Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - July 26, 2016 SSLODI CITY COUNCIL SHIRTSLEEVE SESSION CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2016 A. Roll Call by City Clerk An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday, July 26, 2016, commencing at 7:00 a.m. Present: Council Member Johnson, Council Member Mounce, Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne, and Mayor Chandler Absent: Council Member Nakanishi Also Present: City Manager Schwabauer, City Attorney Magdich, and City Clerk Ferraiolo B. Topic(s) B-1 Receive Presentation on Growth and Development in Lodi (CD) City Planner Craig Hoffman provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding 2016 Lodi development summary. Specific topics of discussion included population, General Plan, Rose Gate, Vintner Square, Van Ruiten, Reynolds Ranch, Reynolds Ranch Apartments, Reynolds Ranch Senior Development, Eden Housing - Tienda, Lodi Shopping Center, Wal-Mart property re -use, Reynolds Ranch commercial use, LaQuinta Hotel, extended stay hotel, and industrial use. Mr. Hoffman stated that the City is seeing an increase in projects, many of which are less conservative, such as apartments and senior housing. Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne reminded that Council, at its goal -setting session, discussed having infrastructure in place for commercial and industrial development east of Highway 99 and questioned whether any progress was made on that. City Manager Schwabauer stated that Lodi has not constructed additional water, wastewater, or electrical capacity in that area because such projects would require significant capital and would be beyond Lodi's capacity at this time. Council Member Johnson questioned if the City has a list of properties that are available for immediate occupancy that could be circulated throughout the community to generate greater exposure to interested parties, to which Mr. Schwabauer responded in the affirmative. Business Development Manager Adam Brucker stated he would send the list to Council, adding there are existing properties available for lease or sale that are ready to develop, including two on Guild Avenue and one near the retention basin. In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne, Mr. Schwabauer stated there still appears to be interest in bringing a hotel to the downtown area. One project is in the works with the developer finalizing a financing package, which is likely to move forward; the other project is less solid and may or may not happen. Ed Miller questioned if staff calculated the economic impact the growth has had on Lodi, how it affects the City's revenue stream, and where the City goes from here. B-2 Discussion Regarding Elimination of Reduced Residential Development Impact Fee Structure (PW) Public Works Director Charlie Swimley provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding possible elimination of reduced Residential Impact Fee Structure. Specific topics of discussion included overview, Residential Low -Density, Residential Medium -Density, Residential High -Density, fee comparison per single-family unit, impacts on development, options, and schedule. Mr. Swimley stated it appears the reduced fee program accomplished the goal of encouraging development, 1 adding that the brisk activity occurring at this time has not been seen in many years. Council Member Mounce stated she supports ceasing the reduced fee program with the exception of in -fill and high-density projects to promote more multi -family units in the community. Ed Miller questioned what the City's objective is regarding this matter because, during the goal - setting session, the conclusion was there was inadequate revenue to pay for services and at the last meeting, Council discussed raising the sales tax to generate additional revenue; however, he has not seen an analysis on the economic benefit of growth to date and what would be lost if the City returned to the original impact fee amounts. City Manager Schwabauer responded that the fee program is for construction of regional parks and expansion of facilities that serve the community, such as police, fire, water, and other utilities, all of which have an assumed cost of growth. If the City discounts the fee program, it loses the ability to construct elements of the fee program at the rate anticipated. If the discounts are tied to growth, the City gains revenue from Community Facilities District (CFD) fees, property tax, and sales tax generated by the growth. He used the example that, if 1,000 homes were constructed, the City would realize $500,000 in CFD fees and $400,000 in property taxes, along with another $100,000 in revenue from the other residential structures -- hotels, senior housing, and apartment complexes -- for a total of $1 million annually. CFD and property tax revenue are realized annually, but impact fees are one-time dollars and can only be used to expand programs. Impact fees could not be used to repair or enhance features at Lodi Lake; the dollars could only be used to increase Lodi Lake by purchasing additional land and expanding the park. Those dollars could also not be used to address the California Public Employees Retirement System issue. Only revenue from CFD fees and property taxes can be applied toward those types of projects, but many of the developments will not be completely built out for a number of years and will not solve the long-term problem Lodi faces. Mr. Schwabauer stated that the current level of growth indicates the discounted fee program is no longer necessary and that Lodi's fees are still lower than many of the surrounding cities' impact fees. He pointed out there are in-kind requirements built into Lodi's impact fees, which is not shown in the rate, but even with that component, Lodi's rates are in line with those of Manteca and Lathrop and are still competitive. Mike Lusk stated he was not opposed to development, but he wants to see citizens protected against rate increases or subsidization of growth. He provided a handout expanding on the example Mr. Schwabauer used during the July 6, 2016, Council meeting regarding property taxes to the City and impact mitigation fees. He stated that Lodi loses money on the reduced fee schedule and it would take over ten years to break even on the advanced subsidy to developers. Mr. Lusk believed that, under Proposition 218, the full impact of development must be collected and distributed to the enterprise fund rather than reducing fees and stated he was in support of returning to the regular fee schedule and potentially even increasing the fees. John Beckman with the Building Industry Association thanked Council for the visionary thought it put into this when adopting the plan, stating he was proud of the results, especially at Rose Gate, Reynolds Ranch, and Van Ruiten, none of which would have happened without the temporary fee reduction program. Because of this program, development is once again occurring. He stated the developers understood there would need to be an end to the program and he believed this was an appropriate time to do so; although, he was pleased to see the vested developments were locked in with the reduced fees. Myrna Wetzel questioned, with the recent water problems, if Lodi has an adequate water supply to meet the demand of new growth, to which Mr. Swimley stated that Lodi has a robust water supply thanks to the construction of the water treatment facility. He stated there is ample water to satisfy growth and maintain the safe groundwater yield from extraction. In response to Council Member Mounce, Mr. Swimley stated Lodi is showing a bump in its groundwater elevations. With the growth, Lodi is dependent upon outlying areas and how those communities handle their groundwater management practices, but with the aquifer, Lodi should maintain its groundwater elevation. Council Member Mounce stressed that the aquifer is regional and the concern is that other communities could overdraft Lodi. 2 Mr. Schwabauer provided clarification on Ms. Wetzel's question, stating water restrictions were imposed on homeowners last year as a result of the drought, which is different from water supply. Lodi has a strong water supply; however, it must still comply with the State's regulations on how much water homeowners can use, as well as the Governor's restrictions during a drought. Mr. Schwabauer explained that Lodi has two water sources: groundwater that can be pumped and 6,000 acre feet annually of banked water. Both supplies are in excess of the amount needed today, but eventually Lodi will grow to a size where the banked water may need to be utilized. He stated that other communities must stop pulling more water out of the ground than can be replenished, adding there will be rules in the near future as a result of Groundwater Sustainability Agency requirements. As of today, Lodi is more than sustainable and it would take roughly 4,000 new dwelling units to draw down the excess supply. Mike Lusk questioned if it was possible to renegotiate the agreement on the first Astoria project to reduce the contract amount, to which Electric Utility Director Elizabeth Kirkley responded in the negative. Ms. Kirkley stated that Lodi Electric Utility (LEU) had opportunities for other contracts, but because the renewable requirement date was fast approaching, LEU could wait no longer and entered the contract. She stated the Utility has a diversified portfolio and will have the opportunity for cost savings. Mr. Schwabauer added that power purchase contracts are market driven by conditions at the time. When the Astoria project was negotiated, construction costs were higher, but prices fell since then, making project costs less expensive. Mayor Chandler summarized that it appears Council consensus, with agreement from the development community, is to proceed with the schedule to eliminate the reduced fee schedule, with the exception of in -fill and high-density projects. Council Member Johnson stated he would like to study the matter further because he was concerned about eliminating the discount prematurely and potentially negatively affecting the recent surge in development; although, he was not opposed to proceeding with the hearing. Mr. Swimley stated staff can include a phased -in approach as well when the matter comes back to Council for decision. C. Comments by Public on Non -Agenda Items - None D. Adjournment No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 7:54 a.m. ATTEST: Jennifer M. Ferraiolo City Clerk 3 TM CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Receive Presentation on Growth and Development in Lodi MEETING DATE: July 26, 2016 PREPARED BY: Community Development Director RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive Presentation on Growth and Development in Lodi. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since 2013, the City of Lodi has been experiencing growth in the areas of residential, commercial and industrial development. Planning staff will present an overview of approved and anticipated development within Lodi. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. APPROVED Community Development Director S ep e S hwabauer, ager 2016 Lodi Development Summary Community Development Department CITY OF LODI YEAR POPULATION 1/1/2000 57,011 1/1/2001 58,122 1/1/2002 59,376 1/1/2003 60,311 1/1/2004 61,056 1/1/2005 61,431 1/1/2006 61,411 1/1/2007 61,648 1/1/2008 61,749 1/1/2009 61,796 4/1/2010 62,134 1/1/2011 62,334 1/1/2012 62,575 1/1/2013 63,233 1/1/2014 63,651 1/1/2015 62,772 1/1/2016 63,219 Po • ulation General Plan VILLAGE 111 LDR-V3 VILLAGE II LDR-V2 VILLAGE I LDR-V I Rose Gate -MT= 7 Rose Gate - 2 1%.)IL t � 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 LODIAVrNJf. Y9 A -- x :. 1©rtWW I ,, v • .1 le • n ■ ■ r r a s a n ■ n �© ©© w. NUR 9.15 at. w • w 41 . x e . x « a a a • }o z u • . w • w R •M M . • N % M ©. wt >~ w- i m n .y ri MF w w M W . w wf i•r m .�� 111I'[[ L1I w •e .. i« .. a� �rwr .• NI LY w © iq iu 1. is w .0 m a _us a mi i w i. i• i• m m it �., w v § A •L•m .a mEll i• 4 .. w ..— ElL Par, POW SrMEf ... Ell MN AM NI .N L ©Eil p ■ Hs r r ni w a. I m ilm w ■ OE IIII m�w II a � w� p� Pl �. 1.l r .! h1 in f. al f�f 1�1 }} T� �y C . ., LODI use SCHOOL:11 NI II p •. .. • .w « a . m , .. Vurry 517EE an . • xIx Q I 6asln 5.E ac IM 1 Ws." al #wr r lh: S : I - Vintner S• uare - 57 PEDESTRIAN GATE OULEVARD T^ 4ti ,N iui�in u1111: LAND VII DMINICTS ulw CM". Rena& ru hiPICkAnDeroirt 1ctialclihlI Hphflemlh he+lo!CFul 1. hx4 WIN fin Atli* Raj' r f IMF • Van Ruiten — 200 / 267 1 ...66 411 41A a 19 it e ,.0009 111010 1 s isO IeIre 9 4•11•0111r9 Pecif,. PRI. • e. e a 6 * ? ['r *eeee". 410.ep- e 7 e e"e. - • a 1 t • I 1 1 .1.11.1....1.11.1. -14 ;TI. 4 �� nolds Ranch - 220 4 f� j RJfURF PE4EI rnUNT Al C �Community_- Il 1Entry0' -.IL . — 1 : 1 1— i 1 1_ Garages -I.= Secondary - 5i 111 BUILDING 1.0 I 19R UNITS BUILDING 2.0 I 2BR (GROUPED) UNITS BUILDING 2.1 I 2BR (SPLIT) UNITS AMENITY & GARAGE BUILDINGS �— , Primary Community • V77,.. - Entry Clubhouse ;. Y Re nolds Ranch A • is - 156 u z 0 0 z LU Re nolds Ranch A•ts --------------- ----------------------- Re nolds Ran Sen - 142 • . 7 -. --- • , , '7,,,. ,,..%77.:' '4,-.--7-, , - .--<-,,-,-.-:_ 1__..---7•1 amint-- • IL' 1 L. - NMI II' i 1 NiMilli Mi.11 w 111 I Pli Ill ° - 1 L. I., 1,i it Reimmt, 111 giiiii 1 mmmaill '10 PI . . 1 L LI ea vo '' ft • . ' '' iis we RR 6111' 11 L ir in EN fla IN Ili liN NM MI 3i*iIuI it BP idifl L!I i 11 • IMI; - .4 r. 7' isi a kir 4 • :_riallio” — • W it111 DD 7 1110, ,111 • ji ins IT* Li Re nolds Ranch Senior - 142 Re nolds Ranch Senior - 142 Private Drive & Resident Parking Drop -Off & Visitor Potential Parking Rooftop PV Panels Community Room Overlooking Park Courtyard Open to Park Bio -Swale Two Story Senior Housing with South & West Facing Porches Roget Park with New Walking Path Target Eden Housin• —Tienda - 80 .0e0" J 4 To -7.7'Z 7,4'ZT.r__ "`-'4_-'1:11-111 III.IJ.1 1 LI (0> - _IIIIII�_1 1 1 I E -I .b. L 11111111 • 0 0 0 0 IVB J Ip ., IV E E 111111111111 1111111111111 1= C - 71 it L- ,.71 149 11'49'0 '„1]].91 Lodi Sho • • in • Center ,-,••••U arer&ZIT TOP IHOBBY LOBBY view 1EZ TENANT 3 13,000 SF 90' TENANT 2 14,000 SF 290' 21,500 SF 210' TENANT 1 50,000 SF NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION Wal-Mart re -use r Re nolds Ranch Parce13 - 130 AC Asking -41811U FEF Ep.x1g.et- ;1•62112 PPF AltasasE HAP NEY• Pen c2- 1.57 AC. Asking -;1&Ua FEF Budge! -.ma] FSF AlIALADLE Pateli-i�ShC Asking - 5.2U:9.7 F&= Budget -1:20.)2 F"3F M EDDRO Y Farce' 6 - 0.61 AC. A51.1 9.2 -X14 D2 FEF EulQe1- ;121I0 FSF MN LADLE P I5- 1.49 AC. Asking -;12 0 PDF •a. el-Ili100P8F &VAI E .riTeiII Parcel 7 - 0.94110 Askr1-slum PEF Budges -;12.00 FSF AVM LADLE 41..4.4 1. woo s ILC • r4-�J mmai 15ru1„ fl31 OW P c el 10- 1.17 ha Asking -1F1ZOE FSF RAO -#1DA0 P8F AVAILABLE P.i.RCli.i 26.iC • ROCKY LANE Parcel 12 -1.023 Ac. ragnQ-412.D0 FSF Mabel -;619.171 PBF AVea l3 E Parcel 7-0 -1.035 rAC Asking -#14.00 FSF Buoael-;i12.1:0 FSF AVAL IDLE L.. Parcel 6 - 0.33 r,e h�cry- 'ELM F8F Burge - 610.04 FSF E#1 40w Parcel 9 - 0. PC Asking - i7A.NI FEF Budget -;12.R3 FEF AVM LADLE Parcel 55-1E411C htisl-g - 6'.6.32 P8F Budget - S1.1.33 FEF 111 1 • Re nolds Ranch r 222'-0" CMU SPLIT -FACED - STAIN DSG CAEN STONE - P-51 SW #0028 (TYP) SINGLE SCORED CMU ACCENT BAND - PAINTED DSG P-52 (TYP) SECURITY LIGHT (TYP) EI FS PAINTED TO MATCH 5W #0028 ROOF LINE BEYOND INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN PER EAST COAST SIGNS (SIGN A) DICKS 1 f 6 8 25.-3" f 12 "SD 25'-3" Shops 8 6,250 SF SPORTING GOODS --MEL— ■ •■■•■• ■ i■■ 11■ 7■ 1 ■ 48'-10" ( IDTH OF 49'-4" (PI RIO PIER II --gid NTRY 5 RUCTURE) win SU_ BEAMS wl MTL.X-BRACING PAINT DSG HARTFORD GREEN - P-50 (TYP) DECORATIVE LIGHT PAINT HARTFORD GREEN -P-50 SW 1395F518(TYR) 1 STEE CAP -PREF HARTFORD GREEI SW 1395E518 Tr' Queue Space = 260' 18'-0" 25'-0" 40 4 -3 u Monument Sign IS' -3' //A 61 Stalls Provided 5.42 stalls / per 1,000 s.f. )TT -111 Re nolds Ranch Shops 9 5,000 SF -4-4 , 25'-3" 6--8 City Council 76 Unit Hotel 95 Unit Extended Sta 1 Cepheid Kobota PCP Industrial TM CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Discussion Regarding Elimination of Reduced Residential Impact Fee Structure MEETING DATE: July 26, 2016 (Shirtsleeve Session) PREPARED BY: Public Works Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion regarding elimination of reduced residential impact fee structure. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Impact Mitigation Fee program was adopted by the Lodi City Council on August 15, 2012. At that time, residential development activity in Lodi was basically non-existent as a result of the housing downturn. At the request of the building community, Council approved a reduced residential impact fee schedule to financially incentivize the development of new residential housing units in all density categories. The reduced fee schedule applies to only residential land uses and represents a discount of approximately 60 percent. Beginning in 2014, the residential development activity in Lodi started to gain substantial momentum. Currently, there are four active residential developments totaling over 700 single-family lots, along with various, smaller infill developments that have been approved. Additionally, there are three multi -family projects consisting of nearly 400 units that are making their way through the approval process. The Shirtsleeve presentation will provide an overview of the current impact fee structure, current residential development climate, and provide a comparison of impact fees in Lodi with surrounding cities. The focus of the presentation is to solicit Council feedback regarding the reduced residential impact fee structure. The summary of the regular fees, scheduled to become effective January 1, 2020, is provided in Exhibit A. A summary of the reduced fees is provided in Exhibit B. The reduced fees have been approved through December 31, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE Not applicable. CES/CES/tdb Attachments Charles E. Swimley Jr. Public Works Director APPROVED: he hwa+:uer, . ity Manager K:\WP\DEV_SERV\Impact Fees\juIy2016shirtsleeve\Shirtsleev IMF 7-26-2016.doc 7/19/16 Exhibit A Impact Mitigation Fee Program Schedule of Fees Table A-1: Water and Wastewater Fees Meter Size Water Wastewater 5/8 -inch meter 3/4 -inch meter 1 -inch meter 1 1/2 -inch meter 2 -inch meter 3 -inch meter 4 -inch meter 6 -inch meter 8 -inch meter 10 -inch meter $2,079 $3,103 $5,181 $10,332 $16,537 $31,026 $51,721 $103,411 $165,464 $237,880 $2,831 $4,225 $7,056 $14,070 $22,521 $42,253 $70,435 $140,828 $225,333 $323,951 Table A-2: Transportation, Police, Fire, General City Facilities, Park and Art in Public Places Fees RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Low Medium High Density Density Density 1 Fee Component (per Unit) (per Unit) (per Unit) NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Office/ Retail Medical Industrial (per 1,000 SF) (per 1,000 SF) (per 1,000 SF) Transportation $711 $386 $386 Police $753 $634 $528 Fire $385 $324 $270 Park $3,890 $3,276 $2,730 General City Facilities $617 $519 $433 Art in Public Places $80 $67 $56 $1,199 $872 $443 $330 $528 $176 $338 $540 $180 $406 $650 $217 $270 $433 $144 $35 $56 $19 Table A-3: Residential Electric Utility Fees 240 Volts Single Phase Panel 60 amps 100 amps 125 amps 200 amps 400 amps 600 amps $248 $413 $516 $826 $1,652 $2,478 Table A-4: Non -Residential Electric Utility Fees 208 240 480 Volts Volts Volts Single Phase Panel 60 amps n/a $248 n/a 100 amps n/a $413 n/a 125 amps n/a $516 n/a 200 amps n/a $826 n/a 400 amps n/a $1,652 n/a 600 amps n/a $2,478 n/a Three Phase Panel 200 amps $1,178 $1,359 $2,718 400 amps $2,356 $2,718 $5,437 600 amps $3,534 $4,077 $8,155 800 amps $4,712 $5,437 $10,873 1000 amps $5,890 n/a $13,591 1200 amps $7,068 n/a $16,310 1600 amps $9,423 n/a $21,746 2000 amps $11,779 n/a $27,183 2500 amps $14,724 n/a $33,979 3000 amps $17,669 n/a $40,774 Table A-5: Storm Drainage Fees Fee Component RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Low Medium High Density Density Density (per Unit) (per Unit) (per Unit) NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Office/ Retail Medical Industrial (per Acre) (per Acre) (per Acre) Storm Drainage - Zone 1 Storm Drainage - Zone 2 $1,394 $697 $561 $14,640 $14,640 $15,686 $4,237 $2,118 $1,703 $44,485 $44,485 $47,663 Table A-6: South Wastewater Trunk Line Fees Fee Component RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Low Medium High Density Density Density (per Unit) (per Unit) (per Unit) NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Office/ Retail Medical Industrial (per 1,000 st) (per 1,000 st) (per 1,000 sf) South Wastewater Trunk Linel $1,181 $994 $829 $1,096 n/a n/a 1 Applies only to development that will benefit from construction of the wastewater trunk line serving the southern area of the City. Exhibit B Impact Mitigation Fee Program Schedule of Reduced Fees Table B-1: Water and Wastewater Fees Residential Non -Residential Meter Size Water Wastewater Water Wastewater 5/8 -inch meter $846 $1,152 $2,079 $2,831 3/4 -inch meter $1,263 $1,720 $3,103 $4,225 1 -inch meter $2,109 $2,873 $5,181 $7,056 1 1/2 -inch meter $4,206 $5,728 $10,332 $14,070 2 -inch meter $6,732 $9,168 $16,537 $22,521 3 -inch meter $12,631 $17,201 $31,026 $42,253 4 -inch meter $21,056 $28,674 $51,721 $70,435 6 -inch meter $42,099 $57,331 $103,411 $140,828 8 -inch meter $67,360 $91,733 $165,464 $225,333 10 -inch meter $96,841 $131,880 $237,880 $323,951 Table B-2: Transportation, Police, Fire, General City Facilities, Park and Art in Public Places Fees Fee Component RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Low Medium High Density Density Density (per Unit) (per Unit) (per Unit) NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Office/ Retail Medical Industrial (per 1,000 SF) (per 1,000 SF) (per 1,000 SF) Transportation $289 $157 $157 Police $307 $258 $215 Fire $157 $132 $110 Park $1,584 $1,334 $1,111 General City Facilities $251 $211 $176 Art in Public Places $33 $27 $23 $1,199 $872 $443 $330 $528 $176 $338 $540 $180 $406 $650 $217 $270 $433 $144 $35 $56 $19 Table B-3: Residential Electric Utility Fees 240 Volts Single Phase Panel 60 amps 100 amps 125 amps 200 amps 400 amps 600 amps $101 $168 $210 $336 $673 $1,009 Table B-4: Non -Residential Electric Utility Fees 208 240 480 Volts Volts Volts Single Phase Panel 60 amps n/a $248 n/a 100 amps n/a $413 n/a 125 amps n/a $516 n/a 200 amps n/a $826 n/a 400 amps n/a $1,652 n/a 600 amps n/a $2,478 n/a Three Phase Panel 200 amps 400 amps 600 amps 800 amps 1000 amps 1200 amps 1600 amps 2000 amps 2500 amps 3000 amps $1,178 $1,359 $2,718 $2,356 $2,718 $5,437 $3,534 $4,077 $8,155 $4,712 $5,437 $10,873 $5,890 n/a $13,591 $7,068 n/a $16,310 $9,423 n/a $21,746 $11,779 n/a $27,183 $14,724 n/a $33,979 $17,669 n/a $40,774 Table B-5: Storm Drainage Fees RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Low Medium High Density Density Density (per Unit) (per Unit) (per Unit) NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Office/ Retail Medical Industrial (per Acre) (per Acre) (per Acre) Storm Drainage - Zone 1 Storm Drainage - Zone 2 $567 $284 $228 $14,640 $14,640 $15,686 $1,556 $778 $627 $40,834 $40,834 $43,871 Table B-6: South Wastewater Trunk Line Fees Fee Component RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Low Medium High Density Density Density (per Unit) (per Unit) (per Unit) NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Office/ Retail Medical Industrial (per 1,000 sf) (per 1,000 sf) (per 1,000 sf) South Wastewater Trunk Linel $481 $405 $337 $446 n/a n/a 1 Applies only to development that will benefit from construction of the wastewater trunk line serving the southern area of the City. 1 0 114110,11111.......- ......... . ......... : . iiii Discussion Regarding Elimination of Reduced Residential Impact Fee Structure Shirtsleeve Meeting July 26, 2016 Presentation Outline • Brief overview • Reduced vs. regular fees • Comparison with other cities • Potential impacts on development • Options • Schedule Brief Overview • August 2012 (Resolution 2012-142): • Master plans • New impact fees • Reduced residential fees (through 12/31/2019) • October 2013 (Resolution 2013-184): • Amendment to Parks and Storm drain fees • February 2015 (Resolution 2015-16): • Amendment to the South Wastewater Trunk Line Fee Brief Overview • Active residential development projects • Rose Gate 232 Lots • Reynolds Ranch Phases 1-3 220 Lots • Villa Fiore 200 Lots • The Vine 57 Lots • Reynolds Ranch Multi -Family 298 Units • Eden Housing 80 Units • Future projects • Rose Gate 2 250 Lots • 0 V ■ r Fee Component Reduced Fees Regular Fees (per Unit) (per Unit) Water $1,263 $3,103 Wastewater $1,720 $4,225 Storm Drainage $0 $0 Transportation $289 $711 Police $307 $753 Fire $157 $385 Electric $336 $826 Park $1,584 $3,890 General City Facilities $251 $617 Art in Public Places $33 $80 TOTAL $5,940/Unit $14,590/Unit Residential — Medium Densit Fee Component Reduced Fees Regular Fees (per Unit) (per Unit) Water $1,263 $3,103 Wastewater $1,720 $4,225 Storm Drainage $0 $0 Transportation $157 $386 Police $258 $634 Fire $132 $324 Electric $336 $826 Park $1,334 $3,276 General City Facilities $211 $519 Art in Public Places $27 $67 TOTAL $5,438/Unit $13,360/Unit Fee Component Reduced Fees Regular Fees (per Unit) (per Unit) Water $846 $2,079 Wastewater $1,152 $2,831 Storm Drainage $0 $0 Transportation $157 $386 Police $215 $528 Fire $110 $270 Electric $168 $413 Park $1,111 $2,730 General City Facilities $176 $433 Art in Public Places $23 $56 TOTAL $3,958/Unit $9,726/Unit $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 Fee Comparison —per Single Family Unit 1 $10,000 $0 $53,199 $14,590 $42,644 A 1 $23,453 $38,601 $27,381 Lodi Ripon Tracy Lathrop Stockt• Manteca ■ Police & Fire ■ Parks Water ■ Wastewater r Storm ■ Transportation ■ Misc. Impacts on Development • Villa Fiore, Rose Gate, Reynolds Ranch (LDR), The Vine • Minimal impacts —protected by development agreements (3 years) — or most fees already paid • Rose Gate 2, Reynolds Ranch (HDR) and infill projects: • Either pre -pay reduced fees during adoption period • Or, pay regular fees upon certificate of occupancy Options • Leave reduced fees in place • Reduction automatically eliminated December 31, 2019 • Provide direction to move forward with eliminating reduced fees Schedule • Next Steps if directed to move forward with eliminating reduction: • August 17, 2016 • September 21, 2016 • 45 Days thereafter Set Public Hearing Conduct Public Hearing Fees effective Questions? AGENDA ITEM B-02 JULY 26, 2016 IMPACT MITIGATION FEE F,16 brh. UAW.- -1126(I (6-4 City Manager Schwabauer's example of Property Tax Revenues the City of Lodi received per residential unit per year during the Council Meeting July 6, 2016: ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUE $200,000.00 $300,000.00 $400,000.00 $500,000.00 $600,000.00 LOT DENSITY LOW DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY HIGH DENSITY Property Tax at 1% and Cities portion of this 1% is 16% 1% TAX $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 16% TO CITY $320.00 $480.00 $640.00 $800.00 $960.00 IMPACT MITIGTION FEE SCHEDULE REDUCED FEES $5,940.00/UNIT $5,438.00/U N IT $3,958.00/UNIT REGULAR FEES $14,590.00/U NIT $13,360.00/UNIT $9,726.00/UNIT PAGE 1 SAVINGS TO DEVELOPER PROFIT MARGIN/LOSS OF CITY REVENUE $8,650.00/UNIT $7,922.00/UNIT $5,768.00/UNIT IN RELATION TO OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY BUDGET THE 10 PLUS YEAR RECOVERY TIME INFLATS CITIZENS OBLIGATION ON ALL PARTS OF THE BUDGET, ESPECIALLY ON INFASTRUCTURE WARE AND REPLACEMENT. LODI'S REGULAR FEE SCHEDULE IS THE LOWEST IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THIS FEE IS ALREADY NOT ONLY A BENEFIT TO THE DEVELOPER PROFIT MARGINS IT STILL ALLOWS LODI HOUSING TO BE COMPETITIVE WITHOUT THE CITIZENS OF LODI SUBSIDIZING THE DEVELOPER THROUGH REDUCED IMPACT MITIGATION FEES. I REALIZE THERE ARE SOME VARIBLES THAT AFFECT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IN MY PRESENTATION BUT THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED HERE IS STILL VALID. AM IN FAVOR OF AT LEAST RETURNING TO THE REGULAR FEE SCHEDULE AND IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THEY ARE THE LOWEST IN THE AREA THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER RAISING THEM HIGHER. RESPECTFULLY MIKE LUSK, LODI PAGE 3 Jennifer Ferraiolo From: Adam Brucker Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:17 PM To: Mark Chandler; Bob Johnson - External; Alan Nakanishi; Doug Kuehne; JoAnne Mounce Cc: Steve Schwabauer; Jennifer Ferraiolo Subject: Available Space/Land Attachments: For Sale.pdf; For Lease.pdf Councilmembers, As referenced at the recent Shirtsleeve, please find attached for your information my working lists of currently marketed building space and/or land (categorized by For Sale and For Lease) within existing City limits. Note: The identified "property type" and "subtype" are as identified in the listings and have not been confirmed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Adam Brucker Business Development Manager 221 W Pine Street Lodi CA 95240 (209) 333-6874 - abruckerAlodi.gov Stay Connected: city of Lodi 1 Lodi Electric Utility �• Reduce your energy usage and lower your electric bill in 2016. Lodi Electric Utility offers several rebates and incentives. Contact us at Rebate(a�esgroupllc.com for more details or visit www.LodiElectric.com 1 For Sale Lot Size (SF) Lot Size (AC) Price ($) Price (SF) Property Type Sub -type Building Size (SF) 686 E Lockeford St 710 S Beckman Rd 1205 E Vine St 1744 Ackerman Dr 1170 5 Guild Ave 912,146 200 N Beckman Rd 87,120 730-736 5 Cherokee Ln 22,500 880 N Guild Avenue 1200 Pixley PI 22,651 1366 E Turner Rd 25,700 1833 W Kettleman Ln 515 S Fairmont Ave 1510 W Kettleman 210 W Pine St 117 W Lockeford St 6,534 215 N Cherokee Ln 18 W Pine St 359 E Lodi Ave 24W Elm St 109 5 Cherokee Ln 2.04 $850,000 $60.71 1.18 $1,850,000 $100.41 0.58 PND 0.36 $599,000 $85.57 20.94 $3,603,000 $3.95 $895,000 0.52 $550,000 14.08 $1,899,000 0.52 $399,000 0.59 $249,000 1.13 $1,250,000 0.33 $721,000 $2,300,000 $263.85 $1,500,000 $125.00 $315,000 $140.00 $349,000 $129.26 $649,000 $64.90 0.18 $695,000 $108.59 0.12 $775,000 $80.39 0.11 $375,000 $197.37 Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Office Office Office Office Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Flex Space Office/Showroom/Flex Space/Warehouse Warehouse Warehouse Industrial Commercial Industrial Industrial Commercial Commercial Medical Office Medical Office Restaurant 14,000 18,424 11,070 7,000 4,120 8,717 12,000 2,250 2,700 10,000 6,400 9,640 1,900 For Lease Lot Size (SF) Lot Size (AC) Price ($) Price (SF) Property Type 209 Houston Ln 710 S Beckman Rd 850 S Guild Avenue 1371 E Pine St 2000 W Turner Rd 31 N Cluff Ave SE Corner of Beckman Rd and Vine 1011-1045 E Lockeford St 1250 S Beckman Rd 1150 S Cherokee Ln 1337 Kettleman Ln 222 W Lockeford St 245 E Kettleman Ln 515 5 Fairmont Ave 911 Industrial Wy 1024 Industrial Wy 531 W Kettleman Ln 431SHam Ln 999 5 Fairmont Ave 1949 W Kettleman Ln 2000 W Kettleman Ln 310-320 S Crescent Ave 1320 W Lockeford St 1139 E Kettleman Ln 13615 Lower Sacramento Rd 501 W Kettleman Ln 504 Lodi Ave 741 B S Cherokee Ln 114 W Pine St 1251 S Beckman Rd 480 S Cherokee Ln 233 S School St 359E Lodi Ave 135 Lakewood Mall 1379 5 Lower Sacramento Rd Suite 501 220 S Church St 2740 Reynolds Ranch Pkwy 4015 Cherokee Ln 514 W Kettleman Ln 730 W Kettleman Ln 3115 Lower Sacramento Rd 2401 W Turner Rd 82,459 0.1 1.18 19.03 1.64 66.5 0.92 7.37 Neg 1 $1,500/month 23.07 Neg 1.5 1.09 1.02 0.28 1.38 0.32 1.25 0.18 0.32 0.76 Neg Neg Neg Neg $0.55 Industrial $1.10 Industrial $15.00 Industrial $0.45 Industrial Neg Industrial $0.57 Industrial Land Land Land Neg Land Neg Land Office $1.25 Office $1.50 Office $0.85 Office $0.75 Office $1.45 Office $1.60 Office $1.60 Office Neg Office $1.60 Office $0.90 Office Neg Office Retail Retail Retail $1.25 Retail $1.25 Retail $0.83 Retail Neg Retail Neg Retail $2.50 Retail $0.75 Retail Neg Retail Neg Retail Neg Retail Neg Retail $1.00 Retail Neg Retail $1.10-$1.3! Retail Neg Retail $0.85 Retail Sub -type Building Size (SF) Total Space Available (SF) Warehouse Office Showroom Office Showroom Warehouse Dist Warehouse Flex Space Industrial Industrial Commercial Retail Retail Medical Office Medical Office Executive Suite Medical Office Executive Suite Strip Center Restaurant Pad under con Community Center Proposed Community Center Restaurant Strip Center Regional Ctr. Restaurant 3,000 18,424 137,800 30,100 1,123,000 19,500 8,693 2,900 4,120 12,000 21,350 1,383 6,000 30,000 13,188 10,000 68,993 9,974 7,383 5,039 5,000 2,987 5,000 6,400 2,205 5,000 3,166 40,000 103,136 35,000 3,000 7,261 15,000 4,750 1,123,000 10,500 82,459 3,054 1,000 4,120 6,328 1,750 1,383 1,154 6,594 8,003 251 2,375 5,280 1,452 2,570 800 2,987 54,450 10,000 8,225 6,400 1,840 2,205 8,355 131,054 1,200 3,166 6,000 13,790 11,621