 $189,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $189,000 $0
crossing at int of Clutl
Avenue and Thurmat Street
Page 9 of 9
MRR> W Widening and upgrade of
$215,000
$215,000
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0
$0
$0
$215,000
proteMicn devices of Central
Calm Traction Co. Xing on
Kettlemen Ln. 1.350 R East of
Guild Ave.
MRF=10 Widening of SP railroad crossing
$202,000
$202,000
50
SO
SO
SO $0
SO
$202.000
30
on Harney Ln. 1,380 0. East of
Hutchins Street.
upgrades to Exlstlnp Facilities
S".580,000
$0
$0
SO
so
SO g0
g0
SO
$0
,�.
flaw Development Share of Exiating
Fadlitlet
e.. Hutchins SL WMsnkq-
Tokay to Lodi (0346)
$41,628
b. Hutchins SL Widening-
Rimby to Vine (68%)
$151,458
o. Lockeford SL Widening -
Pleasant to SPRR (80%) .
$58.938
d ChetokaelCentt" Inter-
section Widening (t00%)'
$46.373
a. Cea w wlb Boa Culvort to%)
$109.551
L Stockton St. WMenin9- '
Konleman to Vine (100%)
$463.597
p. Stockton St. WMening-
Vlne.toTokay(100%)
582,235
h.. TumerAauttlrltersecllon
Widening (100%) '
$198.835
i`
NEW DEVELOPMENT SHARE SWMTAL:
51,094,000
$1,094,000
$68.375
$68.375
588,375
$88,37S $88.375
. $68,375
5341,875
5341.875
AND
$45,400.937
545,290,687
.....,
:'Jill
1v4_.:r,.,
,
Page 9 of 9
Signal lights, bridge crossings, and freeway interchanges are not privately
constructed facilities and are completely funded by the City through
development impact fees and other funding sources such as Federal, State,
County and Measure K.
Street. and Road Improvements
A listing of the street and rcad improvement projects included in the
development impact fee program is provided in Table 6-1. Location of these
projects is shown on Figure 6-2. For the most part, the improvement projects
consist of new construction and modification of routes.
For the purpose of identifying the portion of each major route that will be
funded by the City, the typical sections described above have been assumed.
The developer obligation, as described in the previous section, is limited to
right-of-way and improvements to construct a major collector (68 feet).
In the circulation study prepared for the City, the need for new traffic
signals was identified. Costs of these signals have been included in the
development impact fee program. At locations where minimum CalTrans signal
a�. warrants have already been met, 50 percent of the improvement cost has been
allocated to the Impact Fee Fund.
Freeway Improvements
�. As recommended by TJKM, interchange improvements for Kettleman Lane/State
Route 99 and Turner Road/State Route 99 will be necessary to maintain a LOS C
` or better. Proposed interchange improvements at Kettleman Lane/State Route 99
call for the realignment of Beckman Road. Currently, Beckman Road is located
about 225 feet east of the northbound ramp onto State Route 99, a distance
,i that is considered too close for two signalized intersections. Realignment of
Beckman is proposed in the environmental impact report for Kettleman
Properties located at the northeast corner of Kettleman Lane and Beckman Road.
The proposed design constitutes a realignment of both Beckman Road and the
northbound offramp, but is still subject to review by Caltrans and approval by
the California Transportation Commission. As part of the Kettleman
interchange work, a route study will be prepared that will address traffic and
'-� circulation at the interchange.
62 RPM33.8
Measure K identified the
SR 99/12 interchange as a funded project in the
amount of $700,000. For
the purposes of this study,
it is assumed that 30
percent of the interchange
costs will be derived from
sources outside this fee
program. A portion of the
30 percent will be Measure
K funds and the other
cculd be State funds or possibly additional growth in
Lodi not covered by this
study.
MY
62 RPM33.8
t5d mm
(R/W} OW
slope To a
ground.2.5' cas I Face of Curb to Face of Curb. IF -F] 52' C&S 2.5 -
?.SSG
Isymmetrioaa
S 2,5*19
2.5'
Vertlosl C.G&S. vZt., C �G&s'
MAJOR COLLECTOR
TWO LANE
MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION BY DEVELOPER
FIGURE 6-1 TYPICAL STREET SECTION
. " i
WTA
s.. Pmou oeaoaa+
FIGURE 6-2 STREET IMPROVEMENTS �p
CU
64
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
In Table 6-1, a summary of the street projects and development impact fee
funding is presented. Estimated costs are referenced to the Engineering News
Record 20 Cities Construction Cost Index for January 1, 1990 of 4673. Roadway
improvement costs reflect only the City's funding responsibility per the
proposed City Reimbursement Policy and do not reflect the total estimated
construction cost.
In preparing the estimates of construction cost, the developer obligation,
City obligation and development impact fee funding for the projects, the
following factors were considered. The City obligation for funding of
projects includes everything not required of the developer including special
medians, landscaping, and right-of-way.
�^ Phasing of the improvements is based upon the Forecast of Units Constructed
v Over the General Plan Period (Appendix A) provided by the City. In Table
6-1, the phasing is divided by year for the first seven years followed by two
five-year increments. Costs for the projects serving the General Plan
development funded on or before July 1, 1991 are shown in the current year
d (1991/92). Actual costs of these projects Rave been adjusted to the
January 1, 1990 dollar reference.
Lower Sacramento Road is also included in the list of projects funded, in
part, by Measure K. Based upon discussion with the City, the funding of Lower
Sacramento Road improvements are divided amongst the City fee program,
developer and Measure K. Obligations of the developer have been discussed.
For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that Measure K funds will pay
for 2 lanes (one each direction). Therefore, the obligation of the City Fee
Program is for 2 lanes and the center median and curbs.
Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between the fees use and the
type of development on which the fee is imposed. In order to establish this
relationship, we must first demonstrate that the type of development upon
which the fee is to be charged will, in fact, use, be served by, or benefit
from the public facilities to be financed.
Each and every land use will benefit from the streets and road facilities
within the community. Residents use the streets to get to and from work,
shopping, and entertainment. Commerce and industry use the streets for
deliveries, customers, and employees. Each and every land use in the Proposed
General Plan will benefit from the facilities constructed as part of the
capital improvements program and, therefore, is appropriately part of the fee
program.
65 RP0031B
Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to Land Uses
Once the relationship between the facilities to be constructed and the land
uses has been established, the burden of financing is to be distributed to
each land use in proportion to its use of, or benefit from, the improvements.
This is accomplished through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates the relative responsibility to pay for
improvements for each land use category in relation to the single family
detached residential category.
i' Trip generation factors developed and used in the Circulation Study form the
,N basis for calculating an RAE schedule for streets and road facilities. Based
upon recommendation of the City Transportation Consultant, trip generation
-y factors for commercial categories were reduced by 30 percent to compensate for
pass -by trips. As a result, net trip generation factors were calculated for
each land use and compared to the base RAE factor of 1.0 for single family
detached residential. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship
between the cost of streets and roads projects and the financing burden placed
on each land use as based upon their relative generation and demand for
streets and road facilities. RAE schedule for streets and roads is shown in
Table 6-2.
a
Recommended Fees
The Streets and Road Facilities Fee is shown in Table 6-2. The total fee is
�-, $5,470 per low density residential acre.
Regional Facilities
The fee program presented in this report does not include funding for
improvements to roads outside the City of Lodi General Plan boundaries. The '
cent sales tax override for transportation (Measure K) recently approved by
San Joaquin County voters, includes a provision for Regional Traffic
Mitigation fees to be adopted by January 1, 1993. This fee program will need
to be modified in coordination with San Joaquin County and the Council of
Governments (the local transportation authority) to include a regional
element.
RPM313.8
w
f
f
TABLE 6-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
AND ROADS
oft
{ Land Use Categories Unit RAE Fee
Acre
1.00
$5,470
RESIDENTIAL
1.96
Low Density
Acre
Medium Density
$16,680
High Density
'_ j
East Side Residential
3
1.00
$5,470
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
1.96
Low Density
Acre
Medium Density
r
High Density
j
C �$
$10,390
N
COMMERCIAL
$20,900
Neighborhood Commercial
1.90
General Commercial
Acre
Downtown Commercial
$17,890
Office Commercial
2.00
$10,940
Acre
INDUSTRIAL
$6,950
Light Industrial
,
Heavy Industrial
Acre
1.00
$5,470
Acre
1.96
$10,720
Acre
3.05
$16,680
Acre
1.00
$5,470
Acre
1.00
$5,470
Acre
1.96
$10,720
Acre
3.05
$16,680
Acre
1.90
$10,390
Acre
3.82
$20,900
Acre
1.90
$10,390
Acre
3.27
$17,890
Acre
2.00
$10,940
Acre
1.27
$6,950
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992-
Sources:
99111992Sources: Nolte a Associates and Angus McDonald g Associates.
f7
CHAPTER 7
Level of Service
Target for emergency response time is 3 minutes anywhere in the City.
Currently, emergency response times are under this goal. There were a total
of 65 sworn personnel and 33 non -sworn personnel authorized in 1988/89. These
figures reveal a service standard of 0.95 sworn personnel and 0.47 non -sworn
personnel per 1,000 persons served. Currently, the department is understaffed
relative to the standard described above by 11 sworn and 5 non -sworn
personnel.
The service level that is typically espoused for Police is so -many officers
per 1,000 residents. This service standard does not account for employees,
shoppers, tourists and ether persons present in the service area during the
day Qu may use or require assistance from the Police Department. Developing
a standard in terms of "Persons Served" considers all persons who may use
"~ these services so that the service standard also captures the burden these
other participants will place on the facilities. This is done through
estimating the demand or use of the facilities by persons associated with each
land use type.
Instead of determining the use from each unit of land developed, as is the
procedure with RAEs, the use of each land use is converted into a use per
person. In the case of residential land uses this takes the form of use per
resident, and in the case of non-residential uses is a use per employee.
These use per "person served" figures are then normalized around the Single
Family land use to produce "Persons Served" factors which are applied to a
forecast of the total number of residents and employees from each land use to
compute the total persons served from rev development.
€xisting Police Facilities
The Lodi Police Department provides police protection services to all areas
within the city limits. The Police Department serves a 9.4 square mile area
with an estimated population of 50,300 in 1990. The Police Department,
located at 230 W. Elm Street, has an estimated 21,571 square feet of building
space. The current employee standard based 98 total employees is 1.3
employees per 1,000 persons served. The current space standard is 220 square
feet of building space per employee.
68 RPOM-8
Existing Deficiencies
Existing deficiencies are calculated based on what is currently provided in
`= the way of staff and facilities and what staff and facilities are planned to
be provided at the end of the planning period. Further, the existing
deficiency calculation is prepared to identify the portion of the facilities,
if any, which should be serving existing development based upon a current
staffing or facility deficiency relative to the future standard for police
�. staffing and space.
"i Table 7-1 presents the calculation of the existing deficiency for the Police
Station Expansion. Based upon forecasts provided by the City for building
space and police staffing in the future, the space standard and the staffing
r standard increase slightly. This produces only a very minor existing
deficiency such that 7.30 of the Police Station Expansion is not funded from
the development impact fees.
PLANNED POLICE FACILITIES
Police facilities to serve at buildout of the Proposed General Plan were
identified by City staff and the Police Department. A summary of the
facilities is presented in Table 7-2. With the exception of the Police
Station expansion and the jail expansion, the major facilities are self
explanatory.
Currently, alternatives for police and jail facilities are being considered by
the City and the Police Department. Specific locations for the facilities
have not been identified. Alternatives being considered include renovation
and expansion of the existing Police Station.
:. ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
In Table 7-2, a summary of the Police facility and estimated costs to serve
the future City of Lodi is presented. Estimated costs are referenced to the
-" Engineering News Record 20 Cities Construction Cost Index for January 1, 1990
of 4673. Phasing of the improvements is based upon forecasts of facility
needs by the City over the planning period.
For the purposes of fee study, the police station expansion costs are not
wholly attributable to the development provided for under the Proposed General
Plan. A portion of the building expansion (7.3%) will serve existing
development. The cost in Table 7-2 reflects the reduced estimated cost. The
jail expansion and the other facility costs listed in Table 7-2 are not
subject to the existing deficiency reduction.
69 Rppp,}8
Existing
Description of Item Service Future Future
Population Additions Total
GENERAL, GOV. PERSONS SERVED
SERVICE CAPACITY
Police Employees
Police Facilites (Sq. Ft.)
SERVICE STANDARD
Current Service Standard:
Police Employees Per
1,000PersonsServed
Building Sq. Ft. Per Employee
Target Service Standard
Police Employees Per
1,000PersonsServed
Building Sq. Ft Per Employee
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRED
Additional Employees
Additional Building Area (Sq. Ft.)
For Existing Employees
For New Employees
Total
Burden on New and Existing Development
81,470 35,796 117,274
98.0 43.0 141.0
21,571 10,000 31,571
1.20
223.9
0.0
43.0
43.0
372
372
0
9,618
9,618
372
9,618
91990
3.7%
96.3%
100.00%
ost of New Facilities -• .4 ', , .: �
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1392
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald& Associates
70
project Program impact
lumbar - Cod Fee 1991J92 1902193 1993184 1990.'85 11195188 199a w 1907-2002 2002-20M
LPD001 Pdks Station expenekn
$2.000,000
$1,026,000
W
W
$0
$0
$0
$92,900
$1,833,100
50
to add 10.000 square feet
of specs.
LPD002 Jell wWwrdon to add
$275.000
$275,000
$0
to
$0
to
W
$27,500
$247,600
to
- 10 now Calls
LPDO03 MScellaneoussalety
$44.000
$44.000
$3.000
$3.000
$3.000
$3.000
$3.000
$3.000
$13.000
513.000
equipment for 29oKxets.
LPDO04 Animal corardtruck
$23.000
$23.000
to
to
W
$0
$0
$0
30
$23,000
and equipment
v
LPD00S _ 2 pickup Lucks equipped
$35.000
$36.000
to
$0
W
to
W
So
$36.000
So
v th radios and olAer
-_
LPD0g6:6ompattdears
$144.000
5144,000
$18.000
$o
518,000
30
$18.000
$D
338.000
554,000
and aquipmerd.
LP0007 Tut portable Fadim
528.000
326.000
W
$3.000
$0
$3.000
W
$3.000
$0.000
$8.000
LPDoo8 Five work stations.
$20.000
329,000
to
$4.000
$0
to
$4.000
$0
$4.000
3B.000
LPDo09 Five computer terminals.
$8.000
$9.000
$0
St soo
$0
$1.500
to
$0
$2,500
$2,500
TOTAL POLICE DEPARTMENT
$2,576.000
X2,502.000 ::.-
>..
_ .
PAGE 10E 1
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Police Projects to New Development
The relationship between existing deficiencies, improved service standards and
capacity for new development was summarized in Table 7-1. Only the portion of
the police facilities whose demand was generated by new development was
included in the Development Impact Fee program.
Relationship of Police Projects to Land Uses
The RAE schedule for police facilities that is shown in Table 7-2 was
developed from data supplied by the Lodi 'Police Department. The schedule 1s
based on the relative number of calls for service from each land use category.
Recommended Fees
The Police Facilities fee is shown in Table 7-3. The total fee is $1,110 per
low density residential acre.
72 RM3"
TABLE 7-3 21-Aug-91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
POLICE
Land Use Categories Unit RAE Fee
RESIDENTIAL
r- Low Density Acre 1.00 $1,110
Medium Density Acre 1.77 $1,960
High Density Acre 4.72 $5,240
East Side Residential Acre 1.09 $1,210
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
r High Density
�.;.CAAMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Domntowi Commercial
Office Commercial
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Acre
1.00
$1,110
Acre
1.77
$1,960
Acre
4.72
$5,240
Acre
4.28
$4,750
Acre
2.59
$2,870
Acre
4.28
$4,750
Acre
3.72
$4,130
Acre
0.30
$330
Acre
0.19
$210
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992
Sources: Nolte 3 Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
73
CHAPTER 8
1:44 )J
OVERVIEW
Level of Service
r The level of service that guides ?he requirement for and placement of a new
fire station is to provide a maximum of a three minute driving time to all
areas within the City limits and the Limit of Utilities Planning.
Existing Fire Facilities
-- The City of Lodi Fire Department currently serves the City from three fire
stations. Station #1 is located at 210 W. Elm Street, Station #2 is located
at 705 E. Lodi Avenue and Station #3 is located at 2141 South Ham Lane. When
these stations were constructed, they provided the desire service levels to
the City and additional service capacity to the east, south and southwest
areas. With new development occurring West of the existiog City, additional
fire protection capacity is required.
Y Existing Deficiencies
r, Currently, no major deficiencies exist in the Fire Facilities relative to the
level and service standard for the City. Response times to some areas in the
northwest are below the City standard. In a strict sense, correcting the
existing deficiency in the northwest area should not be a cost allocated to
the fee program. However, in the west side area, excess fire service capacity
1 exists that will be used to serve future growth. Future growth should be
required to purchase from the City excess capacity in the existing facilities.
Considering that the existing deficiency is relatively minor compared to the
excess capacity, and since the City has traditionally treated fire service on
a city-wide basis, it is recommended that the fee be based solely on new
capital expenditures. This serves to simplify the fee program and eliminates
the need for zone fees and minor deficiency adjustments.
PLANNED FIRE FACILITIES
Fire Facilities to serve buildout of the Proposed General Plan were identified
in the Fire Station Location Master Plan and by City and staff during
preparation of this report. Major facilities projects are listed in Table 8-
1. The new Fire Station (#4) will be located on Lower Sacramento Road near
Park West Drive. Other facilities listed in Table 8-1 will equip Station #4
and expand capabilities at the other stations.
During the preparation of the fee study, a number of fire facility capital
improvement projects were identified by the City. The nature Of these
74 RP00318
.rte ^�A IrW 1�� a•�1 �� ��� 1��1 � �4 a1�
TABLE 8 —1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
FIRE
GENERAL CITY PROJECT PHASNG
21 -Aug -91
98
1996w
Fdi_mals_
2002-2007
30
30
so
30
so
project Demor"on
Construction
knpaot
30
$0
$10,000
$10,000 .
So
Nmbw
cod
Fee
1991192
1902793
1993104
/9947919
$D
413,000
$0
So. -.
30
416,000
$0
So
LFD001 New westside station construction
$475,000
$475,000
$o
$15,000
$430.000
30
1-
W4), hunishings and equipment
.. LFC002 New 100' ladder truck and
$475,000
$475.000
so
so
so
$475,000
Imulp"ll,
tFD00S Twosedana.
$20.000
420,000
30
SO
SO
to
v
::.. to
, LFD064 Two mini -vans.. -: :
$30.000
$30,000
30
$0
3o
So
, . tFD00t Fwe oomputWL
$16.000
418,000
30
30
So
30
U'OM Fke pphtinp $alaty pear `
413.000
413,000
SO
50
SO
U=16007 12 sett -contained breathing
'aPR�atus• .'
418,000
418,000
UDM Station 01 Cr u (remodel
$18,000
478,000
SO
30
SD
SO
Equipinent Replacement .
51.090.000
So
SO
SO
SD
30
,
'
[TOTALFlRE
E2,155,t)f10
51,065.000
. ,
page 1 of 1,
21 -Aug -91
98
1996w
1907-2002
2002-2007
30
30
so
30
so
so
so
S0
30
$0
$10,000
$10,000 .
So
$15,000
50
$15,000
so
43.000
40.000
$7.000. -.
$D
413,000
$0
So. -.
30
416,000
$0
So
so
40
418,000
-.
.SO
so
3o
to
1-
projects can be characterized as upgrading of existing facilities and purchase
of equipment. As a result, only those costs directly related to extending the
existing level of service to new development are included in the fee program.
These costs (such as radios, fire engines and equipment replacement) are
estimated to be $1,065,000. lib personnel are included.
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
-. A sunnnary of the Fire Facility rojects and estimated costs and phasing i s
presented in Table 8-1. Estimaed costs are based upon the Engineering News
Record 20 Cities Construction Cost Index for January 1990 of 4673.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Fire Projects to lav Development
As noted previously, existing deficiencies were not included in the
Development Impact fee progrsm. Only those projects, or portions of projects,
that serve new development were financed from Development Impact Fees.
Relationship of Fire Projects to Land Uses
-~ The RAE schedule for fire facilities that is shown in Table 8-2 was developed
from data supplied by the Lodi Fire Department. The RAE schedule considers
relative number of fire calls and Emergency Medial Service (EMS) calls
generated by each land use category. Calls involving automobile accidents and
fires were spread back to the land use categories based on the streets and
roads RAE factors.
r'"
1
•mi
e..J
Recommended Fees
The sumrnary Fire Facilities fee is shown in Table 8-2. The total fee is $520
per low density residential acre.
76
RW334
,,a
TABLE 8-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FIRE
Use Categories Unit RAE Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
East Side Residential
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Downtown Commercial
Office Commercial
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Acre
1.00
�- 320
Acre
1.96
$1,020
Acre
4.32
$2,250
Acre
1.10
$570 -
Acre
1.00
$520
Acre
1.96
$1,020
Acre
4.32
$2,250
Acre
2.77
$1,440
Acre
1.93
$1,000
Acre
2.77
$1,440
Acre
2.46
$1,280
Acre
0.64
$338
Acre
0.61
$320
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
77
P"
�- The current level service for standard parks (not including school parks or
drainage basins) is 3.3 acres per 1,000 Park and Recreation Persons Served and .
the current level of service for community center building space is
approximately 1,765 square feet per 1,000 Park and Recreation Persons Served.
The City has adopted standards of 3.4 acres per 1,000 persons served and 1,800
square feet of community center space per 1,000 persons served.
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
6j
Table 9-1 provides a summary of the existing park acreage in the City of Lodi.
,.... In the table, the most important number is the 177.8 acres of Standard Park
area. It is this acreage that is used to compute the existing standard for
park acreage. Based upon an estimated current usage of 53,713 park and
recreation persons served, the existing standard for parks and recreation
acreage is 3.3 acres per 1,000 persons served. Based upon an estimated current
..: building space inventory of 94,800 square feet in community center buildings,
the existing space standard is 1,765 square feetper 1,000 persons served. A
�summary of existing park facilities provided by the City and is presented in
; A Table 9-2.
The adopted standards are slightly higher than what the City is currently
4 providing. As a result, a small percentage of the new facilities will be paid
.! for from funds generated outside of the fee program. This calculation is
shown i n Table 9-3.
r+
The level of Parks and Recreation services is often expressed in terms of
acres per 1,000 population. This service standard must be interpreted
carefully. Employees, shoppers, tourists and other persons present during the
day may use the park and recreation facilities in addition to residents of
Lodi. The concept "Persons Served" considers all persons who may use these
facilities so that the service standard also captures the burden these other
participants will place on the facilities. A weighting factor is estimated
that accounts for various categories of persons served in accordance with the
78 RP00118
4
�4
CHAPTER 9
,.F
PARKS AND RECREATION
OVERVIEW
This chapter of the report presents the cost estimates and
the proposed
phasing for each Park
and Recreation improvements that are
to be financed from
,..
development impact fee
revenues. Government- Code §66000 specifies certain
findings are necessary
for a valid development impact fee.
This chapter
presents the required
findings and presents the calculation
of the Parks and
Recreation fee.
r�
Level of Service
�- The current level service for standard parks (not including school parks or
drainage basins) is 3.3 acres per 1,000 Park and Recreation Persons Served and .
the current level of service for community center building space is
approximately 1,765 square feet per 1,000 Park and Recreation Persons Served.
The City has adopted standards of 3.4 acres per 1,000 persons served and 1,800
square feet of community center space per 1,000 persons served.
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
6j
Table 9-1 provides a summary of the existing park acreage in the City of Lodi.
,.... In the table, the most important number is the 177.8 acres of Standard Park
area. It is this acreage that is used to compute the existing standard for
park acreage. Based upon an estimated current usage of 53,713 park and
recreation persons served, the existing standard for parks and recreation
acreage is 3.3 acres per 1,000 persons served. Based upon an estimated current
..: building space inventory of 94,800 square feet in community center buildings,
the existing space standard is 1,765 square feetper 1,000 persons served. A
�summary of existing park facilities provided by the City and is presented in
; A Table 9-2.
The adopted standards are slightly higher than what the City is currently
4 providing. As a result, a small percentage of the new facilities will be paid
.! for from funds generated outside of the fee program. This calculation is
shown i n Table 9-3.
r+
The level of Parks and Recreation services is often expressed in terms of
acres per 1,000 population. This service standard must be interpreted
carefully. Employees, shoppers, tourists and other persons present during the
day may use the park and recreation facilities in addition to residents of
Lodi. The concept "Persons Served" considers all persons who may use these
facilities so that the service standard also captures the burden these other
participants will place on the facilities. A weighting factor is estimated
that accounts for various categories of persons served in accordance with the
78 RP00118
4
TABLE 9-1
INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARK AND RECREATION ACREAGE
Existing Park Facilities
Future Parks
Total
Standard
Total
I
Description
Acres
Park Basin
School
Acres
1.
Armory
3.2
3.2
2.
Beckman
16.6
0.8
15.6
3.
Blakely
9.0
9.0
4.
Kandy Kane
0.2
0.2
5_
Century (1)
2.5
2.5
6.
Emerson
2.0
2.0
7.
English Oaks Commons
3.7
3.7
8.
G -Basin
0.0
9.
iienry Claves
12.6
3.0
9.6
10.
Grape Bowl
15.0
15.0
11.
Hate
2.6
2.6
12.
Hutchins Street Square
10.0
10.0
13.
Kofu
10.0
10.0
14.
Lawrence/Zupo Hardball
18.0
10.0
8.0
15.
Legion
5.6
5.6
16.
Lodi Lake
101.0
101.0
17.
Maple Square
1.0
1.0
18.
Pixley Park (C-1 Basin)
17.0
17.0
19.
Salas Park
21.0
1.0
20.0
20.
Softball Complex
7.6
7.6
21.
Van Buskirk
1.0
1.3
22.
Vinewood
14.0
0.3
11.2
2.0
23.
Uestgate
6.0
0.3
5.7
24.
Uashtngton School
5.1
5.1
25.
Lakewood School
5.0
5.0
25.
Reese School
6.0
6.0
27.
Nichols School
5.8
5.8
28.
Heritage School
2.0
2.0
29.
Woodbridge School
5.0
5.0
30.
Sr. Elementary
12.0
12.0
31.
Lodi High School
25.0
25.0
32.
Tokay High School
21.0
21.0
33.
Needham school
2.0
2.0
Westgate
Expansfon
13.4
0.6
6 -Basin
50.0
1.0
F -Basin
24.0
1.0
-Basin
24.0
1.0
C -Basin Expansion
8.0
1.0
Park Area 1
3.0
Park Area 13
3.0
Park Area 16
10.0
Park Area 14
1C.0
Park Area i5
8.0
Park Area t7
10.0
Eastside Park
2.0
East Side Softball Complex
19.4
Lodi Lake - Expansion
13.0
Total Acreage
368.5
180.3
208.7
96.9
83.0
Total Acreage for Standard
(1)
177.8
Source: City of Lodi.
(1)
Century Park is a temporary
park and is not included
in standards.
79
RPM,,.B
relative frequency with which they are expected to use park and recreation
facilities.
Existing Deficiencies
Calculation of existing deficiencies is based upon the current standard
relative to the future standard for parks and recreation acreage and
community building space. In Table 9-3, results of the existing deficiency
analysis are presented.
The findings indicate the following. First, the added park acreage in the _
Proposed Fee Program matches the acreage standard from 3.3/1,000 persons
served . As a result the added park acreage can be allocated to new
development. Second, the added community building space will match the
existing space standard of 1,800/1,000 person served.
Existing deficiencies are not funded through the development impact fee
program. In this fee study, alternative funding sources are not
specifically identified that would cover parks and recreation existing
facilities deficiencies.
TABLE 9-2
INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
PARK FACILITY
Park Acreage
Community Building Area
persons
Restrooms
Lighted Baseball Diamonds
— Tot lot
Lighted Tennis Courts
Swimming Pools
EXISTING STANDARD
3.3/1,000 persons served
1,765 sq ft/1,000
served
1/park over 3.0 acres
11 Total
1/park
11 Total
4 Total
Source: Nolte and Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates
PLANNED PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
A summary of the Parks and Recreation Facility Projects is presented in Table
9-4, Estimated costs are referenced to the Engineering News Record 20 Cities
Construction Cost Index for January 1990 of 4673. Project descriptions played
an important role in preparing the project estimates and were developed in
80 RP003M
TABLE 9-3 21 -Aug -91
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
PARKS AND RECREATION
Existing Future Future
Description of Item Conditions Additions Total
PARK PERSONS SERVED
53,713 24,020 77,733
SERVICE CAPACITY
Park Acreage
177.8 83.0 260.8
Community Center Buildings (Sq. Ft.)
1. Hutchins Street Square Cafeteria
6.400
2 Camp Hutchins Room
6,000
3. Hutchins Street Square N. Complex
19,600
4. Hutchins Street Square Pool Area
5,400
5. Hutchins Street Square Fine Arts Bldg.
8,700
6. Recreation Annex, N. Stockton St.
3,500
7. Kofu Park Building
1,800
a Lee Jones Building(@ Leigion Park)
900
9. Grape Festival Pavilion
32,000
10. Grape Festival Chablis Hal!
9,600
11. Recreation Office Meeting Room
900
Total All Buildings: 94,800 45.100 139,900
r S 11
Current Standar
Park 0 3 Per 1 Persons Ser i
13
0 1 Center Sq. Ft. Per 1,000 c Served
,765
1 '$E 7 r Ja
ParkA rVa %F1 ,000 F Served
3.4
f r h Sq. = Per 1,000 E n SE i
1,800
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRED
Additional Park Acres
2.4
80.6
83.0
Additional Community Center SgFt
1,870
43,230
45.100
BURDEN ON N E W AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Additional Park Acres
3.0%
97.0%
100.0%
Additional Community Center SgFt
4.0%
96.0%
100.0%
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992.
Sources: Nolte 8 Associates and Angus McDonald 8Associates.
81
F_
�..�. sem...,
TABLE 9-4
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS AND RECREATION
21 -Aug -s1
Project Description Program impact
Number - Coat fee 1981/82 1992183 1883181 1994185 1985186 1886197 1987-2002 2002-=j
MPF001
Parks and Recreation
$50.000
550.000
$50.000
30
Master Plan.
3o
3o
$128.900
MPR002
Administration building
$2.864.000
$1.289.000
30
30
expansion at corporation yard.
30
30
to
MPtH0W
Underground tank replacement
$37.000
30
30
MPR004
Lodi Lake Central Park
$868.000
$0
SD
30
Improvements.
30
30
$0
164PF005
Lodi Lake peninsula
$375.000
SD
$0
$1.634.400
improvements.
30
30
to
eb
30
59
to
$0
N MPP%W
Loi Lake expansion to 13 acre
$1.818,000
$1.616.000
30
3o
Westside area.
.
30
30
MPR007
Lodi Lake sift reum nal.
$250.000
30
30
- MPR008
Lodi Lake Turner Hoed
- $156.000
30
3o
30
Retaining Wait. .
30
30
30
MPR009
Lodi Lake tM ty Extension
$133.000
$0
30
30
(Water).
30
$0
30
MPF1010
. Softball complex Concession..
579.000
30
30
MPRDt t
, Softball Canplex replacement of
$107.000
SO
50
30
concession stand.
30
MPF012
SoftWl Complex shade
512.000
$o
30
stN7ture.
MPRD13
Softball Complex paving.
$11.000
$0
30
MPF014
Softball Complex upgrade
$61.000
SD
SD
sports lighting.
Page 1 of 4
30
$0
30
30
30
30
30
3o
3o
$128.900
$1.160.100
30
30
to
SJ
30
30
30
30
to
to
So
30
30
30
30
$o
30
30
30
30
$o
30
30
$0
30
SO
30
to
$161.800
$1.634.400
SO
30
30
to
30
30
59
to
$0
So
30
30
30
$0
3o
30
$0
30
30
30
5o
$0
3o
30
30
30
30
to
so
30
30
30
30
30
30
$0
So
30
to
30
30
30
$0
30
so
30
$o
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
TABLE 94
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS AND RECREATION
21 -Aug -0t
Project Osscs"on Propnm hnpad
Number cow Fee 1991112 190M 199304 199495 1995M 1906107 1007-2002 2002-2007
UPRO15
Stadium EWCWd 6 Sports
5722,000
Sa
Lighting.
so
MP19016
stadium Press Box
; $44.000
L1PR017
stadium Parkkp lot Landscape
$01.000
-
a Lighting
so
ttPRote
S6&umRewd&Drainage
$136.000
UPRO
Stsaium Additional Seallap
582.000
so
so
so
" MPR020
Koiu Perk Enter" Bleacher Area
$25,000
Mt'Ro21
Koru Park Now Playground
'$26.000
so
E4uipment
so
: MM22 .
Kohr Park ParmuieM BeekstoP
58,000
MPR023"
Ko(ui Park Group Pionio
$7.000
'Fac9ities
to
so
MPR024 ' KofuPark Entrance ImProvements
$13,000
1ti'R025
Armory Park Parking Ld
$126.000
mpFm .
Armory Parwreu Boa a Bleacher -
827.000
to
Wall
so
MPR027
Armory Park Upgrade Electrical
$20.000
WPM
7,upo Field Replacement of wood
$26,000
so
so
to
Page 2 of 4
so
so
so
so
so
Sa
so
so
$0
so
so
so
so
so
so
$0
so
so
to
so
so
so
$0
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
$0
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
to
so
so
so
so
so
so ..
so
so
so
to
to
so
so
so
so
so
so
$0
so
so
to
so
so
so
$0
$0
so
so
so
$0
$0
so
so
to
so
so
so
$0
$0 ..'
$0
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
50
`"$o
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
$o
so
so
$o
to
so
so
so
so
TABLE 9-4 21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS A M) RECREATION
Page 3 of 4
Project
Desafption
Program
impact
Number
Cort
Fee
1991!92
1992193
1993!94
1084195
1895108
1988!87
1997-2002
2002-2007
MPR029
Zupo Fieidtlpgrade Electrical 6
Se1.000
to
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
to
Sports Ughdrig
14PR031
Hale Park Genera! Improvements
S29e.000
SO
$0
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$0
so
- MPIPIM
Community Buildings (Cky-Wide)
54,510,000
$4,329.800
SO
$288,840
$288,840
$288,840
$288,640
$288,640
51,443,200
51.443200
MPR034
Blakely Park Upgrade Lighting
522,000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$0
SO
SO
S0
MPFAW
Sales Park Protective Shade
$51,000
$0
SO
SO
SO
SO
$0
SO
$0
so
Structures
Co MPR038
Salas Park Fenced Diamond Area
$9.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
50
SO
m
s0
MPR037
Emerson Park Restroom,
$178,000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
to
$0
so
Replacement
Mpra 8
Plxely Park (C - Basin)
$465,000
$465.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
t0
$0
$0
$465.000
General improvements
MPR038
Westgate Park Improvements
$353,000
5353.000
SO
SO
so
So
SO
$353.000
$0
30
M138 040
Area 01 Park (3ac.)
$458.000
5459,000
50
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$459.000
s0
MPR041
Area M3 Park 8: Pool (3ac.)
$712,000
$712,000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$712.000
MPRH.
Area N4 Park
$1,462,000
$1,482.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
30
$0
SO
$1,482,000
MPR043
Area /6 Park improvements
$1.377.000
$1.377,000
SO
SO
SO
SO
$0
SO
$688.500
s888,500
MPR044
Area 96 Park Improvements
$1,148,000
$1,148,000
$0
SO
SO
$400.000
$400.000
$35,000
$313.000
t0
MPR045
Area 07 Park Improvements
$1.880.000
$1.880.000
SO
SO
$168.000
SO
51,494,000
SO
SO
s0
MPR048
Easteldo Park General park
5307.000
$307,000
SO
SO
to
SO
SO
SO
$307,000
s0
Improvements.
Page 3 of 4
AMAUQ 66"" big" isw
TABLE 9-4 21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS AND RECREATION
Project Description Program Impact
Number Cost Fee 1991102 1092/03 190.3184 1994M 1985" 1098197 1997-2002 2002-2007
MPR040A East Skis Sollba0 ComPlex
$2.589.000
$2.338.945
SO
$0
SO
So
30 30
SO
$2.339,845
MPR047
F -Basin Improvements Park
$120,000
$120,000
SO
$0
$0
SO
SO $0
SO
$120.000
MPR048
I -Basin Improvements Park
$120,000
$120.000
SO
$0
SO
SO
SO $0
$0
$120,000
MPR052
G-Udn Park improvements
$300.000
$300.000
$0
$0
SO
SO
$0 SO $300.000
SO
' MPR053
Hutchins Square Catering
IGtchen
$35.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
s0 SO
SO
50
t(ir MPRO54
Hutchins Square Murd-Purpose
$750.000
$0
$o
50
$0
$0
SO SO
SO
50
MPR055
Hutchina Squaw Chad Care
$559.000
SO
SO
$0
SO
SO
so SO
so
$0
Center
MPRO56
Hutchins Square Cotmectors/
$1.000.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO SO
50
50
wat ways
MPR057
Hutchins Sauare Auditorium
$4.000.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO SO
SO
t0
Remodel
PAWS AND REG
TOTAL PA
$30.197
witk3 �x
►q
Page 4 of 4
G P STUDY AREA
all
I
h,
LEGE-SEND
Kil R=MM
sm ft"a oftomft.
LOCO 0040IMPAL. ruu
FIGURE 9-1 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT'S
86
�. concert with City staff. Project numbers listed in Table 9-4 are used to
identify project locations in Figure 9-1. The Parks and Recreation Master
Plan is scheduled early in the program to refine details and costs of the new
parks.
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
Improvement and land acquisition costs for parks and recreation facilities are
based upon information provided by City staff and the City Capital Improvement
Plan. Land costs were determined to be 5100,000 per acre. In cases where
land for parks expansion is already owned by the City, the proposed fee
program does not pay or reimburse the City for land costs. The fee
calculation methodology did not consider different cost increase factors for
land acquisition versus construction.
A number of the projects identified by the City are not attributable to new
�., development and more accurately fall into the category of maintenance and
repair. These projects are easily identified because no cost has been
allocated to the impact fee fund.
In Table 9-4, the phasing of construction costs is presented only for those
Parks projects to be funded through the fee program. Phasing of the projects
is based upon forecasts provided by the City. The Parks and Recreation Master
�- Plan is scheduled early in the program to refine details and cost of the
program.
Analysis of the existing and planned facilities for the corporation yard
identified that only a portion of the facilities will serve future growth.
Based upon building footage, 45 percent of the planned corporation yard
impro, ements costs are allocated to future growth.
DEVELOPMENT "ACf FEE
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to New Development
The additional park acres to be added throughout the program serve only new
development. The existing deficiency analysis presented in Table 9-3 also
shows that the added community center space is serving only new development.
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to Land Uses
The RAE schedule for parks and recreation that is shown in Table 9-5
recognized explicitly that, while demand is primarily generated by the
residential population, parks and recreation facilities also serve employees.
Examples of non-residential demand include lunch time use, company picnics and
company team participation in sports leagues.
The RAE schedule was based on the relative amount of time available to
residents and to employees to make use of park and recreational facilities.
r
Recommended Fees
`-' The summary Parks and Recreation fee is shown in Table 9-5. The total fee is
$11,980 per low density residential acre.
..�. 87 Rvoo1.118
i -.i
TABLE 9-5
21-Aug-91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
PARKS AND RECREATION
Fees
[Land Use Categories Unit RAE
RESIDENTIAL_
Low Density Acre
1.00
$1 1,980
Medium Density Acre
1.43
$17130
^,
High Density Acra
2.80
$33,540
East Side Residential Acre
1.10
$13,180
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre
1.00
$1 1,980
Medium Density Acre
1.43
$17,130
high Density Acre
2.80
$33,540
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial Acre
0.32
$3,830
J
General Commercial Acre
0.32
$3,830
Downtown Commercial Acre
0.32
$3,830
Office Commercial Acre
0.54
$6,470
INDUSTRIAL
.
Ught Industrial Acre
0.23
$2,760
Heavy Industrial Acre
0.33
$3,950
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald 8 Associates.
--
88
CHAPTER 10
GENERAL QTY FACILITIES
OVERVIEW
Level of Service
The current staffing level of service provided by the City of Lodi for general
city services (e.g. City manager, finance department) is 1.25 Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs) per 1,000 persons served. The current space standard i s
229 square feet per FTE. These standards were used as the basis for
calculating the percentage of additions to City Hall that would be
appropriately charged to either nevv or existing development.
'P While there is not a stated level of service for general city facilities there
is an implied standard based on the current level of city employees and
building space per city employee. The service standard used to examine the
existing deficiencies for General City Facilities includes demands for general
city services generated by business as well as demand by residents.
A "Persons Served" standard is calculated by estimating the demand or use of
general city services by persons associated with each land use type. Instead
+► of determining the use by each unit of land developed, as i s the procedure
with RAE factors, the use for each land use is converted into a use per
person. In the case of residential. land uses this takes the form of use per
resident, and in the case of non-residential uses i s a use per employee.
These use per "per person served" figures are then normalized around the
�., Single Family land use to produce '*Persons Served" factors which are applied
to a forecast of the total number of residents and employees from each land
use to compute the total persons served from new developments.
Existing Deficiencies
Table 10-1 Dresents the results of the existing deficiency analysis. In the
case of the City Hall addition, both the staffing standard and the space
i standard are increased over the planning period. A a result, a portion
(27.8%) of the addition can not be funded from development impact fees.
PLANNED GENERAL QTY FACILITIES
i
In Table 10-2, a listing of General City Facilities Projects is provided.
Included in the 1 isting are those capital improvements and expenditures
identified by City Department heads in their budget forecasts for 2006/7.
., ESHVIAHD COST AND PHASING
A summary o f the phasing of projects funded by the fee program i s provided i n
Table 10-2. Phasing of the projects is based upon the forecast of units
constructed over the General Plan period.
89 RPOOIM
TABLE 10-1 21 -Aug -91
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
CITY HALL FACILITIES
Change End
Current 1989/90- State
Personnel Units 1989190 2007108 2007108
�. Administration
Persons
13
8
21
`M Finance(w10 Purchasing)
Persons
28
14
42
rt Purchasing (FT)
Persons
5
3
8
Purchasing (PT)
Persons
1
-1
0
Data Processing
Persons
5
13
18
.. Building (CDD)
Persons
6
5
11
i Planning (CDD)
Persons
5
4
9
Public Works
Persons
19
9
28
Totals:
82
55
137
t .
Administration FTE 100% 13.0 8.0 21.0
Fnance(wlo, Purchasing) FTE 100% 28.0 14.0 42.0
Purchasing (FC) FTE 100% 5.0 3.0 8.0
Purchasing (PT) R E 50% 0.5 -0.5 0.0
Data Processing FTE 100% 5.0 13.0 18.0
. . Building (CDD) R E 100% 6.0 5.0 11.0
Planning (CDD) FTE 100% 5.0 4.0 9.0
Public Works FTE 100%19.0 9.0 28.0
Total Persons Served 64,906 30,064 94,970
Staffing Standard:
FTE's per 1,000 Person's Served 1.26 0.19 1.44
Space Standard:
;e
Area Per Employee (FTE) 228.92 12.72 2.41.64
Source: Nolte & Associates and Mous McDonald & Associates
F
f
. f<y
t-
90
E
Total Persons Served 64,906 30,064 94,970
Staffing Standard:
FTE's per 1,000 Person's Served 1.26 0.19 1.44
Space Standard:
;e
Area Per Employee (FTE) 228.92 12.72 2.41.64
Source: Nolte & Associates and Mous McDonald & Associates
F
f
. f<y
t-
90
E
21 -Aug -91
Existing Future Future
IDescription of Item Population Additions Total I
tal
GENERAL GOVERNMENT PERSONS SER=
64,906
30,064
94,970
27.5%
SERVICECAPACITY
100.1
ist,of New Facilities --
General Government Employees (Full
81.5
55.5
137.0
Time Equivalent (FTES))
General Government Buildings (Sq. Ft)
18,657
14,448
33,105
SERVICE STANDARD
Current Service Standard:
General Government Employees Per
1.3
1,000 Persons Served
Building Sq. Ft. Per Employee
228.9
Target Service Standard
General Government Employees Per
1.4
1,000 Persons Served
Building Sq. Ft. Per Employee
241.6
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRE
Additional Employeig'(Full Time
12.1
43.4
55.5
Equivalent (FT -E))
Addrdo6al Building Area (Sq. Ft.)
For Existing Employees..
1,037
1,037
For New Employees
2,931
10,480
13,411
tal
3,968
10.480
14.44
rden on New and Existing Development
27.5%
72.5%
100.1
ist,of New Facilities --
91
.�-. �.� P.�.. �.... ..�. �•�. .—,o. ,.....eo r-" ra'a" r-",4 tom► Y'salu4i Warms! &am Law Im•-
TABLE 10 — 2 21/08/91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
GENERAL ®.Y FACILITIES
Pro(ect
Location
Program
Impact
Number
Costs
Fee
1991174
1882/83
1983104
1994!95
13§573
1998/87
1897-2002
2002-2007
GCF1001
CityHaRRemodel andAddition
$4,215,000
53,066,875
$0
$700,000
5700,000
SO
90
80
$1,655,875
S0
GCFN}02
Civic CenterPukingLotExW&on
5141,000
5141,000
$0
$0
80
80
SO
$141,000
80
90
13 M Church.
GCFI008
Property acquisition.
$213,000
5213,000
80
SO
80
$0
g0
SO
80
5213,000
217E. Lockeford.
GCF1009
Parking Lot Improvements,
570,000
570,000
g0
80
80
$0
SO
$0
so
$70,000
NE comer of Lockeford and
Stockton.
%p' GCFI010
Library Expansion
$2.900.000
$2.900,000
SO
SO
SO
80
30
80
52.900.000
SO
'VGCFI011
PublkWorks-Trucks
$750.000
$750.000
548.875
544875
546,875
$46.875
548,876
$46,875
$234,375
5234,376
GCF1012
- Public Works- Pickups and Sedans
$715.000
$716,000
$".888
544.088
$44.888
$44.688
$44.888
$44.888
$223,1:3
5223.438
GCF1013
Pubile Works -Air Compressors
$90.000
$90,000
551625
551825
$5.825
55.825
55.825
55.825
$28.125
$28.125
601`1074
Public Works -Misc; OfBoe Equipment
$65.500
$86.600
$4.094
$4.094
$4,094
$4.094
$4.094
$4.094
$20.489
520.489
661`1015
Finance-Misc.Otlice Equipment
$181,700
5181,700
$11,356
$11,356
$11,368
$11,359
$11,366
$11,358
556,781
558,761
GrMa'-,.,Finance
Computer (AS 400Upgrade)
$72,000
$72.000
$4.600
$4.500
$4.600
$4.500
$4.500
$4.500
$22.600
$22.500
GCF'1017
Fee Program Monitoring
$2,580.000
$2.680,000
$160,000
$150,000
5180,000
St 60,000
3180.000
S 160,000
$800.000
$800,000
C0011001
-General Plan Update 1987
$411,100
$411,109
$411,109
30
SO
m
50
$0
80
So
C00VW2
General Plan Update 1997
$260,000
$250.000
SO
SO
90
$0
$0
$250.000
30
30
COOV004
General Plan Update 2002
$250,000
$260,000
$0
SO
30
80
90
90
$250.000
$0
DEVELOPMENT "ACT FEE
Relationship of General City Projects to %v Development
The relationship between existing deficiencies, changing service standards and
demand created by new development was presented in Table 10-1. This exhibit
was used to allocate responsibility for financing between Development Impact
Fees and other sources of financing.
Relationship of General City Projects to Land Uses
The RAE schedule that has been developed for general City facilities is shown
in Table 10-3. This schedule is based on an estimate of relative population
and employment (measured in persons per household and in employees per
thousand square feet, respectively) and on the judgment that employees place a
relative burden on general City administrative facilities that is 50 percent
o f that imposed by residents.
Recommended Fees
The summary General City Facilities fee is shown in Table 10-3. The total fee
is 36,380 per low density residential acre.
93 KPOO)1B
TABLE 10-3
21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
Fes
Land Use Categories Unit RAE
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre
1.00
$6,380
Medium Density Acre
1.43
$9,120
High Density Acre
2.80
$17,860
`
East Side Residential Acre
1.10
$7,020
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre
1.00
$6,380
Medium Density Acre
1.43
$9.120
4
High Density Acre
2.80
$17,860
IAL
COMMERC77
Neighborhood Commercial Acre
0.89
$5,680
General Commercial Acre
0.89
$5,680
£
r,
Downtown Commercial Acre
0.89
$5,680
Office Commercial Acre
1.53
$9,760
1
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial Acre
0.64
$4,080
Heavy. Industrial Acre
0.93
$5,930
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
t
Y
i
Lj
t
Fs.
?
Iwo
94
1
N-?
APPENDIX A
FORECAST OF MAPPED ACREAGE FOR
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
95
9'�ii,...•�,..v. .. ... .. .. ._ ..w........ Y.....`.... .. ...rue. ..... _......_.__.... __ _...... _......
_....,......
RPpp3}y
TABLE A-1
GENERAL PLAN ACREAGE GROUTH FORECAST
'CIT OF LODI PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
1997 2002 Total
Land—Use—Cateaories Ignite 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 /2002 /2007 Fnranast
RESIDENTIAL
i
TABLE A-1
GENERAL PLAN ACREAGE GROUTH FORECAST
'CIT OF LODI PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
1997 2002 Total
Land—Use—Cateaories Ignite 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 /2002 /2007 Fnranast
•ebv� HCl_-°��\. � ._. _. � s._ - .
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acres
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
17
7
Medium Density
Acres
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
High Density
Acres
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
5
East Side Residential
Acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
PR - Low Density
Acres
74
82
74
61
66
61
267
288
973
PR - Medium Density
Acres
5
5
5
6
4
S
4
5
4
5
17
21
le
23
62
78
PR - High Density
Acres
6
1
'
Total Residential
89
97
88
74
78
74
310
333
1.143
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood
Acres
15
15
6
6
6
6
25
26
IDS
6erteral '
Acres
0
1
1
1
1
1
3
!
3
!
11
3
Downtown
Acres
0
0
0.
0
2
1
2
0
2
11
11
34
_+
Office
Acres
2
2
2
Total Commercial
17
18
9
9
10
9
40
41
153
INDUSTRIAL `
Light Industrial
Acres
26'
17
22
22
22
22
139
165
435
.Heavy' Industrial
Acres
10
7
9
9
9
9
56
66
175
Total Industrial
36
24
3!
31
31
31
195
231
610
r t
Source: City of Lodi Public Works
Department.
•ebv� HCl_-°��\. � ._. _. � s._ - .