Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Report - October 3, 2001 G-03 PH
CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Adopting Resolution Updating Development Impact Fees for Water, Wastewater Collection, Storm Drainage, Streets, Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and General City Facilities; and to Consider Amendments to Title 15, Section 64 of the Lodi Municipal Code MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001 PREPARED BY: Public Works Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: That following a public hearing, the City Council introduce an ordinance amending the Lodi Municipal Code and adopt a resolution updating development impact fees for water, wastewater collection, storm drainage, streets, police, fire, parks and recreation, and general City facilities. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Development impact fees are used to finance the design, construction, and administration of projects needed to serve the demand for public infrastructure resulting from new residential and nonresidential development. The City of Lodi adopted the current development impact fees in 1993. Recognizing that construction costs change over time and projects are redefined, an update to the Development Impact Fee Program was initiated. Copies of the report entitled Development Impact Fee Update were distributed to members of the City Council, developers and engineers active in the Lodi community, and the appropriate City staff in March. A public informational meeting was held on June 26, 2001, at the Carnegie Forum to present the final report and respond to comments and questions. Subsequent meetings were held with the Building Industry Association and the development community resulting in minor revisions to the report and consensus on the Program. Attached you will find a summary of the revised schedule of Impact Mitigation Fees and the final report. In accordance with the Art in Public Places Policy recently adopted, 2% of Impact Fee Program revenue will be placed in the Art Fund. That will represent the Impact Mitigation Fee contribution for art for all projects funded by impact fees. Under Government Code 66000 et seq., a public hearing shall be held prior to adopting a resolution that would change the current development impact fees. Staff is also requesting City Council consideration of our recommendation to defer the time for payment of all impact fees to acceptance of the public improvements. Currently, some of the fees are collected at map filing, with the remainder at acceptance. This will require amendments to Title 15, Section 64 of the Lodi Municipal Code. Additionally, Title 15 recommended amendments establish automatic updates of the fees on January 1 of each year. The first automatic update will be January 1, 2002. Amendments to the code section are attached for your review. The resolution establishing the fees will include implementation dates which will generally be January 1, 2002. FUNDING: None required. Richard C. Prima, Public Works Director Prepared by F. Wally Sandelin, City Engineer RCP/FWS/Im attachments cc: City Attorney Building Industry Association of the Delta Jeff Kirst Dennis Bennett Baumbach & Piazza Frontiers APPROVED: H. Dison Flynn -- City Manager CPH / 09/24/01 TABLE 2.2 (See Note 1) Summary of January 1, 2001 Development Impact Fees All Services (per acre) Land Use Categories Water I Sewer Storm I Draina e I Streets & Roads I Police Fire Parks & Rec General Total RESIDENTIAL Low Density $ 3,918 $ 501 $ 11,276 $ 7,874 $ 1,540 $ 1,505 $ 19,329 $ 6,221 $ 52,165 Medium Density $ 7,679 $ 983 $ 11,276 $ 15,434 $ 2,727 $ 2,950 $ 27,640 $ 8,897 $ 77,585 High Density $ 13,673 $ 1,750 $ 11,276 $ 24,017 $ 7,271 $ 6,502 $ 54,120 $ 17,420 $136,029 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density $ 3,918 $ 501 $ 11,276 $ 7,874 $ 1,540 $ 1,505 $ 19,329 $ 6,221 $ 52,165 Medium Density $ 7,679 $ 983 $ 11,276 $ 15,434 $ 2,727 $ 2,950 $ 27,640 $ 8,897 $ 77,585 High Density $ 13,673 $ 1,750 $ 11,276 $ 24,017 $ 7,271 $ 6,502 $ 54,120 $ 17,420 $136,029 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial $ 2,507 $ 471 $ 14,997 $ 16,379 $ 6,347 $ 4,049 $ 6,185 $ 5,537 $ 56,472 Office Commercial 2,507 $ 471 $ 14,997 $ 25,749 $ 5,730 $ 3,703 $ 10,438 $ 9,519 $ 73,114 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial $ 1,019 $ 211 $ 14,997 $ 15,749 $ 462 $ 963 $ 4,446 $ 3,982 $ 41,828 Heavy Industrial $ 1,019 $ 211 $ 14,997 $ 10,000 $ 293 $ 918 $ 6,378 $ 5,786 $ 39,602 Note 1: Table 2.1, "Summary of June 30, 1999 Development Impact Fees All Services," has been updated based upon the construction cost indexes below. ENR Adjustment July 1999 ENR Cost Index 6076 January 2001 ENR Cost Index 6281 Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION Chapter 15.64 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION FEES 15.64.040 Payment of fees. A. The property owner of any development project causing impacts to public facilities shall pay the appropriate development mitigation fee as provided in this chapter. The amount shall be calculated in accordance with this chapter and the program fee per residential acre equivalent as established by council resolution. B. When such payment is required by this chapter, no final subdivision map, building permit or grading permit shall be approved for property within the city unless the development impact mitigation fees for that property are paid or guaranteed as provided in this chapter. C. The fees shall be paid before the approval of a final subdivision map, building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first except as provided in subsection E of this section. D. If a final subdivision map has been issued before the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, then the fees shall be paid before the issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever comes first except as exempted under Section 15.64.110 of this chapter. E. Where the development project includes the installation of public improvements, the payment of fees established by this Chapter may be deferred and shall be collected prior to acceptance of the public improvements by the city council. Payment of all deferred fees shall be guaranteed by the owner prior to deferral. Such guarantee shall consist of a surety bond, instrument of credit, cash or other guarantee approved by the city attorney. (Ord. 1526 § 2, 1991; Ord. 1518 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.64.040 Payment of fees. 15.64.050 Adoption of study, capital improvement program and fees. A. The city council adopts the City of Lodi Development Fee Study dated August, 1991 and establishes a future capital improvement program consisting of projects shown in said study. The city council shall review that study annually, or more often if it deems it appropriate, and may amend it by resolution at its discretion. B. The city council shall include in the city's annual capital improvement program appropriations from the development impact fee funds for appropriate projects. C. Except for facilities approved by the public works director for construction by a property owner under Section 15.64.080 or as shown in the annual capital improvement program, all facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the schedule established in the development impact fee study. D. The program fee per residential area equivalent (RAE) shall be adopted by resolution and shall be . seR#P,Y automatically adjusted annually on January 1. The annual adjustment shall change the program fee by the same percentage as the annual change in the Engineering News Record 20 Cities Construction Cost Index.(Ord. 1518 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.6.1 050 Adoplion of study. capital improvement program and fees C)eseuwes•!2 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2001 Prepared By: Harris & Associates Program Managers Construction Managers Civil Engineers CITY OF LODI DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS (January 2001) Section Exhibit "A" Summary of Development Impact Fees—All Services ............................ 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................. Page 1 2 SUMMARY OF UPDATED IMPACT FEES ............................. Page 5 3 WATER SERVICE IMPACT FEES ....................................... Page 6 4 SEWER SERVICE IMPACT FEES ....................................... Page 8 5 STORM DRAINAGE IMPACT FEES ..................................... Page 10 6 STREETS AND ROADS IMPACT FEES ................................ Page 12 7 POLICE FACILITIES IMPACT FEES .................................... Page 14 8 FIRE FACILITIES IMPACT FEES ......................................... Page 16 9 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES ........................... Page 18 10 GENERAL CITY FACILITIES IMPACT FEES .......................... Page 20 11 BY-PRODUCTS OF THE STUDY ......................................... Page 22 LIST OF EXHIBITS Growth Forecast vs. Remaining Acreage for Development ..................... Exhibit "A" Summary of Development Impact Fees—All Services ............................ Exhibit "B" Water Projects Summary and Costs ................................................... Exhibit "C" Summary of Development Impact Fees—Water.................................... Exhibit "D" Sewer Projects Summary and Costs ................................................... Exhibit "E" Summary of Development Impact Fees—Sewer.................................... Exhibit "F" Summary of Development Impact Fees—Storm Drainage ....................... Exhibit "H" Streets/Road/Traffic Projects Summary and Costs... ............................. Exhibit "I" Summary of Development Impact Fees — Streets/Roads/Traffic............... Exhibit "J" Police Facilities Projects Summary and Costs ....................................... Exhibit "K" Summary of Development Impact Fees—Police Facilities ....................... Exhibit "t_" Fire Facilities Projects Summary and Costs .......................................... Exhibit"M" Summary of Development Impact Fees—Fire Facilities .......................... Exhibit "N" Parks and Recreation Projects Summary and Costs .............................. Exhibit "O" Summary of Development Impact Fees—Parks and Recreation ............... Exhibit "P" General City Projects Summary and Costs .......................................... Exhibit "Q" Summary of Development Impact Fees—General City ........................... Exhibit "R" SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Background The City of Lodi adopted the "Final Study, City of Lodi Development Impact Fee Study," prepared by Nolte and Associates and Angus McDonald Associates, in 1991. See Table 1.1 for a summary of the 1991 impact fees. The "Nolte Study," as it will be referred to in this report, established development impact fees pursuant to the requirements of AB 1600 (Government Code Section 66000 et. sec.) as a means to provide a comprehensive financing plan for various public infrastructure and facilities required to implement the City's General Plan. In 1993, the impact fees were adjusted (Resolution No. 93-26). See Table 1.2 for a summary of the 1993 impact fees. Although the fees were adjusted in 1993, the project cost estimates have not been updated since 1991. The impact fees have not been revised since 1993. Purpose of this Study The objective of this study is to update the development impact fee program presented in the Nolte Study to January 1, 2001, based upon methodology explained later in this report. The fees collected have been and will be used to finance the design, construction and inspection of Streets and Roads, Water, Sewer, Storm Drainage, Parks and Recreation, Police, Fire, and General City Facilities. Fees are imposed in such a manner that new development bears its related, fair -share costs of providing adequate infrastructure for the City. Planning Period The Nolte Study of 1991 used a planning horizon of 20 years (April 1987 to 2007), which was/is consistent with the City's approved General Plan. For the purposes of this fee update, the planning horizon has not been changed. However, based upon lower than anticipated growth rates, plus minimal General Plan Amendments since 1991, the effective period of the General Plan and this fee program is beyond 2007. Basis of Costs The 1991 Nolte Study based projected capital expenditure costs on estimates obtained from contractors, suppliers and similar projects, utilizing 1990 dollars. This study updates costs for capital projects by using 1999 updated unit costs based upon bid tabs, related projects, recent construction cost estimates, the ENR construction index, and/or information provided by City staff. Project Detail Sheets contain information on each project including projects referenced in the Nolte and new projects identified by the City. The 1993 impact fee adjustment did not include any update of the project cost estimates. Therefore, this study updates project costs from the original 1991 Nolte Study, which utilized 1990 dollar cost estimates. The primary basis of this report is based on project cost information through June 30, 1999. The project cost estimates are based on 1999 dollars and the fund balances in each infrastructure fund provided by the City are as of June 30, 1999. The impact fees have been updated with an ENR construction cost index to provide impact fees as of January 1. 2001, as described in Section 2, "Summary of Updated Fees". Completed/Partially Completed Projects As part of the fee update it was important to identify those projects referenced in the Nolte Study which have been completed or portions of projects completed utilizing development impact fees collected since 1991. In particular, projects partially completed and projects not yet started form the basis for the projected capital costs that become part of the formula/equation for determination of the updated development fees. Development Forecast/Remaining Acreage for Development The Nolte Study provided a forecast of the timing and rate at which the City was projected to develop. This information was consistent with the City's General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance. This information is necessary in order to calculate a valid development impact fee in that it serves two purposes: • It provides the basis for determining when required infrastructure must be completed to maintain the standard level of service • It assists in forecasting cash flow. Development in any one year determines the amount of impact fee dollars available to fund eligible projects. This report updates the development forecast and shows the extent of development which has occurred by reflecting the amount of acreage (identified by each land use designation) remaining to be developed. This, in effect, represents a forecast of future development based upon current expectations. See Exhibit "A." Residential Acre Equivalents The common denominator used for applying development impact fees to property is Residential Acre Equivalents (RAE's) that would be developed within each land use designation for each category of public improvement. An RAE measures the amount of use/burden a particular land use places on a category of public improvements relative to the use/burden placed on those improvements by an acre of low density single family dwellings. This study utilizes the same RAE factors used in the Nolte Study (with the exception of the change in commercial categories adjusted in 1992), and these are shown on Exhibit "B". Development Impact Fee Formula/Methodology The philosophy of the City's development impact fee program is to annually adjust fees so that the program is a "pay-as-you-go" system. The cash (fund) balances in each of the fee categories (called IMF funds) is recorded and tracked separately. At the end of the program, the balance in each of the eight (8) IMF funds should be zero. Short term transfers or loans between funds may be required as long as the fund balance in the overall fund remains positive. Development impact fees have been updated to reflect actual costs incurred, refinement in scope of projects, additions of projects and inflation. The formula used to determine the required fee needed to pay for these adjusted costs is calculated as follows: Total project cost (proposed/remaining projects) -Less IMF Fund Balance =Remaining fees required The new fee per RAE for each public improvement category is then determined by dividing the remaining fees required by the remaining RAE's within each land use category. Existing Deficiencies In accordance with AB 1600, projects earmarked to correct existing deficiencies in any infrastructure system or facility are not eligible for use of development impact fees. Therefore, such projects are not included in this study. AB 1600 Requirements & Findings AB 1600 Findings must be made with respect to the projects included in the fee update and a determination has to be made that there is a reasonable relationship between the requirement for the projects and the development as well as the amount and use of the fees. Those projects included in the Nolte Study which have either not been initiated or are partially complete have met the requirements of AB 1600 via inclusion of appropriate findings in that report. AB 1600 requires that the City make findings with regard to any unexpended or uncommitted fees held five or more years after deposit. Projects that have been added since that date, and projects that have been substantially modified, have been reviewed with City staff prior to inclusion in this report to determine compliance with AB 1600. This evaluation has disclosed the following findings: • There is a reasonable relationship between the requirement for the particular infrastructure impact fee and the new development proposed in the City. The required fee is necessary to provide facilities to serve the residential and commercial development in accordance with the City's General Plan. • The fees collected are used to acquire land and to design, manage and construct improvements to serve property in the City attributed to new (not existing) development. • All development creates demand on the City system of infrastructure. The type of development proposed in the City (primarily low-density residential, commercial and industrial) creates the need for types of infrastructure envisioned in this study. Therefore, fees are collected to acquire land and to design, manage and construct these facilities to accommodate the growth without negative impact on existing uses. • There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the proposed infrastructure and the type of development. Increases in the growth of residential, commercial and industrial land uses increases the need for more or expanded infrastructure/facilities. Thus, the establishment of fees to pay for the increased infrastructure capacity related to new development. • There exists a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the proposed new infrastructure projects. See the above -referenced formula for updating the fees. The amount of the fees for each type of infrastructure is adjusted, and should be adjusted annually, until all infrastructure required is built. When these are completed, the fund balance(s) will be zero. 4 TABLE 1A SUMMARY OF 1991 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ALL SERVICES (PER ACRE) Land Use Categories Water I Sewer Storm Draina e Streets & Roads Police Fire Parks & Rec General Total _] RESIDENTIAL Low Density $ 5,710 $ 1,090 $ 7,910 $ 5,470 $ 1,110 $ 520 $ 11,980 $ 6,380 $ 40,170 Medium Density $ 11,190 $ 2,140 $ 7,910 $ 10,720 $ 1,960 $ 1,020 $ 17,130 $ 9,120 $ 61,190 High Density $ 19,930 $ 3,800 $ 7,910 $ 16,680 $ 5,240 $ 2,250 $ 33,540 $17,860 $ 107,210 East Side Residential $ 5,710 $ 1,090 $ 7,910 $ 5,470 $ 1,210 $ 570 $ 13,180 $ 7,020 $ 42,160 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL $ 5,710 $ 1,090 $ 7,910 $ 5,470 $ 1,110 $ 520 $ 11,980 $ 6,380 $ 40,170 Low Density Medium Density $ 11,190 $ 2,140 $ 7,910 $ 10,720 $ 1,960 $ 1,020 $ 17,130 $ 9,120 $ 61,190 High Density $ 19,930 $ 3,800 $ 7,910 $ 16,680 $ 5,240 $ 2,250 $ 33,540 $17,860 $ 107,210 COMMERCIAL Neighborhood Commercial $ 3,650 $ 1,020 $ 10,520 $ 10,390 $ 4,750 $ 1,440 $ 3,830 $ 5,680 $ 41,280 General Commercial $ 3,650 $ 1,020 $ 10,520 $ 20,900 $ 2,870 $ 1,000 $ 3,830 $ 5,680 $ 49,470 Downtown Commercial $ 3,650 $ 1,020 $ 10,520 $ 10,390 1 4,750 $ 1,440 $ 3,830 $ 5,680 $ 41,280 Office Commercial $ 3,650 $ 1,020 $ 10,520 $ 17,890 $ 4,130 $ 1,280 $ 6,470 $ 9,760 $ 54,720 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial $ 1,480 $ 460 $ 10,520 $ 10,940 $ 330 $ 330 $ 2,760 $ 4,080 $ 30,900 Heavy Industrial $ 1,480 $ 460 $ 10,520 $ 6,950 $ 210 $ 320 $ 3,950 $ 5,930 $ 29,820 Source: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates TABLE 1.2 SUMMARY OF 1993 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ALL SERVICES (PER ACRE) Land Use Cate ories Water Sewer Storm I Draina e Streets & Roads Police Fire Parks & Rec I General Total RESIDENTIAL Low Density $ 5,690 $ 1,060 $ 7,630 $ 5,440 $ 1,130 $ 540 $ 11,830 $ 6,830 $ 40,150 Medium Density $ 11,150 $ 2,080 $ 7,630 $ 10,660 $ 2,000 $ 1,060 $ 16,920 $ 9,770 $ 61,270 High Density $ 19,860 $ 3,700 $ 7,630 $ 16,590 $ 5,330 $ 2,330 $ 33,120 $19,120 $ 107,680 East Side Residential $ 5,690 $ 1,060 $ 7,630 $ 5,440 $ 1,230 $ 590 $ 13,010 $ 7,510 $ 42,160 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL $ 5,690 $ 1,060 $ 7,630 $ 5,440 $ 1,130 $ 540 $ 11,830 $ 6,830 $ 40,150 Low Density Medium Density $ 11,150 $ 2,080 $ 7,630 $ 10,660 $ 2,000 $ 1,060 $ 16,920 $ 9,770 $ 61,270 High Density $ 19,860 $ 3,700 $ 7,630 $ 16,590 $ 5,330 $ 2,330 $ 33,120 $19,120 $ 107,680 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial $ 3,640 $ 1,000 $ 10,150 $ 11,320 $ 4,660 $ 1,450 $ 3,790 $ 6,080 $ 42,090 Office Commercial $ 3,640 $ 1,000 $ 10,150 $ 17,790 $ 4,200 $ 1,330 $ 6,390 $10,450 $ 54,950 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial $ 1,480 $ 450 $ 10,150 $ 10,880 $ 340 $ 350 $ 2,720 $ 4,370 $ 30,740 Heavy Industrial $ 1,480 $ 450 $ 10,150 $ 6,910 $ 210 $ 330 $ 3,900 $ 6,350 $ 29,780 Source: LMC Chapter 15.64 and Resolution 93-26 SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF UPDATED FEES The summary of updated development impact fees is shown in Table 2.1 (for June 30, 1999 fees) and Table 2.2 (for January 1, 2001 fees). Exhibit "B," entitled "Summary of Development Impact Fees/All Services/June 30, 1999" provides more detail. Table 2.1 and Exhibit "B" delineate the updated fees for June 30, 1999 for each of the eight (8) improvement categories as well as for each land use designation. In addition, a "total fee" is shown for each land use designation. The methodology used is described in Section 1 and the calculations for fees for each of the improvement categories are reflected in Sections 3 through 10 of this report. Table 2.2, "Summary of January 1, 2001 Development Impact Fees" are the current impact fees being adopted. They are based on an ENR Construction Index adjustment to Table 2.1, "Summary of June 30, 1999 Development Impact Fees". The ENR factors used are 6076 for June 30, 1999 and 6281 for January 1, 2001, an increase of approximately 3.4% from June 1999 to January 2001. Using low density residential land use as the baseline with a RAE of 1.00, the fees have increased from $40,150 per acre to $52,180 per acre. This is an increase of 30%. It should be noted that the ENR Construction Cost Index has increased about 34% from June 1990 to January 2001. See Tables 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2 for a detailed comparison of the initial development impact fees and the updated fees. Assuming a density of 5 units per acre, the fee equates to $10,436 per single family low density unit. Other increases applicable to the different land use categories vary based upon their particular RAE factor and/or estimated project cost. While this appears to be a substantial increase in development fees, it should be kept in mind that, with the exception of a very minor increase in 1993, annual adjustments have not been made over time. This fee update essentially covers a period of nine (9) fiscal years from FY91-92 to FY99-00, and incorporates appropriate inflation of costs over that time frame. Sections 3 through 10 of this study address the individual categories of impact fees, reflect those updated costs and phasing for projects, and provide the methodology and calculations for arriving at updated fees. 5 TABLE 2.1 SUMMARY OF June 30, 1999 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ALL SERVICES (PER ACRE) Land Use 22Lecjories Water Sewer Storm Drainage Streets & Roads Police Fire Parks & Rec General Total RESIDENTIAL Low Density $3,790 $499 $10,908 $7,617 $1,490 $1,456 $18,698 $6,018 $ 50,477 Medium Density $7,428 $978 $10,908 $14,930 $2,638 $2,854 $26,738 $8,606 $ 75,080 High Density $13,227 $1,742 $10,908 $23,233 $7,033 $6,290 $52,354 $16,851 $ 131,639 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density $3,790 $499 $10,908 $7,617 $1,490 $1,456 $18,698 $6,018 $ 50,477 Medium Density $7,428 $978 $10,908 $14,930 $2,638 $2,854 $26,738 $8,606 $ 75,080 High Density $13,227 $1,742 $10,908 $23,233 $7,033 $6,290 $52,354 $16,851 $ 131,639 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial $2,425 $469 $14,508 $15,844 $6,139 $3,917 $5,983 $5,356 $ 54,642 Office Commercial $2,425 $469 $14,508 $24,909 $5,543 $3,582 $10,097 $9,208 $ 70,741 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial $985 $210 $14,508 $15,235 $447 $932 $4,301 $3,852 $ 40,469 Heavy Industrial $985 $210 $14,508 $9,674 $283 $888 $6,170 $5,597 $ 38,315 TABLE 2.2 (See Note 1) Summary of January 1, 2001 Development Impact Fees All Services (per acre) Land Use Cate ories Water I Sewer Storm Drainage Streets & Roads Police Fire Parks & Rec General Total RESIDENTIAL Low Density $ 3,918 $ 516 $ 11,276 $ 7,874 $ 1,540 $ 1,505 $ 19,329 $ 6,221 $ 52,180 Medium Density $ 7,679 $ 1,011 $ 11,276 $ 15,434 $ 2,727 $ 2,950 $ 27,640 $ 8,897 $ 77,613 High Density $ 13,673 $ 1,801 $ 11,276 $ 24,017 $ 7,271 $ 6,502 $ 54,120 $ 17,420 $136,080 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density $ 3,918 $ 516 $ 11,276 $ 7,874 $ 1,540 $ 1,505 $ 19,329 $ 6,221 $ 52,180 Medium Density $ 7,679 $ 1,011 $ 11,276 $ 15,434 $ 2,727 $ 2,950 $ 27,640 $ 8,897 $ 77,613 High Density $ 13,673 $ 1,801 $ 11,276 $ 24,017 $ 7,271 $ 6,502 $ 54,120 $ 17,420 $136,080 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial $ 2,507 $ 485 $ 14,997 $ 16,379 $ 6,347 $ 4,049 $ 6,185 $ 5,537 $ 56,486 Office Commercial $ 2,507 $ 485 $ 14,997 $ 25,749 $ 5,730 $ 3,703 $ 10,438 $ 9,519 $ 73,128 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial $ 1,019 $ 217 $ 14,997 $ 15,749 $ 462 $ 963 $ 4,446 $ 3,982 $ 41,834 Heavy Industrial $ 1,019 $ 217 $ 14,997 $ 10,000 $ 293 $ 918 $ 6,378 $ 5,786 $ 39,608 Note 1: Table 2.1, "Summary of June 30, 1999 Development Impact Fees All Services," has been updated based upon the construction cost indexes below. ENR Adjustment July 1999 ENR Cost Index 6076 January 2001 ENR Cost Index 6281 SECTION 3 WATER SERVICE Overview Water service to Lodi residents is provided by the City. Major components of the water system include wells, distribution pipes, and water storage tanks. The following section describes the City's water policies as they relate to development impact fees, the methodology for calculating the updated fee, phasing and costs for water facilities to be funded by impact fees and the recommended fees for each land use (by land use designation) benefiting from the water projects. Water Policies The City's "Water Main Extension Policy" provides that applicants are reimbursed a portion of the construction cost of oversized mains and major crossings. For oversized mains, this policy applies to water mains larger than 8 inches in diameter. However, for major crossings, the City reimburses one half the cost of construction. Major crossings are identified in Ordinance 1527. Included in the cost calculations for the Nolte Study and this fee update are costs associated with "New Development Share of Existing Facilities". In the case of Water Facilities, future development is responsible for a residual share of 20 percent of the 1999 adjusted cost for the elevated storage tank project. The resulting dollar amount of construction cost is allocated to future development and becomes part of the total project costs upon which updated fees are based. Project Summaries and Estimated Costs Exhibit "C" is a summary of the water projects and estimated costs for which updated fees are established. As mentioned earlier, estimated costs are based upon suggested unit costs, or the ENR construction index, which have been reviewed and approved by City staff. Relationship of Water Projects to New Development and Land Uses A reasonable relationship must be established between 1) the 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 to be charged the fee actually uses, is served by or benefits from the public improvements financed by the fee revenue. The City ensures that all water facility improvements will primarily benefit the residential, commercial and industrial land uses within the General Plan Area. All water projects to be financed from impact fees will provide the same level of service to the General Plan Area as currently provided to the existing community. On the basis that all land uses will benefit from the facilities to be constructed, the burden of financing will be distributed to each land use in proportion to their use of, or benefit from the improvements. The methodology to accomplish this is through the use on of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE). The RAE schedule reflects the relative responsibility to pay for improvements for each land use designation in relation to the demand created by one acre of a single family detached residential unit. The RAE schedule presents the relationship between the level of service provided by the facilities, the demand for facilities by land use type and the financing burden placed on each land use. Method of Cost Allocation/Fee Determination As of June 30, 1999, the total cost of all water projects is estimated to be $7,845,702. Therefore, the calculation of the updated fee is determined as follows: Total project costs $7,845,702 Less Fund Balance* _(1,489,835) Remaining Water Fees Required $6,355,867 *Fund Balance includes earned interest. The remaining fees required must be collected from the remaining residential, commercial and industrial RAE's. Therefore, the new fee for each land use is calculated as follows: Water Fee = Land Use RAE Factor (by land use) x Remaining Water Fees Required (by land use) Cumulative Sum of Each Land Use Acreage x Each RAE Factor Recommended Fee Update A summary of the updated water fees for each land use designation benefiting from the projects is provided in Exhibit "D." 7 SECTION 4 SEWER SERVICE Overview The City of Lodi provides sewerage service to its residents. Facilities owned and operated by the City include a city-wide collection system, sewer trunks to the treatment plant and the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. Sewer Reimbursement Policy Developers typically are required to construct sewer lines with greater capacity than required for their particular projects in order to provide service to expanding areas of the City. Since it is unlikely that the City would require payment in advance of sewer capacity, the City usually pays for the oversizing of sewer trunks. The City's Sewer Trunk Extension Policy provides that applicants are reimbursed for a portion of the oversizing costs. Reimbursement under this policy applies to trunk sewers larger than 10 inches in diameter. Reimbursable costs include construction, materials, engineering and administration. Project Summaries and Estimated Costs Exhibit "E" is a summary of the sewer projects and estimated costs for which updated fees are established. As mentioned earlier, estimated costs are based upon suggested unit costs, or the ENR construction index, which have been reviewed and approved by City staff. Separate supplemental fees are collected for projects related to the Cluff Avenue Lift Station Service Area, the Harney Lane Lift Station Service Area and the Kettleman Lane Lift Station Service Area. They are not subjects of this study and do not appear in Exhibit E. The City also collects a wastewater capacity fee with building permits. This fee is based on estimated wastewater generation for various land use types and is used to fund added treatment capacity. This fee is not included in this study. Relationship of Sewer Projects to New Development and Land Uses A reasonable relationship must be established between 1) the 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 to be charged the fee actually uses, is served by or benefits from the public improvements financed by the fee revenue. The City ensures that all sewer facility improvements will primarily benefit the residential, commercial and industrial land uses within the General Plan Area. All sewer projects to be financed from impact fees will provide the same level of service to the General Plan Area as currently provided to the existing community. On the basis that all land uses will benefit from the facilities to be constructed, the burden of financing will be distributed to each land use in proportion to their use of, or benefit from the improvements. The methodology to accomplish this is through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE). The RAE schedule reflects the relative responsibility to pay for improvements for each land use designation in relation to the rat demand of a single family detached residential unit. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship between the cost of the required sewer projects and the financing burden placed on each land use. Method of Cost Allocation/Fee Determination As of June 30, 1999, the total cost of all sewer projects is estimated to be $872,000. Therefore, the calculation of the updated fee is determined as follows: Total project costs $872,000 Less Fund Balance* +11.152 (neaative balance) Remaining Sewer Fees Required $883,152 *Negative Fund Balance provided by the City's Finance Department. The remaining fees required must be collected from the remaining residential, commercial and industrial RAE's. Therefore, the new fee for each land use is calculated as follows: Sewer Fee = Land Use RAE Factor (by land use) x Remaining Sewer Fees Required (by land use) Cumulative Sum of Each Land Use Acreage x Each RAE Factor Recommended Fee Update A summary of the updated sewer impact fees for each land use designation is included in Exhibit "F.° �O' SECTION 5 STORM DRAINAGE Overview Storm drainage services are provided by the City. Facilities in the system include the collection system, runoff storage/detention facilities and pumping plants. Terminal drainage is provided by the Mokelumne River and the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Canal. Project Summaries and Estimated Costs Exhibit "G" is a summary of the storm drainage projects and estimated costs for which updated fees are established. As mentioned earlier, estimated costs are based upon suggested unit costs, or the ENR construction index, which have been reviewed and approved by City staff. Relationship of Storm Drainage Projects to New Development and Land Uses A reasonable relationship must be established between 1) the 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 to be charged the fee actually uses, is served by or benefits from the public improvements financed by the fee revenue. The City ensures that all storm drainage facility improvements will primarily benefit the residential, commercial and industrial land uses within the General Plan Area. All storm drainage projects to be financed from impact fees will provide the same level of service to the General Plan Area as currently provided to the existing community. Included in the cost calculations for this fee update are costs associated with "New Development Share of Existing Facilities." In the case of Storm Drainage Facilities, future development is responsible for a residual share of 65 percent of the 1991 Reimbursement Agreement for the G -basin land costs. The resulting dollar amount of land cost is allocated to future development and becomes part of the total project costs upon which updated fees are based. On the basis that all land uses will benefit from the facilities to be constructed, the burden of financing will be distributed to each land use in proportion to their use of, or benefit from the improvements. The methodology to accomplish this is through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE). The RAE schedule reflects the relative responsibility to pay for improvements for each land use designation in relation to single family detached residential designation. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship between the cost of the required storm drainage projects and the financing burden placed on each land use. Method of Cost Allocation/Fee Determination As of June 30, 1999, the total cost of all storm drainage projects is estimated to be $17,716,100. Therefore, the calculation of the updated fee is determined as follows: 10 Total project costs $17,716,100 Less Fund Balance* (1,331,113) Remaining Storm Drain Fees Required $16,384,987 *Fund Balance includes earned interest. The remaining fees required must be collected from the remaining residential, commercial and industrial RAE's. Therefore, the new fee for each land use is calculated as follows: Storm Drainage Fee = Land Use RAE Factor(bv land use)x Remaining Sewer Fees Required (by land use) Cumulative Sum of Each Land Use Acreage x Each RAE Factor Recommended Fee Update Exhibit "H" provides a summary of the updated Storm Drainage impact fee. 11 SECTION 6 STREETS AND ROADS Overview Development and growth will expand the City and generate additional traffic. As a consequence, new streets will be required and existing streets will need to be improved. To the extent possible, the City's philosophy is that new development must shoulder the responsibility to provide streets and roads to adequately serve their projects or improve existing roads to improve or expand capacity resulting from the development. Developer Obligation for Improvements Developers are required to dedicate right of way and build streets to serve their projects in accordance with City engineering and design standards. In cases where development occurs on one side of a major collector street, the developer is typically required to construct one half of the street. In cases where development occurs along a street having a greater designated capacity than a major collector, the development impact fee fund and/or other funds are used to construct the more extensive improvements. Street, Road and Freeway Improvements The listing of proposed street and road improvement projects included in the development impact fee program is shown in Exhibit "I". In addition, costs for new or modified traffic signal facilities, which are to be paid with impact fee funds, are included. At locations where minimum Caltrans signal warrants have already been met, 50 percent of the facility cost is allocated to the impact fee fund. Work on freeway interchanges for Kettleman Lane/SR 99 and Turner Road/SR 99 and associated realignment of Beckman Road will be funded partially by Measure K Funds. As mentioned in the Nolte Study, it is assumed that 30 percent of the interchange costs will come from sources other that the development impact fee program. Project Summaries and Estimated Costs Exhibit "I" is a summary of the streets and roads projects and estimated costs for which updated fees are established. As mentioned earlier, estimated costs are based upon suggested unit costs, and the ENR construction index, which have been reviewed and approved by City staff. Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to New Development and Land Uses A reasonable relationship must be established between 1) the 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 to be charged the fee actually uses, is served by or benefits from the public improvements financed by the fee revenue. The City ensures that all streets and road improvements will primarily benefit the residential, commercial and industrial land uses within the General Plan Area. All streets 12 and roads projects to be financed from impact fees will provide the same level of service to the General Plan Area as currently provided to the existing community. On the basis that all land uses will benefit from the facilities to be constructed, the burden of financing will be distributed to each land use in proportion to their use of, or benefit from the improvements. The methodology to accomplish this is through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE). The RAE schedule reflects the relative responsibility to pay for improvements for each land use designation in relation to single family detached residential designation. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship between the cost of the required streets and road projects and the financing burden placed on each land use. Method of Cost Allocation/Fee Determination As of June 30, 1999, the total cost of all street and road facility projects is estimated to be $19,210,500. Therefore, the calculation of the updated fee is determined as follows: Total project costs $19,210,500 Less Fund Balance*(1.937.111)** Remaining Streets Fees Required $17,273,389 *Fund Balance includes earned interest. **This is a combination of Streets -Local and Streets -Regional Funds. The remaining fees required must be collected from the remaining residential, commercial and industrial RAE's. Therefore, the new fee for each land use is calculated as follows: Streets Fee = Land Use RAE Factor(by land use) x Remaining Streets Fees Required (by land use) Cumulative Sum of Each Land Use Acreage x Each RAE Factor Recommended Fee Update The Streets and Roads Facilities Impact Fee is shown on Exhibit "J." 13 SECTION 7 POLICE Overview Police facilities to serve the build -out of the General Plan have been identified by the City staff and Police Department. Specific locations and alternatives such as renovation and expansion are being considered. Major new police facility expansions planned by the City but costs included in this program are prorated based upon the service demands of the current General Plan to the Year 2007. Project Summaries and Estimated Costs Exhibit "K" is a summary of the police facilities projects and estimated costs for which updated fees are established. As mentioned earlier, estimated costs are based upon suggested unit costs, and the ENR construction index, which have been reviewed and approved by City staff. Relationship of Police Facilities Projects to New Development and Land Uses A reasonable relationship must be established between 1) the 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 to be charged the fee actually uses, is served by or benefits from the public improvements financed by the fee revenue. The City ensures that all police facility improvements will primarily benefit the residential, commercial and industrial land uses within the General Plan Area. All police facility projects to be financed from impact fees will provide the same level of service to the General Plan Area as currently provided to the existing community. On the basis that all land uses will benefit from the facilities to be constructed, the burden of financing will be distributed to each land use in proportion to their use of, or benefit from the improvements. The methodology to accomplish this is through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE). The RAE schedule reflects the relative responsibility to pay for improvements for each land use designation in relation to single family detached residential designation. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship between the cost of the required police facility projects and the financing burden placed on each land use. Method of Cost Allocation/Fee Determination As of June 30, 1999, the total cost of all police facility projects is estimated to be $3,643,000. Therefore, the calculation of the updated fee is determined as follows: Total project costs $3,643,000 Less Fund Balance* (184,223) Remaining Police Fees Required $3,458,777 *Fund Balance includes earned interest. 14 The remaining fees required must be collected from the remaining residential, commercial and industrial RAE'S. Therefore, the new fee for each land use is calculated as follows: Police Fee = Land Use RAE Factor (by land use) x Remaining Police Fees Required (by land use) Cumulative Sum of Each Land Use Acreage x Each RAE Factor Recommended Fee Update The updated fees for funding police facilities improvements are shown on Exhibit "L." 15 SECTION 8 FIRE Overview As identified in the Nolte Study, virtually no major deficiencies exist in current Fire Department facilities. Therefore, proposed projects have a direct relationship to growth/development in the community. As a result of this situation, fees are based solely on costs for new capital expenditures. Fire facilities to serve the build -out of the General Plan were identified in the Fire Station Master Plan and by City staff during the preparation of this report. Project Summaries and Estimated Costs Exhibit "M" is a summary of the fire facilities projects and estimated costs for which updated fees are established. As mentioned earlier, estimated costs are based upon suggested unit costs, or the ENR construction index, which have been reviewed and approved by City staff. Relationship of Fire Facilities Projects to New Development and Land Uses A reasonable relationship must be established between 1) the 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 to be charged the fee actually uses, is served by or benefits from the public improvements financed by the fee revenue. The City ensures that all fire facilities improvements will primarily benefit the residential, commercial and industrial land uses within the General Plan Area. All fire facilities projects to be financed from impact fees will provide the same level of service to the General Plan Area as currently provided to the existing community. On the basis that all land uses will benefit from the facilities to be constructed, the burden of financing will be distributed to each land use in proportion to their use of, or benefit from the improvements. The methodology to accomplish this is through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE). The RAE schedule reflects the relative responsibility to pay for improvements for each land use designation in relation to single family detached residential designation. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship between the cost of the required fire facilities projects and the financing burden placed on each land use. Method of Cost Allocation/Fee Determination As of June 30, 1999, the total cost of all fire facility projects is estimated to be $3,479,000. Therefore, the calculation of the updated fee is determined as follows: Total project costs $3,479,000 Less Fund Balance' 2 Remaining Fire Fees Required $3,234,770 *Fund Balance includes earned interest. 16 The remaining fees required must be collected from the remaining residential, commercial and industrial RAE's. Therefore, the new fee for each land use is calculated as follows: Fire Fee = Land Use RAE Factor(by land use) x Remaining Fire Fees Required (by land use) Cumulative Sum of Each Land Use Acreage x Each RAE Factor Recommended Fee Update The updated fees for funding fire facilities improvements are shown on Exhibit "N." 17 SECTION 9 PARKS AND RECREATION Overview The City has adopted standards of 3.4 acres of parks per 1,000 persons served and 1,800 square feet of community center space per 1,000 persons served. Projects proposed vary somewhat from those listed in the Nolte Study and are consistent with the projects identified in the "City of Lodi Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan," adopted by the City Council in January, 1994. Projects listed for completion are those directly attributed to new growth. Project Summaries and Estimated Costs Exhibit "O" is a summary of the park and recreation facilities projects and estimated costs for which updated fees are established. As mentioned earlier, estimated costs are based upon suggested unit costs, or the ENR construction index, which have been reviewed and approved by City staff. Relationship of Parks/Recreation Projects to New Development and Land Uses A reasonable relationship must be established between 1) the 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 to be charged the fee actually uses, is served by or benefits from the public improvements financed by the fee revenue. The City ensures that all parks and recreation improvements will primarily benefit the residential, commercial and industrial land uses within the General Plan Area. All parks and recreation projects to be financed from impact fees will provide the same level of service to the General Plan Area as currently provided to the existing community. On the basis that all land uses will benefit from the facilities to be constructed, the burden of financing will be distributed to each land use in proportion to their use of, or benefit from the improvements. The methodology to accomplish this is through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE). The RAE schedule reflects the relative responsibility to pay for improvements for each land use designation in relation to single family detached residential designation. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship between the cost of the required parks and recreation projects and the financing burden placed on each land use. Method of Cost Allocation/Fee Determination As of June 30, 1999, the total cost of all parks and recreation facility projects is estimated to be $30,001,400. Therefore, the calculation of the updated fee is determined as follows: Total project costs $30,001,400 Less Fund Balance* (2.689.778) Remaining Park/Rec Fees Required $27,311,62 *Fund Balance includes earned interest. 18 The remaining fees required must be collected from the remaining residential, commercial and industrial RAE's. Therefore, the new fee for each land use is calculated as follows: Park/Rec Fee = Land Use RAE Factor(by land use) x Remaining Park/Rec Fees Required (by land use) Cumulative Sum of Each Land Use Acreage x Each RAE Factor Recommended Fee Update The updated fees for park and recreation facilities/improvements are shown on Exhibit "P" 19 SECTION 10 GENERAL CITY FACILITIES Overview The method used to determine the appropriate impact fees for General City Facilities has been based upon the number of full-time equivalent employees per 1,000 population and a building space standard presented in the Nolte Study. These standards are applied to the amount and type of growth and development that is forecast. The resulting demand for new building space and other capital facilities to serve the demand has been completed as the General City Facilities capital expenditure program. Project Summaries and Estimated Costs A summary of the projects and costs funded by this portion of the impact fee program is provided in Exhibit "Q." Relationship of General City Facilities Projects to New Development and Land Uses A reasonable relationship must be established between 1) the 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 to be charged the fee actually uses, is served by or benefits from the public improvements financed by the fee revenue. The City ensures that all general city facilities improvements will primarily benefit the residential, commercial and industrial land uses within the General Plan Area. All general city projects to be financed from impact fees will provide the same level of service to the General Plan Area as currently provided to the existing community. On the basis that all land uses will benefit from the facilities to be constructed, the burden of financing will be distributed to each land use in proportion to their use of, or benefit from the improvements. The methodology to accomplish this is through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE). The RAE schedule reflects the relative responsibility to pay for improvements for each land use designation in relation to single family detached residential designation. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship between the cost of the required general city facilities projects and the financing burden placed on each land use. Method of Cost Allocation/Fee Determination As of June 30, 1999, the total cost of all general city facility projects is estimated to be $11,767,000. Therefore, the calculation of the updated fee is determined as follows: Total project costs $11,767,000 Less Fund Balance* (1,346.422) Remaining Gen. City Fees Required $10,420,578 *Fund Balance includes earned interest. NX The remaining fees required must be collected from the remaining residential, commercial and industrial RAE's. Therefore, the new fee for each land use is calculated as follows: Gen. City Fee = Land Use RAE Factor (by and use) x Remaining Gen. City Fees Required (by land use) Cumulative Sum of Each Land Use Acreage x Each RAE Factor Recommended Fee Update The updated fees for general city facilities/improvements are shown on Exhibit "R". 21 SECTION 11 BY-PRODUCTS OF THE STUDY Completion of this report provides the City of Lodi with several important by-products that can be used as valuable tools by both the Public Works and Finance Departments in administering the development impact fee program. They are as follows: Revenue and Expenditure Summary/Reconciliation: As part of this study, Harris & Associates prepared a summary of revenues and expenditures for FY1998-99. As a part of that effort, and to determine sunk costs of projects and the costs of future or remaining projects, a reconciliation of Public Works records and Finance records was conducted on all projects. This reconciliation led to the use of the Finance Department's records for determining the Fund Balances in the eight (8) IMF Funds. Information was obtained which can also be used to more efficiently record and track revenues and expenditures in the future. Project Detail Sheets: These are new sheets which record all known information about all of the various impact fee projects, whether they be completed, partially - completed or future projects. To date, the City has not used such a device, and as a result, it has at times been difficult to identify and track the progress/cost of projects as they progress through the Public Works Department and as expenditures are recorded in the Finance Department. The following information is provided on each Project Detail Sheet: • Project Identification Number: This number correlates with the project number assigned by the Nolte Study, and a new project carries the number assigned by the Public Works Department. • Project Description: Each project contains a description of the work to be done, which can be changed as circumstance warrants. • Project Status: Space is provided to input the status of projects. Status comments can be amended as projects progress, are completed, are amended or are eliminated. • Columns are provided for project costs, including design, construction, contingency, etc., and costs can be placed in the appropriate fiscal year(s). • Columns are also provided for designating the appropriated funding sources for the projects. For example, the IMF fund can be identified along with developer share, or other funding source. • Updated Cost Estimates: As directed by City staff, each project identified on the Project Detail Sheets contains the estimated unit cost/suggested cost estimate or an ENR construction index updated estimate. In addition, a detailed backup sheet is provided to show the basis for the unit cost/cost estimate. Project Management File System: In conducting this study, it was noted that the City has not been using any form of Project Detail Sheet, project files or a project management system. Harris has provided a suggested method for maintaining project files on each of the impact fee projects. The system recommends that each file contain the Project Detail Sheet along with other appropriate construction/financial event information. In addition, a separate "booklet" of the 22 Project Detail Sheets is suggested to be kept for quick reference. Filing may be kept by IMF category, which can then be sub -categorized by project number or other project identifier. Project Identifiers: It was noted that the City does not use a project identifier, or "project number," as various projects go on line. The project number has been identified in the Nolte Study, however, no further reference is seen. This made research on the status of these projects more difficult, particularly when expenditures against the project were recorded in Public Works and Finance Department records. Tracking of the projects in the financial records was especially difficult. It is highly recommended that any transaction routinely identify the project by project number to avoid this situation. A project identifier/project numbering system should also be considered for use in all other CIP projects. 23 EXHIBITS A - R EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF LODI GROWTH FORECAST VS. REMAINING ACREAGE FOR DEVELOPMENT Land Use Designations Units Growth Current Acreage Forecast (1) Undeveloped (2,3) RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acres 17 147 Medium Density Acres 7 23 High Density Acres 5 57 Eastside Residential Acres 1 0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL PR -Low Density Acres 973 422 PR -Medium Density Acres 62 65 PR -High Density Acres 78 163 Total Residential 1,143 877 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial Acres 73 Office Commercial Acres 153 47 Total Commercial 153 120 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial Acres 435 144 Heavy Industrial Acres 175 206 Total Industrial 610 350 Total Growth Forecast Acreage 1,906 Total Remaining Vacant Acreage 1,347 Notes: (1) Growth Forecast through FY 2006/2007 based upon approved "Development Impact Fee Report," prepared by Nolte and Associates and Angus McDonald and Associates, 1991. (2) Undeveloped Acreage information provided by City of Lodi Community Development Department. (3) Industrial properties include those within current City General Plan Boundary. Page 1 of 1 Exh A Acreages - Comm & Indust II.xls EXHIBIT "B" SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ALL SERVICES (June 30, 1999) Land Use Categories Total Acres Total Fees Water RAE(1) Fee Sewer RAE(1) Fee Storm Drainaae RAE(1) Fee Streets & Roads RAE(1) Fee Police RAE(1) Fee Fire RAE(1) Fee Parks and Recreation RAE(1) Fee General City Facilities RAE(1) Fee RESIDENTIAL Low Density 147 $50,477 1.00 $3,790 1.00 $499 1.00 $10,908 1.00 $7,617 1.00 $1,490 1.00 $1,456 1.00 $18,698 1.00 $6,018 Medium Density 23 $75,080 1.96 $7,428 1.96 $978 1.00 $10,908 1.96 $14,930 1.77 $2,638 1.96 $2,854 1.43 $26,738 1.43 $8,606 High Density 57 $131,639 3.49 $13,227 3.49 $1,742 1.00 $10,908 3.05 $23,233 4.72 $7,033 4.32 $6,290 2.80 $52,354 2.80 $16,851 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density 422 $50,477 1.00 $3,790 1.00 $499 1.00 $10,908 1.00 $7,617 1.00 $1,490 1.00 $1,456 1.00 $18,698 1.00 $6,018 Medium Density 65 $75,080 1.96 $7,428 1.96 $978 1.00 $10,908 1.96 $14,930 1.77 $2,638 1.96 $2,854 1.43 $26,738 1.43 $8,606 High Density 163 $131,639 3.49 $13,227 3.49 $1,742 1.00 $10,908 3.05 $23,233 4.72 $7,033 4.32 $6,290 2.80 $52,354 2.80 $16,851 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial 73 $54,642 0.64 $2,425 0.94 $469 1.33 $14,508 2.08 $15,844 4.12 $6,139 2.69 $3,917 0.32 $5,983 0.89 $5,356 Office Commercial 47 $70,741 0.64 $2,425 0.94 $469 1.33 $14,508 3.27 $24,909 3.72 $5,543 2.46 $3,582 0.54 $10,097 1.53 $9,208 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial 144 $40,469 0.26 $985 0.42 $210 1.33 $14,508 2.00 $15,235 0.30 $447 0.64 $932 0.23 $4,301 0.64 $3,852 Heavy Industrial 206 $38,315 0.26 $985 0.42 $210 1.33 $14,508 1.27 $9,674 0.19 $283 0.61 $888 0.33 $6,170 0.93 $5,597 Source: Harris & Associates NOTES: (1) Residential Acre Equivalents Project Cost Estimates by Fund Source (less Fund Balance and Existing Deficiencies): Remaining Fees Required: Water $6,355,867 Sewer $883,152 Storm Drainage $16,384,987 Streets & Roads $17,273,389 Police $3,458,777 Fire $3,234,770 Parks & Rec $27,311,622 General City Fac. $10,420,578 EXHIBIT "C" (PAGE 1 OF 2) Water Projects City of Lodi Capital Improvement Program Remainina Costs Pro ect # Title Status Suggested MWS1001 Turner Road Water System Open $ 26,700 MWSI 002 Lodi Avenue Extension Water System Open $ 15,600 MWSI 003 Cluff Avenue Extension Water System Partially Completed $ 62,400 MWSI 004 Guild Avenue Water System Partially Completed $ 35,100 MWSI 005 Central California Traction Water System Partially Completed $ 78,000 MWSI 006 Industrial Way Water System Completed $ - MWSI 007 Industrial Way Water System Completed $ - MWS1008 Beckman Road Water System Completed $ - MWS1009 Cluff Avenue Water System Open $ 33,800 MWSI 010 Kettleman Lane Water System Partially Completed $ 80,600 MWSI 011 Turner Road Water System Completed $ - MWSI 012 Applewood Drive Water System Completed $ - MWSI 013 Lower Sacramento Road Water System Open $ 60,800 MWSI 014 Applewood Drive Water System Open $ 175,900 MWSI 015 Evergreen Drive Water System Completed $ - MWSi 016 Lodi Avenue Water System Open $ 33,800 MWSI 017 Vine Street Water System Open $ 29,300 MWSI 018 Kettleman Lane Water System Partially Completed $ 37,100 MWSI 019 Lower Sacramento Road Water System Partially Completed $ 58,500 MWSI 020 Mills Avenue Water System Completed $ - MWSI 021 Century Boulevard Water System Open $ 16,900 MWSI 022 Century Boulevard Water System Open $ 35,900 MWSI 023 PUE North of Harney Lane Water System Open $ 84,500 MWS1024 Harney Lane Water System Partially Completed $ 110,500 MWSI 025 Century Boulevard Water System Completed $ - MWSI 026 Harney Lane/Cherokee Lane Water System Partially Completed $ 93,600 MWWI 001 Water Well "A" (Well 26) Open $ 400,000 MWWI 002 Water Well "B" Open $ 400,000 MWWI 003 Water Well "C" Open $ 500,000 MWWI 004 Water Well "D" Open $ 400,000 MWWI 005 Water Well "E" Open $ 400,000 MWWI 006 Water Well "F" Open $ 500,000 MWWI 007 Water Well "G" (Well 25) Completed $ - MWWI 008 Water Well "H" Open $ 500,000 EXHIBIT "C" (PAGE 2 OF 2) Water Projects City of Lodi Capital Improvement Program Total Project Costs = $ 7,845,702 Note: Open Projects are those that have not yet been started. (1) Funding shared equally by Water, Sewer and Streets Programs (2) New development share is 31% of total cost. Remaining Costs Pro ect # Title status Sumested MWWI 009 Water Well "I" Open $ 500,000 MWWI 010 Water Well "J" Open $ 400,000 MWWI 011 Water Well "K" Open $ 400,000 MWWI 012 Water Well "L" Open $ 400,000 MWWI 013 Water Well "M" Open $ 500,000 MWWI 014 Water Well "N" Open $ 400,000 MWSX 001 Applewood Drive Water System Open $ 16,250 MWSX 002 Applewood Drive Water System Open $ 21,150 MWSX 003 Kettleman Lane at Lower Sacramento Road Completed $ - MWSX 004 Mills Avenue Water System Completed $ - MWSX 005 Mills Avenue Water System Completed $ - MWSX 006 Harney Lane Water System Open $ 48,750 MWSX 007 Century Boulevard Water System Open $ 6,750 MWSX 008 Harney Lane Water System Open $ 6,750 MWSX 009 Evergreen Water System Completed $ - MWSX 010 Turner Road Water System Open $ 16,250 MWSX 011 Guild Avenue Water System Completed $ - MWSX 012 CCTC Water System Open $ 16,250 MWSO 001 Water Utility Planning - Water Master Plan 1987 Completed $ - MWSO 002 Water Utility Planning - WMP & CIP Update - 1997 Open $ 26,000 MWSO 003 Water Utility Planning - WMP & CIP Update - 2002 Open $ 26,000 MWSO 004 Public Works Admin Bldg(1) Open $ 322,000 MWSO 005 Public Works Storage Facility (1) Open $ 162,000 MWSO 006 Public Works Garage/Wash Facility (1) Open $ 288,000 MWSO 007 New Development Share of Existing Water Tank(2) Partially Funded $ 120,552 Total Project Costs = $ 7,845,702 Note: Open Projects are those that have not yet been started. (1) Funding shared equally by Water, Sewer and Streets Programs (2) New development share is 31% of total cost. EXHIBIT "D" SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WATER LAND USE CATEGORIES Unit RAE Fee RESIDENTIAL Acre 1.00 $3,790 Low Density Acre 1.00 $3,790 Medium Density Acre 1.96 $7,428 High Density Acre 3.49 $13,227 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $3,790 Medium Density Acre 1.96 $7,428 High Density Acre 3.49 $13,227 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial Acre 0.64 $2,425 Office Commercial Acre 0.64 $2,425 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial Acre 0.26 $985 Heavy Industrial Acre 0.26 $985 Source: Harris & Associates EXHIBIT "E" (PAGE 1 OF 1) Sewer Projects City of Lodi Capital Improvement Program ,emjEeri# ?_ills Status ftIgcted Costs MSSI 001 Cluff Area Relief Sewer Not in Program $ - MSSI 002 Sanitary Sewer (West Trunk Line) Not in Program $ - MSSI 003 Harney Lane Sanitary Sewer Separate Fee $ - MSSI 004 Harney Lane Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Separate Fee $ - MSSI 005 Kettleman Lane Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Completed $ - MSSI 006 Cluff Avenue Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Not in Program $ - MSSI 007 Lower Sac. Road Sanitary Sewer Not in Program $ - MSSI 008 Lower Sac, Road Sanitary Sewer Not in Program $ - MSSI 009 Harney Lane Sanitary Sewer Separate Fee $ - MSSO 001 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Open $ 100,000 MSSO 002 PW Admin Bldg Exp (1) Open $ 322,000 MSSO 003 PW Storage Facilities (1) Open $ 162,000 MSSO 004 PW Garage/Wash Facility (1) Open $ 288,000 Total Project Costs = $ 872,000 Note: Open Projects are those that have not yet been started. (1) Funding shared equally by Water, Sewer and Streets Programs. EXHIBIT "F" SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES SEWER LAND USE CATEGORIES Unit RAE Fee RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $499 Medium Density Acre 1.96 $978 High Density Acre 3.49 $1,742 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $499 Medium Density Acre 1.96 $978 High Density Acre 3.49 $1,742 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial Acre 0.94 $469 Office Commercial Acre 0.94 $469 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial Acre 0.42 $210 Heavy Industrial Acre 0.42 $210 Source: Harris & Associates EXHIBIT "G" (PAGE 1 OF 1) Storm Drain Projects City of Lodi Capital Improvement Program Prolect # Title status Projected Cost MSDI 001 C -Basin (Pixley Park) (S-4) [1] Partially Completed $ 824,800 MSDI 003 Turner Road/Guild Avenue Storm Drain Open $ 400,000 MSDI 004 Pine Street Storm Drain Open $ 72,200 MSDI 005 Thurman Street Storm Drain Partially Completed $ 57,200 MSDI 007 C -Basin Storm Drain Open $ 279,500 MSDI 008 Evergreen Drive Storm Drain Completed $ - MSDI 009 Evergreen Drive Storm Drain Completed $ - MSDI 010 E -Basin Expansion Completed $ - MSDI 011 F -Basin (Cochran Park) (N-9) [1] Open $ 4,452,700 MSDI 012 F -Basin North/South Storm Drain Open $ 507,000 MSDI 013 Tienda Drive Storm Drain Partially Completed $ 135,900 MSDI 014 Tienda Drive Storm Drain Partially Completed $ 157,300 MSDI 015 G -Basin Southeast Area Storm Drain Open $ 338,900 MSDI 016 Orchis Drive Storm Drain Open $ 83,000 MSDI 017 G -Basin (DeBenedetti Park) (C-3) [1] Open $ 4,720,000 MSDI 018 Master Storm Drain System Engineering Open $ 65,000 MSDI 019 Lodi Avenue Storm Drain Completed $ - MSDI 020 I -Basin (N-19) [1] Open $ 4,577,800 MSDI 021 Storm Drain Basin I - Inflow Open $ 344,200 MSDI 022 Storm Drain Basin I - Outflow Open $ 359,100 MSDI 023 E -Basin (Peterson park) (N-4) Land Acquisition Partially Completed $ 173,400 MSDI 024 G -Basin (DeBenedetti Park) (C-3) Land Acquisi Underway $ 100,700 MSDI 025 Storm Drain Stockton St east to Culbertson Open $ 67,400 Total Project Costs = $ 17,716,100 Note: Open Projects are those that have not yet been started [1] See Parks projects for additional funding. EXHIBIT "H" SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STORM DRAINAGE LAND USE CATEGORIES Unit RAE Fee RESIDENTIAL Acre 1.00 $10,908 Low Density Acre 1.00 $10,908 Medium Density Acre 1.00 $10,908 High Density Acre 1.00 $10,908 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $10,908 Medium Density Acre 1.00 $10,908 High Density Acre 1.00 $10,908 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial Acre 1.33 $14,508 Office Commercial Acre 1.33 $14,508 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial Acre 1.33 $14,508 Heavy Industrial Acre 1.33 $14,508 Source: Harris & Associates EXHIBIT "I" (PAGE 1 OF 3) Streets/Roads/Traffic Projects City of Lodi Capital Improvement Program Project # Title Status Proiected Costs MTSI 001 Kettleman Lane Restriping - Lower Sac. Rd. to Ham Ln. Open $ 55,000 MTSI 002 Kettleman Lane Restriping - Ham Ln. to Stockton St. Open $ 55,000 MTSI 003 Kettleman Lane Restriping - Stockton St. to Cherokee Ln. Open $ 29,000 MTSI 004 Kettleman Lane / State Rte. 99 Interchange Open $ 4,921,000 MTSI 005 Kettleman Lane Widening - Phase 2 Open $ 771,000 MTSI 006 Lower Sacramento Rd. Widening from Turner Rd. to Lodi Ave. Open $ 361,000 MTSI 007 Lower Sacramento Rd. Widening from Lodi Ave. to Taylor Rd. Open $ 253,000 MTSI 008 Lower Sacramento Rd. Widening from Taylor Rd. to Kettleman Ln. Open $ 288,000 MTSI 009 Lower Sacramento Rd. Widening from Kettleman Ln. to Orchis Dr. Open $ 299,000 MTSI 010 Lower Sacramento Rd. Widening from Orchis Dr. to Century Blvd. Open $ 247,000 MTSI 011 Lower Sacramento Rd. Widening from Century Blvd. To Kristen Ct. Open $ 381,000 MTSI 012 Lower Sacramento Rd. Widening from Kristen Ct. to Harney Lane Open $ 165,000 MTSI 013 Harney Lane Widening from Lower Sacramento Road to Mills Open $ 457,000 MTSI 014 Harney Lane Widening from WID Crossing to Lower Sacramento Road Open $ 292,000 MTSI 015 Harney Lane Widening from WID Crossing to Hutchins Street Open $ 149,000 MTSI 016 Harney Lane Widening from Hutchins St. to Stockton St. Open $ 215,000 MTSI 017 Harney Lane Widening from Stockton St. to Cherokee Lane Open $ 248,000 MTSI 018 Harney Lane Widening from Lower Sacramento Rd. to west City boundary Open $ 303,000 MTSI 019 Project Study Report Completed $ - MTSI 020 SR 99 at Turner Road - Interchange Improvements Open $ 1,907,000 MTSI 021 Lodi Avenue Restriping Open $ 31,000 MTSI 022 Lodi Avenue Construction Completed $ - MTSI 023 Turner Road Restriping Not In Program $ - MTSI 024 Turner Road Construction Open $ 34,000 MTSI 025 Century Boulevard Widening Open $ 113,000 MTSI 026 Century Boulevard Construction Completed - MTSI 027 Stockton Street Widening Partially Completed $ 73,000 MTSI 028 Guild Avenue Construction Partially Completed $ 487,000 MTSI 029 Turner Road Widening Completed $ - MTSI 030 Lodi Avenue Widening Partially Completed $ 131,000 MTSI 031 Kettleman Lane Widening Open $ 153,000 MTSI 032 Lockford Street Widening Open $ 1,645,000 EXHIBIT "I" (PAGE 2 OF 3) Streets/Roads/Traffic Projects City of Lodi Capital Improvement Program Proiect # Title Status Projected Costs MTSI 033 Victor Road - SR 99 tp CCT Railroad Co. Open $ 444,000 MTSO 001 Master Traffic System - Traffic System Master Plan 1987 Completed $ - MTSO 002 Master Traffic System - Traffic System Master Plan 2001 Open $ 26,000 MTSO 003 Master Traffic System - Five Year CIP Update 2010 Open $ 26,000 MTSO 004 Public Works Admin. Building Expansion [11 Open $ 322,000 MTSO 005 Public Works Storage Facility [1] Open $ 162,000 MTSO 006 Public Works Garage/Wash Facility [11 Open $ 288,000 MTS 001 Traffic Signal @ Turner Road & Lower Sacramento Road Partially Completed $ 47,000 MTS 002 Traffic Signal @ Turner Road & SR 99 Southbound Ramp Open $ 123,000 MTS 003 Traffic Signal @ Victor Road & Cluff Avenue Completed $ - MTS 004 Traffic Signal @ Lodi Avenue & Lower Sacramento Road Partially Completed $ 48,500 MTS 005 Traffic Signal @ Lodi Avenue & Mills Avenue Open $ 62,000 MTS 006 Traffic Signal @ Lower Sacramento Road & Vine Street Completed $ - MTS 007 Traffic Signal @ Kettleman Lane & Mills Avenue Completed $ - MTS 008 Traffic Signal @ Kettleman Lane & SR 99 Southbound Ramp Completed $ - MTS 009 Traffic Signal @ Kettleman Lane & Beckman Road Completed $ - MTS 010 Traffic Signal @ Lower Sacramento Road & Harney Lane Open $ 124,000 MTS 011 Traffic Signal @ Harney Lane & Mills Avenue Open $ 117,000 MTS 012 Traffic Signal @ Harney Lane & Ham Lane Open $ 117,000 MTS 013 Traffic Signal @ Harney Lane & Stockton Street Open $ 58,500 MTS 014 Traffic Signal @ Elm Street & Lower Sacramento Road Partially Completed $ 64,000 MTS 015 Traffic Signal @ Lockeford Street & Stockton Street Open $ 58,500 MTS 016 Traffic Signal @ Turner Road & Stockton Street Completed $ - MTS 017 Traffic Signal @ Pine Street & Stockton Street Open $ 58,500 MTS 018 Traffic Signal @ Turner Road & Mills Avenue Completed $ - MTS 019 Traffic Signal @ Turner Road & Edgewood Open $ 58,500 MTS 020 Traffic Signal @ Kettleman Lane & Central Avenue Completed $ - MTS 021 Traffic Signal @ Elm Street & Mills Avenue Open $ 58,500 MTS 022 Traffic Signal @ Cherokee Lane & Vine Street Open $ 68,500 MTS 023 Traffic Signal @ Ham Lane & Century Boulevard Open $ 62,000 MTS 024 Traffic Signal @ Cherokee Lane & Elm Street Open $ 68,500 MTS 025 Traffic Signal @ Lower Sacramnto Rd & Tokay Open $ 162,000 MTS 026 Traffic Signal @ Lower Sacramnto Rd & Kettleman Lane Open $ 259,000 [1] Funding shared equally by Water, Sewer and Streets programs. EXHIBIT "1" (PAGE 3 OF 3) Streets(Roads/Trafflc Projects City of Lodi Capital Improvement Program Proiect # Title MBC 001 Box Culvert - WID Canal, Lower Sacramento Road, South of Lodi Ave. MBC 002 Box Culvert - WID Canal, Turner Road, South of Lodi Avenue MBC 003 Box Culvert - WID Canal, Mills Avenue, South of Vine Street MBC 004 Box Culvert - WID Canal, Harney Lane, West of Hutchins Street MRRX 001 RR Crossing - Lower Sacramento Road, North of Turner Road MRRX 004 RR Crossing -Guild Avenue, intersection of Guild Ave. & Lockeford St. MRRX 005 RR Crossing - Victor Rd., CCT RR Co, East of Guild Ave. MRRX 006 RR Crossing - Beckman Road, intersection of Beckman & Lodi Avenue MRRX 007 RR Crossing -Guild Avenue, intersection of Guild Ave. & Lodi Avenue MRRX 008 RR Crossing - Cluff Avenue, intersection of Cluff & Thurman St. MRRX 009 RR Crossing - Kettleman Lane, East of Guild Avenue MRRX 010 RR Crossing - Harney Lane, East of Hutchins Street Note: Open Projects are those that have not yet been undertaken Status Prolected Costs Open $ 316,000 Open $ 97,500 Completed $ - Open $ 280,000 Open $ 114,000 Open $ 228,000 Open $ 248,000 Open $ 253,000 Open $ 233,000 Completed $ - Open $ 254,000 Open $ 241,000 Total Project Costs = S 19,210,500 EXHIBIT "J" SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STREETSIROADS/TRAFFIC LAND USE CATEGORIES Unit RAE Fee RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $7,617 Medium Density Acre 1.96 $14,930 High Density Acre 3.05 $23,233 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $7,617 Medium Density Acre 1.96 $14,930 High Density Acre 3.05 $23,233 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial Acre 2.08 $15,844 Office Commercial Acre 3.27 $24,909 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial Acre 2.00 $15,235 Heavy Industrial Acre 1.27 $9,674 Source: Harris & Associates EXHIBIT "K" (PAGE 1 OF 1) Police Projects City of Lodi Capital Improvement Program Prosect # ,title LPD 001 New Police & Jail Building LPD 002 Jail Expansion LPD 003 Miscellaneous Equipment for Police Officers LPD 004 Pound Truck & Misc. Equipment LPD 005 Pick-up Truck LPD 006 Patrol Cars LPD 007 Portable Radios LPD 008 Work Stations LPD 009 Computer Terminals LPD 010 Public Safety Master Plan Status Prgiected Cost Open $ 3,458,000 Merged with LPD 001 Not In Program Open $ Not In Program Incl in GFCI011 Not In Program Open $ Open $ Completed Total Project Costs = $ Note: Open Projects are those that have not yet been undertaken 35,000 100,000 50,000 3,643,000 EXHIBIT "L" SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES POLICE LAND USE CATEGORIES Unit RAE Fee RESIDENTIAL Acre 1.00 $1,490 Low Density Acre 1.00 $1,490 Medium Density Acre 1.77 $2,638 High Density Acre 4.72 $7,033 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $1,490 Medium Density Acre 1.77 $2,638 High Density Acre 4.72 $7,033 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial Acre 4.12 $6,139 Office Commercial Acre 3.72 $5,543 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial Acre 0.30 $447 Heavy Industrial Acre 0.19 $283 Source: Harris & Associates EXHIBIT "M" (PAGE 1 OF 1) Fire Projects City of Lodi Capital Improvement Program ftiect IM LFD 001 Fire Dept. - West Side Service Expansion LFD 002 Fire Dept. - Ladder Truck & Equipment LFD 003 Fire Dept. - Sedans LFD 004 Fire Dept. - Mini -Vans LFD 005 Fire Dept. - Computers LFD 006 Fire Dept. - Firefighting Safety Gear LFD 007 Fire Dept. - Breathing Apparatus LFD 008 Fire Dept. - Construction/Remodel Station #1 Status Projected Cost Open $ 1,959,000 Open $ 670,000 Not in Program Not in Program Not in Program Not in Program Not in Program Open $ 850,000 Total Project Costs = $ 3,479,000 Note: Open Projects are those that have not yet been started EXHIBIT "N" SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FIRE LAND USE CATEGORIES Unit RAE Fee RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $1,456 Medium Density Acre 1.96 $2,854 High Density Acre 4.32 $6,290 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $1,456 Medium Density Acre 1.96 $2,854 High Density Acre 4.32 $6,290 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial Acre 2.69 $3,917 Office Commercial Acre 2.46 $3,582 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial Acre 0.64 $932 Heavy Industrial Acre 0.61 $888 Source: Harris & Associates EXHIBIT "O" (PAGE 1 OF 2) Parks Projects City of Lodi Capital Improvement Program Project # Title status Emtected costs MPR 001 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Completed MPR 002 Administration Building and Corporation Yard Open $ 1,673,500 MPR 003 Underground tank replacement Not in Program MPR 004 Lodi Lake Central Park Improvements Completed MPR 005 Lodi Lake Peninsula Improvements Not in Program MPR 006 Lodi Lake - 13 acre expansion Open $ 2,358,000 MPR 007 Lodi Lake Silt Removal Completed MPR 008 Lodi Lake Turner Road Retaining Wall Not in Program MPR 009 Lodi Lake Utility Extension (Water) Not in Program MPR 010 Softball Complex Concession Not in Program MPR 011 Softball Complex replacement of concession stand Not in Program MPR 012 Softball Complex shade structure Not in Program MPR 013 Softball Complex paving Not in Program MPR 014 Softball Complex upgrade sports lighting Not in Program MPR 015 Stadium - Electrical & Sports Lighting Not in Program MPR 016 Stadium - Press Box Not in Program MPR 017 Stadium - Parking Lot Landscape & Lighting Not in Program MPR 018 Stadium - Returf & Drainage Improvements Not in Program MPR 019 Stadium - Additional Seating Not in Program MPR 020 Kofu Park - Enlarge Bleacher Area Not in Program MPR 021 Kofu Park - New Playground Equipment Not in Program MPR 022 Kofu Park - Permanent Backstop in Small Diamond Not in Program MPR 023 Kofu Park - Group Picnic Facilities Not in Program MPR 024 Kofu Park - Entrance Improvements Not in Program MPR 025 Armory Park - Parking Lot Not in Program MPR 026 Armory Park - Press Box and Bleacher Wall Not in Program MPR 027 Armory Park - Upgrade Electrical Not in Program MPR 028 Zupo Field Upgrading Not in Program MPR 029 Zupo Field - Upgrad Electrical and Sports Lighting Not in Program MPR 030 No Project - Not in Original Nolte Report Not in Program MPR 031 Hale Park - General Improvements Not in Program MPR 032 No Project - Not in Original Nolte Report Not in Program EXHIBIT "O" (PAGE 2 OF 2) Parks Projects City of Lodi Capital Improvement Program PMiect # Me Status MPR 033 Community Buildings - Hutchins Square [1] Partially Comple MPR 034 Blakely Park - Upgrade Lighting Not in Program MPR 035 Salas Park - Protective Shade Structures Not in Program MPR 036 Salas Park - Fence Diamond Area Not in Program MPR 037 Emerson Park - Restroom Replacement Not in Program MPR 038 Pixley Park (C -Basin) (S-4) - Gen Improvements[l] Open MPR 039 Peterson Park (E -Basin) (N-4) [1] Completed MPR 040 Katzakian Park (N-20) Open MPR 041 Cochran Park - (F -Basin) (N-9) [1] Open MPR 042 Southwest Park - (I -Basin) (N-19) [1] Open MPR 043 Area #6 - Park (now Cochran Park) Incl in MPR041 MPR 044 Area #5 - Park (now DeBenedetti Park) Incl in MPRO52 MPR 045 Area #7 - Park (now Eastside Park) Incl in MPR046 MPR 046 Eastside Park (N-18) Open MPR 046A Eastside Park -Softball Complex Completed MPR 047 F -Basin Park Incl in MPR041 MPR 048 I -Basin Park Incl in MPR042 MPR 049 Not Used Not Used MPR 050 Not Used Not Used MPR 051 Not Used Not Used MPR 052 DeBenedetti Park (G -Basin) (C-3) [2] Open MPR 053 Hutchins Square - Catering Kitchen Incl in MPR033 MPR 054 Hutchins Square - Multi-purpose Incl in MPR033 MPR 055 Hutchins Square - Child care Incl in MPR033 MPR 056 Hutchins Square - Connectors Incl in MPR033 MPR 057 Hutchins Square - Auditorium Incl in MPRO33 MPR058 Roget Park (N-13) Open MPR059 Century Meadows Park (N-15) Open MPR060 Future Community Buildings Open MPR061 Arnaiz Property (OS -3) Open MPR062 Future Community Pools Open ftiected Costs $ 1,100,000 Total Project Costs = $ Note: Open, Projects are those that have not yet been started [1 ] Park Program share of Hutchins Square project originally totalled $2,100,000 [2] See Storm Drain projects for additional funding. 5,105,000 1,881,000 2,050,000 691,400 2,088,000 2,646,000 1,087,000 1,034,500 6,362,000 17,000 1,908,000 30,001,400 EXHIBIT "P" SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PARKS AND RECREATION LAND USE CATEGORIES Unit RAE Fee RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $18,698 Medium Density Acre 1.43 $26,738 High Density Acre 2.80 $52,354 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $18,698 Medium Density Acre 1.43 $26,738 High Density Acre 2.80 $52,354 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial Acre 0.32 $5,983 Office Commercial Acre 0.54 $10,097 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial Acre 0.23 $4,301 Heavy Industrial Acre 0.33 $6,170 Source: Harris & Associates EXHIBIT "Q" (PAGE 1 OF 1) General City Projects City of Lodi Capital Improvement Program Protect # jig status Projected Cgst GCFI 001 City Hall Remodel Partially CompletE $ 1,515,000 GCFI 002 Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion Open $ 2,535,000 GCFI 008 Property Acquisition Open $ 276,500 GCFI 009 Parking Lot Improvements Open $ 150,000 GCFI 010 Library Expansion Open $ 3,765,500 GCFI 011 Public Works - Trucks Open $ 974,000 GCFI 012 Public Works - Pickups & Sedans Open $ 928,000 GCFI 013 Public Works - Air Compressors Open $ 117,000 GCFI 014 Public Works - Misc. Office Equipment Open $ 85,000 GCFI 015 Finance - Misc. Office Equipment Open $ 236,000 GCFI 016 Finance - Computer (AS400) Completed $ - GCFI 017 Fee Program Monitoring Open $ 300,000 CODV 001 General City Fac. - 1987 General Plan Update Completed CODV 002 General City Fac. -Five Year Update to the GP -20002 Incl in CODVO03 $ - CODV 003 General City Fac. - General Plan Open $ 800,000 CODV 004 General City Fac. Fee Update Consultant Services Open $ 85,000 Total Project Costs = $ 11,767,000 Note: Open Projects are those that have not yet been started EXHIBIT "R" SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES GENERAL CITY FACILITIES LAND USE CATEGORIES Unit RAE Fee RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $6,018 Medium Density Acre 1.43 $8,606 High Density Acre 2.80 $16,851 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density Acre 1.00 $6,018 Medium Density Acre 1.43 $8,606 High Density Acre 2.80 $16,851 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial Acre 0.89 $5,356 Office Commercial Acre 1.53 $9,208 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial Acre 0.64 $3,852 Heavy Industrial Acre 0.93 $5,597 Source: Harris & Associates RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 4?4�-r A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AMENDING 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 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 Whereas, the Lodi City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-172 on September 4, 1991, establishing Development Impact Fees and Supplemental Specific Area Fees; and Whereas, the Lodi City Council has adopted Resolution 93-26 on February 3, 1993, updating the Development Impact Mitigation Fees and Supplemental Specific Area Fees in accordance with the above mentioned ordinance; and Whereas, the Lodi City Council has adopted Resolution No. 94-10 on January 19, 1994, approving the Lodi Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan; and Whereas, studies have been made and results presented in the final report, City of Lodi Development Impact Fee Update October 2001, updating the analysis of required public facilities to serve new development, the cost of the facilities, and the required impact fees to fund the facilities; and Whereas, such information was available for public inspection and review 14 days prior to the public hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Lodi City Council that: The City Council adopts the Final Report, City of Lodi Development Impact Fee Update, October 2001. 2. FEES - The City Council hereby amends the fees specified in Section 2 "FEES" of Resolution 93-26 as follows: FEE CATEGORY FEE PER RESIDENTIAL ACRE EQUIVALENT (RAE) City -Wide Fees 1. Water $ 3,918.00 2. Sewer $ 501.00 3. Storm Drainage $11,276.00 4. Streets $ 7,874.00 5. Police $ 1,540.00 6. Fire $ 1,505.00 7. Parks and Recreation $19,329.00 8. General City Facilities $ 6,221.00 3. All resolutions or portions of resolutions setting amounts for such above- mentioned Development Impact Mitigation fees are repealed. All other provisions of Resolution 91-172 and 93-26 remain in effect. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: The Development Impact Fees adopted in this Resolution shall take effect 60 days after adoption. For projects in which fees have been deferred under the terms of a public improvement agreement per Lodi Municipal Code Section 15.64.040(E), these fees shall be effective one year from the date of this agreement. For projects with approved Tentative Subdivision Maps, current fees will remain in effect until January 1, 2003 providing that the City Council has approved Final Maps for filing prior to this date. Dated: October 3, 2001 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2001- was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held October 3, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk 2001- ORDINANCE NO. Z, 1,?44P ---- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI AMENDING TITLE 15 — BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION, CHAPTER 15.64 — DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION FEES BY REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 15,64.040 - "PAYMENT OF FEES," AND SECTION 15.64.050 - "ADOPTION OF STUDY, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND FEES" TO THE LODI MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 15.64.040 "Payment of Fees" of the Lodi Municipal Code is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 15.64.040 Payment of Fees A. The property owner of any development project causing impacts to public facilities shall pay the appropriate development mitigation fee as provided in this chapter. The amount shall be calculated in accordance with this chapter and the program fee per residential acre equivalent as established by council resolution. B. When such payment is required by this chapter, no final subdivision map, building permit or grading permit shall be approved for property within the city unless the development impact mitigation fees for that property are paid or guaranteed as provided in this chapter. C. The fees shall be paid before the approval of a final subdivision map, building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first except as provided in subsection E of this section. D. If a final subdivision map has been issued before the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, then the fees shall be paid before the issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever comes first except as exempted under Section 15.64.110 of this chapter. E. Where the development project includes the installation of public improvements, the payment of fees established by this Chapter may be deferred and shall be collected prior to acceptance of the public improvements by the city council. Payment of all deferred fees shall be guaranteed by the owner prior to deferral. Such guarantee shall consist of a surety bond, instrument of credit, cash or other guarantee approved by the City Attorney. SECTION 2. Section 15.64.050 "Adoption of Study, Capital Improvement Program and Fees" of the Lodi Municipal Code is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 15.64.50 Adoption of Study, Capital Improvement Program and Fees A. The city council adopts the City of Lodi Development Fee Study dated August, 1991 and establishes a future capital improvement program consisting of projects shown in said study. The city council shall review that study annually, or more often if it deems it appropriate, and may amend it by resolution at its discretion. B. The city council shall include in the city's annual capital improvement program appropriations from the development impact fee funds for appropriate projects. C. Except for facilities approved by the public works director for construction by a property owner under Section 15.64.080 or as shown in the annual capital improvement program, all facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the schedule established in the development impact fee study. D. The program fee per residential area equivalent (RAE) shall be adopted by resolution and shall be automatically adjusted annually on January 1. The annual adjustment shall change the program fee by the same percentage as the annual change in the Engineering News Record 20 Cities Construction Cost Index. SECTION 3. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist. SECTION 4. No Mandatory Duty of Care. This ordinance is not intended to and shall not be construed or given effect in a manner which imposes upon the City, or any officer or employee thereof, a mandatory duty of care towards persons or property within the City or outside of the City so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as otherwise imposed by law. SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be published one time in the "Lodi News Sentinel", a daily newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Lodi and shall take effect thirty days from and after its passage and approval. Approved this day of , 2001 ALAN NAKANISHI Mayor Attest: SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk State of California County of San Joaquin, ss. 1, Susan J. Blackston, City Clerk of the City of Lodi, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lodi held October 3, 2001, and was thereafter passed, adopted and ordered to print at a regular meeting of said Council held , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — NOES; COUNCIL MEMBERS — ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — I further certify that Ordinance No. was approved and signed by the Mayor on the date of its passage and the same has been published pursuant to law. SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk Approved as to Form: RANDALL A. HAYS City Attorney a n -,n O r - O � v = n C� ItI D1;VI 1,0I'MEN7': `1'111 UNKNOWN GOVF,RNMEAT PLIblishC(I by Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform (MORR) 214 Norlh Yalc /Avenue Fullerton, CA 921131 Anil purt of this !xu)k Luffy be reps- lhiced. For Ilrllhliolud Ivglirs or Innrr il!fiwilwholl: Phone: 714-11171-9756 ♦ FAX: 7144956627 ♦ E: -MI: nod, (trlciS Henommus wesses: w ww sale ve lopi will.con) * www.iillS51OIIN'it i()CI.Org EDITORIAL BOARD: Director: Chris Norhy Council Mcnlhwr Cily Of I'ullcrlon M;lyor of FnIlerlon, 1991-92, 1995-97 I'h.: 714-,'171-9756 Associales: -lean I Ici"I CaIifill nians I Imlcd for Itcdccclopnloll Nduc llmI (C(IREll Sumh Gate. CA 1'h.: 3231/17 67 117 Council Mcrllhcr John Paul l.e(Ictim;l ('fly or Missal" Viejo I'h �: 4:19 -SX I 192A Darwin Thorpe Howd al l rm(ces. I (mg. Beach CmIlmunlly Cklitcge Dis1- Losig Beach. ('A 1% 5=421 2136 ('o inoI Member ~leve" V;u'las (sly of licca Ph.: 71,1 440 9x•17 Council Mcnlhcr Sally Fallon ('fly nrl.a Puente_ 1'h.: 626 .(((1 9.11 I d Alan Pilgei, tarry Gilbr.rl OI;Iflgc ('ounly Co -1 llculolti. ( - lLlt.l: I'll 0-19.592 26111( Sherry ('urns Land I Isc ('umnhanl Im m mm CA I'll _ 416 852 1,144 Fxnic licrnardi Los Angeles ('ily ('„until, 1461 199.1 Council Mcnlhcl-.lu(Iy Dunlal) 011. of 111)4cwoud Hu My 12 5641 Council Member (finny Lambert ('fly or I L•lwommc I'll.: 110-675. 11.111 Glenn I lannah, Cily TI-castner (my or ('apllola 11h.'.X31-475 4724 Clnis Sutton, Alloincy-al-1,;m Mmlkw UA 1'h. 62469 3- 25"11 Dr. Ralph Shaffer (lair. his Angcics Conmy (;umtI.lmy suhcomlmllcc nn Itcdceclupolcill, 1991-4.1 I'll.: 626-466- 110.11 Don 1,ihl)ma" Rall Los An)!cics I'miccl Arca (',m mince 1'h.: 323 65.1 3X26 Richard Erganian I he vinc):nd lAwm% CA It : 591222.01X2 Iir"cc. Ilcndel-mm San I)Ic;1u ('ny (-"until. 1441. 1941 I'll : 959-27;-S600 G -T f mq-q_ 7 If rJ I I i I � i i j � l S�l F5 Fe 77 C7 r. rd r. cr rl F5 tj tj G -T f mq-q_ 7 I The Unknown Government rrhcre is an ui,known govcrnmcnt in Calilornia. This unknown government currently consumes nearly 101h of all property taxes statewide — $1.9 billion in 2000. It has it total ititle htedness of over $47 billion. It is supported by it powerful Sacramento lobby, backed by an army of lawyers, consultants, bond brokers and land developers. Unlike new counties, cities and school dimncts, it call be created without a vote of* (lie citizens affected. Unlike other govermllents, it can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval. Unlike other governments, it may use the power of' cnlincnl donlain to bcnefil private interests. This unknown government provides no puhliC scrviccs. It doCS not cducale ourchildren, maintain oul, streets, protect its Irolll crilllc, not - stock our libraries It claims to eliminate blight and promote CConomic development, yet there is noevidence it has done so in the hall century since it was Created. Indeed, it has beconle it rapidly growing chain on Cali fornia's public resources, amassing enormous power with little public awareness or oversight. 'Phis itilknown government is Itcdcvclopneent. It is link Californians knew 11101-C about it. ,State law allows it city council to create it redevelopment agency to administer one or more " pro.lect arcus" within its boundaries. An area may be small, or it. can encompass the entire city. "These project arcus are governed by a redevelopment agency with its own staff and governing board, appointed by the city council. Thus, an agency and city neay appear to be one entity. Usually city councils appoint themselves as agency board members, with council meetings doubling as redevelopment meetings. Legally, however, a redevelopment agency is an entirely separate government authority, with its own rcvcnuc, budget, staff and expanded powers to issue, debt and condemn private properly. Out of California's 475 cities, 367 have crcalcd redevelopment agencies. No vote of, the residents affected was required. No review by the Local Agency formation Commission (LAFCO) was clone. ('alilornians often confuse redcvelopnecnt Willi federal "urban renewal" project.~ typical of large eastern cities of the 1940's -60's. Sadly, the necthods and resulLs arc often similar. Yet redevelopment is it state-althoriZcd layer of government without federal funds, rules or requirements. It is entirely within the power of' the California legislature and voters to control, reform, ainclld or abolish. llrrlevoloprnrnt: The Unknown Government The Unknown Government ANYTowN, CAG• "I'm from Redevelopment and I'm here to help you." X fledevelopmenl: Thr. Unknown Government 3 2:1 M .7= Lr Lr zli TZ tr. :4 CA z Lr 21 P.4 > -tI fz ZZ > ME TZ Le ;z- ir - - -, > < 7 > -- = 7= To eliminate al leged blight, a redevelopment agency, once created, has fur extraordinary powers held by no other government authority: 1) Tax Increment: A redevelopment agency has the CXCILISIVe use of all increases in properly tax revenues ("tax increment") generated in its designated project areas. 2) Bowled Debt: An agency has the power to sell bonds secured against future tax increment, and may do so without voter approval. 3) I3usiness Subsidies: An agency has the Blight Makes Hight power to give public money directly to ticvclope•s and other private businesses in the 1-01-111 of cash grants, lax rebates, free land or public improvements. 4) Eminent Domain: An agency has expanded powers to condemn private properly, not just for public use, but to transfer to other private owners. These four powers represent all ellorlllous expansion of gove•nnlent intrusion into our traditional system of private property and free enterprise. Let us carefully consider the costs of this power and if it has done anything to eliminate real blight ^ "It's easy ... blight is whatever we say it is!" Redevelopment: The Unknown Government 5 3 Tax Increment Diversion Once a redevelopment. project arca is created, all properly lax increment within it goes directly to the agency. This means all increases in property tax revenues are diverted to the redevelopment agency and away from the cities, counties and school districts that would normally receive them. While inflation nalurally forces upcxpcnScs for puhlic services such as education and police, their property tax rcvcnucS within it redevelopment area are thus frozen. All new rcvcnueS beyond the base year can be spent only for redevelopment purposes. In 2000, this revenue diversion was just over $1.9 billion statewide. This nicans nearly lo% of all property taxes was diverted from public services to redevelopment schemes. Even with modest inflation, the percent. taken has roughly doubled every 15 years. (Tabic 3.1). Total acrcagc under redevelopment has dollblCLI in the past decade, with now nearly it million acres tial up in tax incrcn►cnt diversions ('fable 3.2). II rcdcvclopn►cnt were a temporary nicaSurc, as advocatcS once claimed, this diversion might he sustainable. Oncc an agency is disbanded, all the new property tax revenues would be rcStorcd to local govcrnmcntS. l-egally, agencies are Supposed to sunset. after 40 years, but the law contains many exceptions and is easily circumvented. Tougher sunset legislation is needed to close agencies at it pro - determined date. Only then will property tax diversions end and the funds restored to the public. Hard-prcSscd counticS arc well aware of the cost of this diversion, and often go to court to challenge new redevelopment areas. In 1994, clic Los Angeles County Grand Jury release(] its exhaustive report on rcdcvclopmcnl, calling 1'()I- more 'ormore public accountability and citing its negative effects on county Scrvice5. The County of Los Angeles general fund has lost $2.6 billion to redevelopment diversions since 1978, seriously impacting public services. Olhcr counties face similar losses. School districts have also responded with IaWSLIitS, sometimes forcing "paSS-Through" agreements to restore part of their lost revenue. Redevelopment agencies are notoriously stingy in honoring properly tax bass-1111oughs to school districts. Saddled by its heavily indebted and now defunct Riverwalk plan, the Garden Grove Redevelopment Agency reneged on $2 million owed to local schools, until threatened litigation restored the funds. Faced with lost properly taxes, school districts have slapped steep building fCCS on new residential dcvclopmcnl, IhuS paSsing the burden of redevelopment onto new homeowners and renters. To recoup properly IaxcS lost to redevelopment agencies, school districts have won their own property tax diversions from citieS, in the I'orm of the Educational RCVCnne Augmcnlation Fund (ERAF). Established by the state legislature, ERAF diversions from cities to school districts totaled $535 mill ion in 1999-00, money that conics directly from municipal General Hund budgets needed for puhlic safety, parks and libraries. Cities have long complained about these ERAF diversions, but they are it direct result of their own redevelopment raids on school funds. 6 Redevelopment: The Unknown Government Tax increment financing also directly impacts municipal budgets by diverting city rCVCnucs into redevelopment agencies. "Thal part of the tax InCrCmCllt Ihat would have gone to the cities' gencral fund (averaging 12%r) is lost, and can now be used only by redevelopment ` cb�SuL-tAMT6 Tax Increment Diversion agencies. "Thus, there is now money to build auto malls and hotels, but less for police, firC fighters and librarians. Cities cannot use redevelopment money to pay for salaries, public safety or maintenance, which are by far the largest share of municipal budgets. Ie9foDRs1 "Eat hearty, boys.. . plenty more where this came from!" Redevelopment: The Unknown Government 7 TABLE 3.1 Property Tax Increment as a Percentage of Total Property Tax Revenues Statewide (Percent of Property Taxes Diverted to Redevelopment) 10% 5% 0% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 SOURCI?: C.11iGiI'll la Slaw ConU-olla's Office. TABLE 3.2 Total Acreage in Redevelopment Areas 1.000,000 800,000 a 0 , 600,000 ♦00.000 00 0A AO 9, 9~ A, Ap Ah 0 0 Pb 0� 00 0A A� A� Al A, -a 4, 0 Al ♦A 1A a°I 1A �A ♦A �A ♦A \A �A �A FISCAL YEAR SOURCE': Report of the Commissim on Local Governance for the 21,,i1 Cerftury, page 112. 8 fledevelotmlrnt: Thr Unknown Government ivEAwAY5 • Rc(lcvelol-)mcnt boosters claim the agency is entitled to keep the tax increnlcnt, bCCaIISG it was created by agency activity itself. The cxhaustivcly researched Subsidizing Keds velopnient in California by Michael Dardia (l'uhlic Policy InSlilutc, San Fl-anciSco, 1998) disproved this. 'Thorough analysiS showed property tax diversions to be a net loss, and do not "pay for themselves" with increased development. In fact, tax increment need not even be spent in the arca it was generated. Agencies typically shift funds from one project arca to another. I leavily in debt and short on cash, the Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency is proposing it new 6,835 acre project area in the San I7cr11ando Valley. Much of the $1.1 billion to be siphoned off will actually be spent downtown and to cover existing bonds. Advocates also claim that redevelopment agencies do not raise new taxes. While narrowly 11-uc, the agency tax increment diversions Slarve legitimate govermrlcnt functions of necessary Tax Increment Diversion 1999 ialr� rcvenucS, thus pressuring tax increases to slake up the shortfall. The bi-partisan Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, chaired by San Diego Mayor Susan Golding, recently rcleased its report, Growth Within Bounds (State of California, Sacramento, 2000). 'Thc commission specifically cited the negative impact of tax increnlcnt financing, noting that "'Phis financing tool has steadily eaten into local property tax allocations that could otherwise be used for gcncral govcrnmentill scrviccs, such as police and fire protection and parks" (page 1 11). Tax increnlcnt financing is a growing drain on funds intended for public needs. It has confused and distorted state and local f Illance, resulting in a byzantine maze of diversion, augulenlations, pass-lhroughs, and back fills IIs that have shortchanged both our Schools and city services. These properly taxes — $1.9 billion annually — MUS1 he recaptured from private Interests, and restored to the public interest. Redevelopment: The Unknown Government IF.L. -NA t31G ` 3 F.3oNn- lI � SToK�s Ha.vE1tS -' r vc R tllti� YEAR Rc(lcvelol-)mcnt boosters claim the agency is entitled to keep the tax increnlcnt, bCCaIISG it was created by agency activity itself. The cxhaustivcly researched Subsidizing Keds velopnient in California by Michael Dardia (l'uhlic Policy InSlilutc, San Fl-anciSco, 1998) disproved this. 'Thorough analysiS showed property tax diversions to be a net loss, and do not "pay for themselves" with increased development. In fact, tax increment need not even be spent in the arca it was generated. Agencies typically shift funds from one project arca to another. I leavily in debt and short on cash, the Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency is proposing it new 6,835 acre project area in the San I7cr11ando Valley. Much of the $1.1 billion to be siphoned off will actually be spent downtown and to cover existing bonds. Advocates also claim that redevelopment agencies do not raise new taxes. While narrowly 11-uc, the agency tax increment diversions Slarve legitimate govermrlcnt functions of necessary Tax Increment Diversion 1999 ialr� rcvenucS, thus pressuring tax increases to slake up the shortfall. The bi-partisan Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, chaired by San Diego Mayor Susan Golding, recently rcleased its report, Growth Within Bounds (State of California, Sacramento, 2000). 'Thc commission specifically cited the negative impact of tax increnlcnt financing, noting that "'Phis financing tool has steadily eaten into local property tax allocations that could otherwise be used for gcncral govcrnmentill scrviccs, such as police and fire protection and parks" (page 1 11). Tax increnlcnt financing is a growing drain on funds intended for public needs. It has confused and distorted state and local f Illance, resulting in a byzantine maze of diversion, augulenlations, pass-lhroughs, and back fills IIs that have shortchanged both our Schools and city services. These properly taxes — $1.9 billion annually — MUS1 he recaptured from private Interests, and restored to the public interest. Redevelopment: The Unknown Government Debt: Play Now, Pay biler Q 199lsz! "cCm "It's easy... when you don't have to ask the voters!" 10 Hedeveloprnenf: The Unknown Gummincnl 4 Debt: Play Now, Pay Later It is troubling enough that redevelopment agencies divert property taxes from real public needs. But that is only part of the story. By law, for a redevelopment agency to begin receiving property taxes, it must first incur debt. In tact, property tax increment revenues play only be used to pay off outstanding debt. Pay-as-you-go is not part of redevelopment law or philosophy. Debt is not just it temptation. It is it re(uircnlcnl. That is why redevelopment hearings inevitably I'cature thrcc groups of outside ,,experts": the blight consultants, the lawyers, and the bond brokers who help the agency incur debt so it can start receiving the lax increment. The bond brokers and debt consultants are easily located. They arc listed in the California Redevelopment Association Directory. From city (o city they phone, fax, travel and make presentations to sell additional debt. Naturally, redevelopment staffs arc supportive. More debt means job security and larger payrolls_ Currently, total redevelopment indebtedness in California tops $47 billion, a figure that is doubling every eight years ('Cable 4.1). Debt levels vary widely among agencies, but all must have debt to receive the tax increment. Table 4.2 shows those cities with the highest total rcdcvclopnlcnt. indebtedness. Debt levels have no relation to actual blight, as many al'fluenl suburban towns have higher indebtedness than older urban -core cities. 'Cable 4.3 shows outstanding indebtedness per -capita. This is the amount of per capita property taxes that nulS1 he paid to cover the principal and inlcrcS1 ol'cxiSting debt. ThiS amount must be diverted from the cities, counties and school districts before these redevelopment agencies can shut down and restore the property taxes to those entities. One would expect that if redevelopment agencies had been SucccSsfui in eliminating "blight", they would now be scaling back their activities and reducing (let-)[. In fact, redevelopment indeblehless is growing rapidly, draining investment money that could have gone to buy other government bonds or into the private Sector. Thcrcarc two reasons redevelopnlcnl debt is so attractive: First, redevelopment agencies may sell bonded debt without voter approval. Unlike the state, counties and school diSlricts, [lie debts need not be justified to, or approved by, the taxpayers. A quick majority vote by the agency is all that is needed. Second, bond brokers love to sell redevelopment dCbl. Tllc coulnlisslolls are high and the buyers plentiful. Since the debt is secured against future property lax revenue, they are SCCII aS Secure and lucrative. II` an agency over -extends, then surely the city's general fund will cover the debts. Interest payments on bonds are (lie Single largest expenditure of redevelopment agencies statewide, accounting for 26% of all costs — $892 million in fiscal year 1999-2000 (`fable 7.1). Bondholders and their brokers are profiling handsomely from redevelopment debt, while pocketing property taxes that should go to public services. Wall Street profits. Main Street pays. Bond brokerage firms are among the biggest financial supporters of the Calilornra Redevelopment: The Unknown Government Debt: Play Now, Pay Later Redevelopment Association. 'nicy pay liefty annual dues for its pro -redevelopment lobbyists, sponsor the Annual CRA Conference and hold regional seminals instructing agency staff how to incur ever more debt. Redevelopment debt has mortgaged California's future by obligating property taxes for decades to come. $48 billion needed for future schools, infrastructure and public services has been committed to SCI-VICC 1l111,II-C Figures in Billions $50 $45- $40 45-$40 $35 $30- $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 redevelopment debt. $48 billion that should pay teachers and police officers is diverted to bondholders. The only way to avoid these ballooning interest payments is for redevelopment agencies to stop incurring new debt, sell off cxisling assets and pay off cxisling principal as soon as possible. Chapter 12 explains how this can be achieved. TABLE 4.1 Total Redevelopment Indebtedness Statewide 1984-5 1985-6 1986-7 1987-8 19B8-9 1989-90 1990-1 1991-2 1992-3 1993-4 1994-5 1995-6 1996-7 1997-8 1998-9 99 200C Sol IRCF: Stale Controller's Office. Figures rounded off to the nearest $billion. 12 Redevelopment: The Unknown Government .. 7.. TABLE 4.2 Top 12 California Cities by Total Redevelopment Indebtedness (Includes principal and interest of all outstanding debt) TABLE 4.3 Top 12 California Per -Capita Redevelopment Indebtedness by City (Includes outstanding principal and interest) Per -Capita Indebtedness City/Agency Total Indebtedness 1 San Jose.............................................................. $3,080,684,410 2 Fontana.............................................................. $2,584,465,243 3 Fairfield............................................................... $2,056,227,733 4 Palm Dosed ........................................................... $1,853,767,358 5 Palmdale.............................................................. $1,715,008,891 6 Lancaster............................................................. $1,655,817,028 7 Los Angeles........................................................... $1,414,621,020 8 Burbank................................................................ $988,351,348 9 La Quinla..................................................... ...... . $974,298,925 10 Industry................................................................. $789,380,527 11 Yorba Linda............................................................. $760,974,888 12 West Covina............................................................. $704,352,534 TABLE 4.3 Top 12 California Per -Capita Redevelopment Indebtedness by City (Includes outstanding principal and interest) Per -Capita Indebtedness City/Agency Population TOTAL Indebtedness 1. $1,144,029 Industry (L.A. Co.) 690 $789,380,527 2. $136,278 Irwindale (L.A. Co.) 1,190 $162,170,958 3. $104,647 Vernon (L.A. Co.) 85 $8,895,049 4. $91,315 Sand City (Monterey Co.) 190 $17,350,305 5. $50,788 Palm Desert (Riverside Co.) 36,500 $1,853,767,358 6. $44,488 La Quinta (Riverside Co.) 21,900 $974,298,925 7. $23,054 Fontana (San Bernardino Co.) 112,100 $2,584,465,243 8. $22,798 Indian Wells (Riverside Co.) 3,430 $78,199,873 9. $22,253 Fairfield (Solano Co.) 92,400 $2,056,227,733 10. $16,393 Brisbane (San Mateo Co.) 3,390 $55,573,728 11. $15,122 Brea (Orange Co.) 36,550 $552,733,582 12. $14,399 Palmdale (L.A. Co.) 119,600 $1,715,008,891 SOURCES: Contimmily Redevelopment Agencies Annual Report, hiscul Year 1999-2000; Slalc Conlrollei's OIlice Califooria Statistical Abstract, 2000; State OI California Redevelopment: The Unknown Government 13 G -- � .• � `< p n_ r - ter, � ^ � J - r � _ � `' c: � � � r � ,_ _ _ J C: - .^.. r T (': < - r r = __ fir,- G Omni S, f J CF a r = c vo n = ? _ ° ^" c > c' -o CE 01 > > -' a= _ 77 Fle to INeltarr "Some are more equal than others!" This costly distortion of the fire enterprise system is justified as the only way to boost local sales taxes (ending "blight" has, by now, been lona; forgotten). Yet, if new developn►ents are justified by market demand, they will be built anyway. If not, My will fail, regardless of the subsidies. Politically, such giveaways are beginning Io backfire on local politicians. Oakland Mayor I:I ihu 1-larris Inst a.1998 Assembly race to Green candidate Audic Bock shortly after he signed it one-sided giveaway to At Davis to lure. the Raiders hack to Oakland. `['he annual $5.8 million public pay-off to the San Diego ('bargees Am part of a "scat guarantee" lo multi- millionaire team owner Alex Spanos) was a key issue in the 2000 Mayoral race. Tainted by her vote for the subsidy, Councilwoman Barbara Warden placed a distant fourth in the March prin►ary. L.A. politicians weredccidcdlycool to QC hefty subsidies dcmandcd by the NFL, for an expansion tram, which ultimately went to Houston. No candidate in the 2001 L.A. mayoral race proposed any NFL deal. Even council n►cmbcrs from Mission Viejo scurried for cover when their hefty redevelopment "investment" in the Ininor league Vigilantes went had, and the tram folded. Wasted, too are the billions spent competing for malls, auto centers, big box retailers and othcrrccipicntsol'redevelopment largess. Discal sanity and the laws of free enterprise nnlsl hc. restored. Ironically, as poor Iuolhcrs ser, their wel Nit checks slashed, billionaire warn owners and developer's receive ever more public dole. Redevelopincnl ha", bccon►c a massive wealth -transfer machine. Cash and land go to powerful developers and corporate retailer:~, while small husiness owners and taxpayers must fool the hill. Redevelopment: The Unknown Government 15 6 Predatory Redevelopment: Sales Tax Shell Game A, drive north on the Santa Ana Freeway From Disneyland toward L.A. reveals the chaos redevelopment has wreaked. Thcre is (lie Buena Park Auto Square, built around dealerships lured from nearby Fullerton. Just north is the old Gateway Chevrolet site. Where did it go? Just across the county line to La Mirada, which lured it frons Buena Park with its own Publicly- fi11.1I1CCd auto mall (on land conveniently designated as "blight"). Still further north is another auto mail in Santa Fc Springs, with numerous long -vacant parcels waiting for the dealerships that will never come. To the west is Cerritos, whose giant redcvclopnicnt-funded "Auto Square" became a pionccr in auto dealer piracy, draining off dealerships — and sales tax rcvenuc — from its neighbors. Nearby Lakewood lost so many car dealers that its city manager labeled Cerritos the "Darth Vader of cities". Drive any stretch of freeway 111 San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Clara or olhcr urban counties and you'll sec redevelopment -funded auto 111.111x, with their hopeful reader boards and carefully graded — and vacant — dealer sites. They're the product of a bitter fiscal free-for-all, its critics coax each other's dealerships away Willi ever-swcc(cr giveaways. Car dealers, of cour;sc, arc loving it. They no longer have to make it profit front mere customers. They can now play one city off against another for cheap land, lax rebates and free public improvements. You can't blame dent. But you can blame the laws that encourage this shell game. The same Pattern is repeated with deparnncnt stores, discount chains, home improvement centers, professional sports franchises and even gambling casinos. Corporate decisions once based on market forces are now determined by which city's redevelopment agency will cut the best deal. The rush for sales taxes I1as Caused cities to favor commercial development over all other types of land use ('fable 6.1). This fiscalization of land use offers incenrives to giant retailers, while discouraging new housing and industry. The California Redevelopment. Association (CRA) encourages retail developers to expect public handouts. The CRA regularly co -hosts conferences with the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) where retailers and mall promoters feel out city officials for hand- outs. "California has more than 300 redevelopment agencies", guslics the ICSC magazine Shopping Cenfers "today. "Unlike smokestack industries and manufacturing plants, rclail development is a source of clean revenue for cities" ("ICSC Forges Public/Private Partnerships", May 2001). This pro-rctail/anti-industrial bias pervades redevelopment promoters. They value low wage retail jobs at the expense of high paying manufacturing.lobs. They value people only as consumers, not as skilled workers. They value ccrosunlption at the expense of production. Per -capita sales tax I-CVCIluCS vary widely from city to city (Table 6.2). Generally, affluent suburban ring cities get more than older urban - core cities that need it the most. Largely minority cities arc hit especially hard by sales tax inequality. Ralevclopnlcnl has added to these distortions as cash -flush suburban cities lure retailers out of the poorer inner-city. 16 Redevelopment: The Unknown Govemniont Predatory fiedevelopmeni: Sates Tax Shr_tt Game "What'!l ya bid for this auto dealership?" in Cali(nrrtia Cilies and llie Local Sales Tax (Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, 1999), rescarchem Paul Lewis and Flisa Barbour show how the sales tax bias has skewed local decision-making and how the billions in rcdcvclopaictit Subsidies have failed to expand sales tax revenues; "Prom the 1970's to the 1990's, sales taxes, measured in real dollars per -capita, were a fairly stagnant source of funds." (page xiii). Even as personal incomes grew rapidly in the halcyon `90s, sales tax revenues remained flat. An aging California population is investing more of its money, and Spending it on licalth care. travel and pcisonal scrviccs, none of which is suhjcct to sales tax. Internet conuncrce, too, will cut into future sales tax revenues. Burgeoning interstate online purchases are sales tax exempt by federal law, r 10 La and taxes on in-state ptn'chaseS are difficult to collect. These factors make it unlikely that the huge public subsidies poured into retail businesses will ever pay back the new sales taxes so touted by redevelopment boosters. State leader.~ are finally focusing on Ilio need for sales tax reform. The "fiscalization of kind use" promoted by redevelopment practices now show signs of being addressed. AB 178 was sponsored by Asseniblynian Toni Torlakson (D -Martinez), and signed into law in 1999 by Governor Davis. It requires any city or agency which uses public money to lure a business away from a tietghborttig city to reimburse that city for half the sales taxes lust, over a 5 -year period. Proposition 11, passed in 1998, allows neighboring cities to enter into regional sales tax sharing agreements. This would stabilize reve- Redevelopment: The Unknown Government 17 Predatory Redevelopmenl: Sales Tax Shell Gimir. TABLE 6.1 Relative Desirability of Various Land Uses in Redevelopment Areas, as Viewed by City Managers T 6 3 rn 6 1 7 Retail Office Mixed-use Light Single-family Multi -family Ileavy development industrial residential residential industrial SOURCIi: PITC, Cali(arnia and the local Sults Ta.A, page 77. (The Public Policy Institute or California conducted a survey of 471 City Manages, 330 ol' whom respondc(l.) nuts and end bidding wars for retailers. With so many cities packed into certain urban counties (Los Angeles County has 88 cities), however, it is difficult for cities to work out such agreements on their owl]. Amore far-reaching relorm would be to replace Ilie point -of -salt to it per -capita sales tax disbursement. This would create it more equitable diStribution of public rcvenuc, and completely end costly competition over major retailers. The Public Policy Institute's sales tax study indicated that 59.5% of the state's population live in cities and counties that would be better off in a per -capita system, especially residents of Olde- cities. 18 Newspapers as d i verse as (lie LA. Times and Orange Counly Register have editorially supported sales tax reform. Then-Spcakcr Antonio Villaraigosa's Commission on State and Local Government Finance proposed replacing half the cities' and counties' sales tax share with more stable property tax revenues. Controller Kathleen Connell's Statc Municipal Advisory Reform 'Ream (SMART) issued its 1999 recommendations, including a phased -in per capita sales tax disbursciuenl syStcm over 10 ycat;s, that wcntld assure cities and counticS it greater share ol' property taxes. A move away from sales tax reliance will restore fiscal rationality to local government and Redevelopment: The Unknown Government halance to land use decisions. It will also undercut the leading rationale Corrcdcvelopmcnt agencies. With assured and stable revenues, cities will cease subsidizing retail and trcal residential and industrial uses more fairly. With it greater share Predatory Rodevelopment: Sales Tax Shell Game of the property taxes for their general funds, cities will be loathe to divert them into their redevelopment agencies. A return to common sense in local government finance will end the irrationality that redevelopment has become. TABLE 6.2 Annual Per -Capita Sales Tax Revenues: Selected Cities City Sales Tax Per Capita Affluent Suburban Cities: (25,000-100,000) Beverly Hills ...................................$442 Cerritos.......................................$419 Brea.........................................$340 Palo Alto ......................................$321 Palm Desert ...................................$267 Pleasanton ....................................$259 Irvine.........................................$253 Mountain View ................................. $250 Campbell .....................................$234 Carlsbad ......................................$204 Statewide Average ............................. $120 Older Urban Core Cities (over 150,000) San Diego.....................................$11£3 San Bernardino.................................$117 Riverside .....................................$114 Santa Ana.....................................$103 Stockton.......................................$97 Oakland.......................................$77 Los Angeles....................................$76 Pomona.......................................$64 Long Beach....................................$61 Predominantly African-American Cities: Compton.......................................$52 Inglewood.......•..............................$49 East Palo Alto ................................... $21 Predominantly Hispanic Cities: Stanton ...............•... ....................$74 Pico Rivera.....................................$61 Coachella......................................$50 Maywood......................................$27 Parlier.........................................$14 SOURCE'': California State Board of tiyualization / All Figures: Fiscal Year 1909-2000 Redevelopinrnt The Unknown Government 19 7 Follow the Money Redevelopment backers may claim they are eliminating blight and cleaning up urban California, but the money trail Debt Payment; tells a very different tale. "fable 7.1 Shows where and to whom the money is flowing. $3.4 billion in public money was spent by all California Real Estate' redevelopment agencies (r.Y. 1999-2000), according to the most recent state Controller's Report. This includes both Developmer(1 funds from property taxes and bond sale proceeds. OVCI' a quarter of the money pays for the in(erest on debt. That's $892 million into the pockets of bondholders, at the expense of CalilOrma taxpayers. This is a powerful motive for Administratim,: bond lawyers and brokerage houses to keep pushing redevelopnmenl schemes and lobbying against needed reform. While all redevelopment 1Unds are CllCUmbered by some sort of debt, $610 million was made directly on debt principal. "Thus 44% of al l redevelopment funds went directly to debt payments. Property Acquistionl While redevelopment apologists claim to be "rebuilding" our cities, only 22% went for actual development, and another 9'711 for land aCg111Slt1o11, IIIUCII Of 11 Still VaCant. Significantly, $395 million — 11% — was Spent on administration, most of it for redevelopment Staff salaries. Housing SUbSldlai This provides a 111crativC bllreaucrallc base (flip redevelopment s(affcrs seek to preserve and expand. By law, 20% ofall redevelopment funds must be spent on "low Cost" housing (sec Chapter 9), bUt only 2% is actually hCill" SpCD( directly on ImoUSing. Redevelopment agencies otl'EI would much rather attract new retailers than residents. The redevelopment establishment has (ricd to disavow these figures. But the numbers in the Controller's Report were all submilted by the agencies themselves. Table 7.1 represents a comparison of the major categories. They are testimony to the waste and incffectivcness of redevelopmcn(. 'They arc grim evidence of who really profits from I'L Definitely not (he people of California. 20 Redevelopment: The Unknown Government TABLE 7.1 Total Redevelopment Expenditures by Category $753 million (22%) $395 million (11%) $292 million (9%) $74 million (2%) $410 million (12%) $1.502 billion (44%) SOl1RCL: Community Redevelopment. Agencies Annual Reporl, Discal Year 1999-2000: California Stale Controller's Office: 'fable 4, Page 254. The rix calegorics arc based on (lie following figures provided by all roporling redevelopment agencies: Debt luleresl Payments includes Interest Expense: $868,339,504 and Debt Issuance Cosls:.$23,468.309. Tolal: $891,807,81 I. Debt Principal includes Tax AIIocalion Bonds: $275,752,417, Revenue Bonds: $63957,732, CilylCounly Loafs: $130.412.866 and Olhcr Lung-I"crnt Dcbt: $130,987,826. Total: $610,110,841. Real Estate Development includes Site Clc:naocc Cusis. 12,235,420, Project IntprovcntcnUConstruclion Costs: $609,040.240, Planning Survey & Design: $31.171.594, Disposal Costs: $1,216,060, Loss of Disposition of Land Ileld for Resale: $38,096.167, Decline in Value of 1„1nd Ileld fur Resale: $14.676,110, and Rehabilitation Costs/Grants: $46,376,332. 'Total: $753,411,893. Administration includes Adminislra6vc Costs: $311.302,499 and Professional Services: $83,680,815. 'Total: $394983,314. Properly Acquisition includes Real Eslale Purchases: $151,572,978, Acquisition Expense: $43.241,793. Operation of Acquired Property: $27,688.994. Relocation COOS/Payments: $38.548,411, and Fixed Asset Acquisition: $30,793,922. Total: $291.846,098. (lousing Subsidies mcludcs Subsidies to Low & Moderalc llousing: $73.855,538. Other includes 011ier Expenditures: $409.888,492. Redevelopment: The Unknown Government 21 8 The Myth of Economic Development 4Tconotllic Development" is a coluillon cliche anlono city governments and redevelopment agencies. It refers to a belief that tax subsidies to selectal private businesses can S(inrldatc (he local cconunly. It assumes Ilial the free cnlcri)riSc Systcnl alone is inadeclua(c. h presumes that government planncl;S Call allocate resourccS nxlrc efficiently Than can the IrcC market. "1'hc legal purpose for redevelopnlcnt remains the elimination ol'blighl. All cconon►ic developnlenl activities nulst pay hp service toward that goal. Behind this 1'a4ade, rcdcvelopnlr.nt has Subsidized giant rctailcrS, luxury hotels, golf coul:SCS, stadiums and even gambling casinos. Is there any evidence that redevelopment has promoted economic development in blighted areas? No. The first systematic statewide analysis of redevclopnlcnt agencies was published by (he presligiouS Public Policy 11"ISlituteo1'Cali1•ornia in 1998, entitled Stihviclizhig Kcclevelopmen! in Cali iwlliu. VC(Cran researcher Michael Dardia eompai-al 1 14 different redevelopment project :u-cas to Similar neighborhoods outside of redevelopment areas, from 1983 to 1996. The report concluded that redevelopment activities were not responsible for any Act econonllc growth or increase ill property taxes, incl thal (hey were a nci drain on public resources. As the report's title suggests, Dardia ccnlcludcd that redevelopment was being subSidized by taXCS drained frons the Schools, the stale and special dislricls. In hiS research, Dardia had the full co- operation of' (he California Redevelopment Association, which approved Illi Illc(hodology and confirmed his data. When hitt conclusion watt reached, however, the CRA blasled the report and tried to have it huricd. Yet it cannot rcfu(c the emerging Truth: redevelopnlcnl does not work. Similarly, the Los Angeles Times (January 30, 2000) published a detailed study Showing the Norlh Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area's 20 -year, `G117 million effort had produced no Act bcncl'i(s for Thr alnununily. Hic Tiutes compared North I lollywood to tell other socio -economically identical areas in Los Angeles that had no redevelopment, including Van Nuys, Mar Vista and Vcnicc. " Allhough they received no redevclopnlcnl money, nxlsl of' tile Comparison areas rr},istclni improvements in income and poverty rales equal or better than the heavily funded Norlh I Iollywood prc>;jccl area," the rcporl concluded. Census data conl`irnl the conclusions (11'"(11C Public Policy Ins(ilule and Los Angeles Timet. A 10 -year comparison (1979-1989) of' redevelopment and non-redevcloplucnl cities Shows no net per -capita income gains clue to redevelopment activity ("fable. 8.1). Pairing similar cities by arca, size and income, shows those without relevelopnlcn( posted greater gains in living standard than those with redevelopment ("fable 8.2). IZcdcvelopnlcnt's extreme hias in favor of retail and against indus(l`y IMS crcalcd low wage jobs al the expense OF skilled workc►s. If Subsidizes big box stores selling largely imported goods at the expense of American llrulufacturing jobs. 22 Redevelopment: The Unknown Government _. 7 The Myth of Economic Development Redevelopment apologists anti lobbyists counter with prelly pictures of new stadiums and shopping malls. Surely, with all the money spent, some nice new buildings have been completed. 13ut their evidence of success is ptircly anecdotal. The evidence of failure is in the number:~. All objective comparison studies have shown (hal aggregate statewide redevelopn►cnl activity does NOT generate cconomic devclopn►cnt and docs NOT'eliiiiinatc blight. This should come as no surprise cvcn lu lite most ardent redevelopment boosters. Everywhere in (Ile world, those countries that respect property rights and Irccconsumerchoicc outperform those That put cconomic decisions in the hands of bureaucrats. It is ironic that even as we encourage lu►-n►cr Sovict bloc goverun►ents to free Ihcir economics, we increasingly entangle our local and slate governments in economic policies If►at have repeatedly failed elsewhere. "isn't economic development great?" Redevelopmenf: The Unknown Government 23 140% - 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% The Myth of Economic Development TABLE 8.1 Per -Capita Income Growth Redevelopment vs. Non -Redevelopment Cities Cities Cities with Redevelopment without Redevelopment ii 'Phis survey rellects the 313 cities with redevelopment agencies, and the 101 cities without rcelcvelupinenl agencies, from 1979-89. Cities incorporatcd after 1979 are nol included. SOURC3: Uniicd States Census Bureau, State Controller. 24 IRedovelopmenl: The Unknown Governmenf 1 n- The Myth of Economic Developrrrent TABLE 8.2 Personal Income Growth Comparison Between Cities With and Without Redevelopment A Region -by -Region Per -Capita Income Growth Survey Among Cities of Comparable Size and Socia -Economic Levels, 1979-1989 LOS ANGELES BASIN: Status City 1979 1989 Growth NO. Redevelopment Gardena $7,911 $14,601 85% HAS Redevelopment Hawthorne $8,097 $14,842 83% NO Redevelopment Artesia $6,520 $12,724 95% HAS Redevelopment Inglewood $6,962 $11,899 71% BAY AREA: Status City 1979 1989 Growth NO Redevelopment Benicia $9,312 $20,663 122% HAS Redevelopment Alameda $9,288 $19,833 114% CENTRAL VALLEY: Status City 1979 1989 Growth NO Redevelopment Lodi $7,691 $14,638 90% HAS Redevelopment Chico $6,065 $10,584 74% SMALL CITIES: Status City 1979 1989 Growth NO Redevelopment Etna $4,812 $9,333 94% HAS Redevelopment industry $4,539 $7,853 73% SOURCI?: U.S. Census Bureau, California Stale Conlroller's Officc Redevelopment: The Unknown Government 25 if Le r C,l r >� r _ J C u j • C =� GL,t _ r U 0_D 3 O � ._ V � _ — _� �_ r = 3 _ cL � j — J .__ — _ Lr ir i5 Lr z � G N A U � J .:.: � J J J - -_ � _ � ' iJ T _A .. - 'l. U CiD J l '-�' J "There's no room for YOU!" The real cffecl of redevelopment has been to increase housin); costs stalewide. To make. up for losses to redevelopment property tax takeaway~, school districts have levied new fees on residential development. Cities arc happy to subsidize infrastructure for retail CCntCl:s, then shift the hurdcn to nCw housing. Conu»crcial developmcnls are subsidiml, while residential developments face rising fees for streets, sewers, water and schools, often far beyond their direct impact. The fiscailzalion of land use tics up too much properly in Coil] mcrcial Zones, thus keeping out needed housing. The actual redeveloplilcnt-futided housing that is built may gentrify an arca, but the poor residents are simply shifted elsewhere. Hollslnp Scam © 2000 Zc w► - A shift away l-rom sales lax refiance to properly Mx would be a firs) skCp in MOIL' af7ordabfc housing. Cities would he rewarded fir maintaining quality residential areas, rather than simply luring nage retail. New ho111eS would 1101 be spin-ned as it NIRICIl, bu1 wCIConlCd as rtcw properly tax contributors. '['his will happen if cities rely less on sales taxes and receive it greater share of' local Ixoperty taxes. But these new property taxes Ilius( be spent on ill li-astructure and public safely, Mid not siphoned away by rcdcvclopmclll agencies. In the Ilicanlinic_ rcdcvelopnicnt remains an unneeded extra layer of govermnenl, which has only added to housing costs statewide. Redevelopmcnl: The Unknown Govcrnmonf 27 10 Eminent Domain for Private Gain "Nor shall private properly be taken for public use without lust compensation". Thus the Bill of Rights specifics the only purpose for eminent domain: "public use". Sincc then, government has used eminent domain to acquire land for public use. Roads, schools, parks, military bases, and police Stations were essential public facilities that took priority over individual property rights. Priva(c real estate transactions, on the other hand, were always voluntary agrcetllcn(.S between individuals. Redevelopment has changed all that. Under redevelopment, "public use" now includes privately owned shopping centers, auto malls and movie LhcalCrS. "Public use" is now anything it favored developer wan(s (o do with another individual's land. Eminent domain IS used to effect what oncc were purely private transactions. In a typical redevelopment project, a developer is given an "exclusive negotiating agreement", or the sole right to develop property still owned by others. Once such an agreement is made, small property owners arc pressured to sell to the redevelopment agency, which acquires the land on behalf of file dcvcloper. if refused, (he agency holds it public hearing to determine "public need and necessity" (o imposccininentdomaill. By law, this must be an impartial hearing. In reality, (he agency has already committed itself to acquire the property for the developer, so the outcome is certain. Whole areas of cities have been acquired, demolished and handed over to developers to recreate in their own image. Flistoric buildings, local btlSinCSSCS and unique neighborhoods are replaced by generic developments devoid of the special flavor that once gave communities their identities. Typical is the experience of Anallcinl. Having demolished its historic central business district in the mid -1970'x, life redevelopment agency rCCcnfly IIII.Cll consultants to help restore the identity ol, a downtown tial no longer exists. "I'he complete eradication of (he traditional buSilICSS district has left nothing for IhC conrrnt►nily to rCla(C to as their down(Own", admits an internal city memo. "Rcdevelopnlcnl means (he bulldozers arc coming," said .lack Kyscr,chiefcconomis( (of - the Los Angcics County 1CononllC Development Corp., (.lanuary 30, 2000, L.A. Times). "A lot of tune you displace husincss. Once you do that it's lough to replace them." Small property owners have little chance to participate in redevelopnlcul pmiccls. COnS1,111MI[S and rcdcvClopn]Cnl plannc.r:s prefer to work with onC hubs parcel under if Single ownership. I n(reprencurs and Ilolllcowliers just gc( in the way. Typically, it is small family-owned buSincSSCS that arc (argC(cd for cnlincnl domain. The Vellri family ran a popular Italian restaurant forycacs in downtown Brea. forcibly acquired and denwlishcd by (lie agency, it Yoshinoya Beel, Bowl flow slands in its place. Across the slrcel, the Vega family saw its service station condcnlned and demolished to make way for brew -pub. Are teriyaki and beer more of a "public use" Ihcn pasta and gasoline? Appropriately, the Brea Redevelopment Director later became the president of the California Redeveloptnenl Association. Ralph Calo saw his Fresno home condemned to provide land for a Roxford FoodS turkey processing plaull, which well( bankrupt a Iew years later. Cala nCvCr got his house back. 28 Redevelopment: The Unknown Government rjlie CRA touts Ilse aggressive use of cmincnt doulain in its monthly Redevelopment Journal. n September 1999 article, with the ironic headline "Eminent Domain Helps Citircns," boasts "Wells Fargo Bank was one of the existing tenants of' the Los Altos Shopping Cenlcr (Long Bcach) helped by eminent d0111ilin." Just how using cmincnl domaI n to benefit amulti-billion dollar bank "helps cilirens" is nod explained. The same article details how cmincnt domain was used in North Hollywood to forcibly acquire it "brake shop, it gas station and small apartment building" to make way for it Carl's Jr. and it Kollo Loco. Why is fast food I1101'e of a "public use" Ihan housing or brake safely? Relcvelop111c111 staff attend professional seminars promoting the ever-expanding use of cmincnl doulain. Consultants explain how to pay the victims — nearly always small bllsi11CSSC5 and homeowners -- as little as possible. F orlunatcly, courts are becoming Mort; willing fo stop cmincnt domain abuse. In February 2000, the Lancaster Redevelopment %A Eminent (domain for Prtvale Gnai Agency condemned it 99 Cents Only Slow solely to acquire the land for a Costco. Dave Gold, CLO of 99 Cenls Only Slores Corp. (g0 locations stat.ewidC) exutler sued lilt viodati0n of' his 5'r' Amendment property rights. "We don't witnl compensation. We just waill to stay where we are", Gold told the agency. On .lune 27, 2001, file U.S. District Court ROM that the cininciii doulain action watt illegal. In his 17 -page ruling, Federal Jtrclrc Stephen V. Wilson wrote that the Lancaster action was it "naked transfer of property from one private party to anolhcr". The 99 Calls 0n11P Slores vs. Lancaster Relevclopment Agcnq, case will encourage others to defend their property against illegal takings. If has exposed the uncclnstitution�ll abuse of cmincnt (10111,611 that lies al the heart ol, rcclevclopmcnt coercion. "What's mine is mine ... and what's yours is mine!" l7edevelo(nnc;nl: 1710 Unknown GOVeIn/Tlent ,'i) 11 The Redevelopment Establishment Redevelopment is an entrenched special inlcresl. It thrives on contributions from its beneficiaries and from lack of awareness of the general public. Its advocate is the California Redevelopment Association, it Sacramcnto- basedl lobby that seeks to protect and expand redevelopment power. The CRA's $1.6 annual budget is paid for from hefty annual dues by both agency- mcmbcrs and the private firms that profit from redevelopment. Despite [lie public tax dollars contributed to the. CRA, the public has 110 say in CRA operations. The CRA is governed by an 18 -member board. All are rcd evclopment agency administrators. None are elected officials. The CRA is operated by and for redevelopment insiders. Good public policy is the last of its concerns. The CRA is highly sensitive to [lie growing public and legislative reaction to rcdcvclopmcnt abuse. Its monthly newsletter, Re(levelopmenl Jcurrncrt, brims with advice to rcdcvclopmcnt staff on finessing inquiries from tile. press and grand juries. h has repeatedly criticized Retleveloprnew: Pic UnkNrnvn Governmew, and personally attached its authors, but. has refuted none of the factual information provided here. Mostly it provides photos of new malls and shopping centers, accompanied by fluff pieces Irom redevelopment directors. Well aware of redevelopment's growing negative inrrgc, (lie CRA has created the "Institute for a 13cller California," it pro- rcdcvclopmcnt public relations 1-1-0111. group. Openal ing next to the CRA's Sacramento office, the IBC plants friendly stories in the mainstream press and 111mitrns opposilion groups. Tile CRA has two core constituencies: agency staff members whose salaries derive rom redevelopment and private businesses that profit from redteveloprncnt. Redevelopment Staff controls agency agendas and recommends actions. Agency members — usually elected city council members — tend to rely more on slaty than on their ownjudlgcmenl. 'Though sinrplr, in principle, redevelopment is prescn(ccl as too complex for ordinary clec(ecI officials and citizens to understand. The special interests profiling from rcdcvclopmcnt are easy to find. `I'hc 1996 CRA Directory, includes 25 commercial developers. 26 bond brokers, 37 law firms and 101 separate consulting firms. The CRA Annual COnICI-CnCe in tier Diego, held March 15-17, 2000, boasted 60 corporate sponsors and exhibitors. The main purpose of Such c0111'crcnccS is 10 incrcasc buSlnCSS for the firms that prey off redevelopment hudgcts. Among these are California's pigged developers, priciest law firms and Wall Street's most powerful brokerage houses. The ,,expertise" they provide for public officials is always geared toward high debt and expanding; rcdcvclopmcnt power. For all its guile, however, the CRA is puny compared to the California Teachers Association (CTA) and other in(cresl groups that could mobilize to reclaim the money diverted by rcdcvclopmcnt. Adnri(Icd one CRA executive, "Tile largest group we have to fear is the CTA, because they are becoming aware that the moncy the slate backfills to schools is additional moncy the schools might have, if they had 1101 lost (lie moncy to lax increment in the first place." In file end, (he CRA's real power lies in widespread ignorance of what redevelopment is and how it operates. 13y law, redlevelopnrcnl agencies are an arm of slate government, yet there is little state oversight. `Phis isolation has spawned abuses that would 1101. he t)lera(ed in any other government agency. 30 Redevelopment: The Unknown Government Whal You Can Do "Your gravy train ends here!" 32 Redevelopment: The Unknown Government M 12 What You Can Do Clearly, re(Ievclol)menl is out of con(rol. Under (Ile (hill gUlse of eliminating blight, it consilnles a growing share of properly taxes, incur:~ ever burgeoning deb(, spawns sales tax war:~ among cities and (ramplcs on property rights. Originally created as a temporary nlcasurc following World War ll, it thrcalCIIS to become a permallcn( cancer on California's political and economic IiFe. Landing fcdevelopment abuses can be approached oil four ICVCIS: i3OCAL, ACTIVISM: 11' your city has redevelopment, learn more about it and help CduCa(C your Icllow ci(i•r.Cns. Monitor agency a,,clidas, challenge new debt iSsuaIICes and expansion of pro'jecl areas. Support local small buSincSSCS (hrcatcnel with eminent domain and facing giant tax-Subsidi-r,Cd COMM tilorS. Support channeling W&VC1011I11e111 funds into int-raSlruclurc and real public inll)roVC- melts, and away from developer hand-outs and special in(crests. L ncotu-agC your city to work for co- operalivc sales lax sharing agrecnienls with its neighbors, as allowed for in Proposition 1 1. If your City has no rcdcvclopnle)l, USC the examples of abuse Io keep it out of your city. Wherever you live, support officeholders and Candida(CS who LIMICrstand rcdCvclopnlelt and Can nrrkC their ownjudgenien(s independent of Inose who profit by it. Si'ATEWiDE ACTIVISM: Municipal Officials for Redevelopmeit Reform (MORR) and Californians Unitcd for Rctlevelopnicnl litlucalion (CURL;) arc Iwo s(alcwide networks cormllitted specifical ly to ending I-Cdcvclopnlent abuse. MORR publishes Re(levelopment: Ilte Unkijowit Government, which is available to all elected officials and citizCli gr'01,11)S. MORR also holds its California Conlcrence on Redevelopment Abuse, held twice annually; spring in (lie Los Angeles arca, and fall in (he Bay Arca. Attended by legislalor;S, lawyers, mayors and activists, the confabs provide needed information — and inspiration — for (hose fighting redevelopment abuse. Call 714- 871-9756 for the upcoming conlcrcnce ncarest you, or for additional copies of this publication. CURE is an all volunlcCl- network, providing contacts among the many locally - based ildiviSt groups throughout the state. Call 323-567-6737 to get involved. LEGAL CHALLENGE: Counly and school officials must he more aggressivc in appealing redevelopment tax diversions. Grand .torics Illus( broaden Ihcir probes info redevelopment. As the Cali forma Statc SUpI'Glic Court becomes Illore prolective of properly rights, Cnlincnl domain abusCS can be more successfully challenged. A growing number of public interest lawyers are willing to defend S111.111 properly owners against redevelop new ageicies. SKATE LEGISLATION. Redevelopnicni is a layer of government crca(cd by the state, and has no powers other (hall Inose gran(ed by the State. it is wholly within the powers of (lie slate legislature and governor (0 reform, alter or abolish. The following issues must he addressed: Eminent Domain: Controls mus( be placed on the widespread abuse 01 Cnlincn( domain. Sales Tax Reform: Some type of per-capi(a sales lax tfisbur:ScnlCIll would end prctfalory I-CdCV00I)I cat and return cities to an Celual fooling. Assured of a stable revenue flow based on its population size, cities Could conCCnli;l(C on providing basic services, rather than subsidizing new businesses. RedevelopMetll: The Unknown Government 33 Debt Control: Make redevelopment debt subject to Voter appr0va1.'I'llis would limil dept issuance and make. agencies marcpublicly accountable. mandcllorp Sunsets: The 40 -year sunset law mull he given teeth and cnlorcel. if ralevclopnlcnt ageneieS truly have climinatcd blight, then Ihcre Should be no further need for them. In'frastrrtefure: Rcdevel0l�mcnt funds are public funds Ih:U should be spent on public ill l*raSlrueturC, 1101 on I,rivale projects. Tightcf slate legislation should restrict expenditures to inil)r0ving public streets, parks and other facilities. ComprettensiveFiscalKeforsa: A rational and stable method ol' I'unding local g0vcr11111e111. 111LrS1 be found, shifting cities back to greater reliance oil property (axes and less on sales laxcs. Many redevelopment hills are introduced into the legislature every year. The most significant recent law is AB 175, by Asscnlhlynl;ul'fonl'l'0rlakson (D -Martinez) and ST,ncd by Govern0r Davis in December, 1999. If require', ally City uSing public money lu lure away an existing business from a neighboring City Must relluburSC that City for hall the Sales taxes lost. City vicumind by predatory redevel0p11le11l May now Sue to reCovcf up to hall, the lost sales taxes. N1.1I11CUMIS recent Studies and legislative C0111111iSS1011S have COnCludcd that redevelop- nicnl abuse nrtrst be addressed within the need 1,01. Coll) pre bensive state and local l'iscal reform: tiMAK'1' Kcporl: SletcControticrKalhlccn ('0nncll`s 21-mcnlhcrStatc Municipal Advisory T Can) (SMART) publiShal its 1999 report, (,Wnrr(aiiig Reveime /i,r Municipal Services, 1,cconuucilding it 10 -year phased -in per -capita sale,, tax formula, and it greater share ol* (he 34 Wear You Can Do property tax for cities. Wilson/Iiertzberg Coil) ill The Id- ntcitlbcr hi -partisan Commission on Local Governance fur tfle 21st Cen(ury rcicaScd its 222 -page report, Grolwl/r Within Botm(Lv, in January, 2000. It noted with alarm Ihe. doubling of redevelopment arca acreage ("fable 3.2), and "recommends that the point-ol'-sale allocation of the sales tax be revised to mitigate its cl'fccl on the fiscalization of land use' and (flat the allocation I'm- property taxes be increased (o more conlple.lely fund properly-fclaled tier"v ICCs." Speaker's Commission: Then -Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa's Commission on State and Local Government conducted regional hcafings thruugh0ut tflc state. At its hearing al Cal State hullcrUm, MORR representative and 171.111c11011 Councilman Chris Norby gave the Opening testimony. The commission ultimately called for reforms in the state -city fiscal relationship. 1'11,IC Studies: The Saul I'rancisco-basal Public policy institute of California has produced two recent seminal reports: Subsidizing Redevelopment in CUIi/nrntn (Michael Dau-dia, 1995) and C,'nli/inwia and the Local Sales Tax (Paul Lewis & Elisa Bar)ow', 1999). 130111 note (lie fiscal distortions caused by redevelopment, and call on the legislature for necded reforms. New bills will certainly be introduced into the legislature, based on the recommendations of HIM C0I11111INSiOlIS. CitizenS MLISI lel their state representatives know of Illcir Support for cncling redevelopment abuse with (lie context of State and local fiscal reform. Many legislators still need to be educated about re(Ic.vcdopnlent by their constituents through letters, phone calls, faxes and testimony before key committees. As new term limits lake effect, legislators will hopefully focus marc on doing the right thing, an(1 long-lerm rclalion- Redovelopment: The Unknown Government What You Gim Do ships will) lobbyists will he less important. Equally imporlant will hee the impact of' education advocates once they realize how redevelopment revelltics can be redircocd into California's public schools. The C0111bllled political clout of the California TCacllel:s Association and (hc C'alil'ornia School Boards Associalion dwarfs that of the redevelopment establishment. Opposition to rccicvclopn)cllt is growing and cuts across partis:ul lines. It includes pro- properly rights Republican:;,Incl an(i-Cl l-poo-atC wellarc Dcnulcrals. II Illcltldes COI1sC1'v;IlIVCS opposed to growing public debt and lihcrals opposed to the (Ieslruclion of Moor neighborhoods. It includes free market libertarians and civil ri-hls aclivisls hl;htin ; (Ile displacement of minority CUI11MI-Illi(IC.S. It Includes cllvlr011lllclllalisls cunc:ernc(I ahou( suburban sprawl and prescrvalionis(s lamenting the deuloll"lling of historic downtowns. Redevelopment: The Unknown Government 35 f3aclaiming Redeveliolnuent Revenue 36 Rodevelopincid: The Unknown Govrintrietif LC IuawwanoD ammiun eql :)uawdojanapat{ uolll!q 6"[$ uolll!w 061.$ = %01. uolllP 933 = %Z 1- U00111 u00111 66£$ = 9; le uo!II!q ESO' 1.$ = %LS :s]o!a]s!Q 1e!oads aa!]!O :sa!]un, :slooLloS o!Ignd Z1. ->I SMA Apadoad pmoyaH til!M Aplug a!lgnd Aq su!e!D anuanad lenuud VEL 312vi :�tl�iulp.loa3r. pa.nr11% 3g u3111 pinum s3nu3n3.1 xlrl 1)3.101x3.1 agI `1uOLtIdOlono1)3.I ltu tIj!M (3.mtl% %lI s3?lel lu3ttic101an31)3.I suojoq) 1101 aA!33a.1 slOgls!(] Ir.I33dS pue (/,Zl 3nI3a3.1 x31113 `%I Z 3n13a3.1 s3llunoj `oplm31e11 x3xel Xi.I3(I(ud Ile fo TLS OAM33.1 SIoOg3S 31lyn�l 41111O.l.11)D •)u3ulu.l3n0',i leaol pue u011ea1p3 a!Ign(I of p3u.In10.1 3q P1110-)(XIlenuue uollllq G i$) s3xe1 413dO.ld 311.1. :NOIJ.V2[O.L,, �l?[ XVJ, A.LNadO?id i, vOX _lod uol 11!q 6-1$ leuolllppe xql gllm Op oM 111103 IMIA\ i %3u13113% lu3Ludo13n3p3.1 01 p31.13n!p 411u3_I.In3 1,3xP.) X1.13(10.1(1 p-MOIS3.1 3111 LI11M 01) 3M IlIn03 7r•LIM .)ggn(I 3111 3A.13S O) I)3.101%3.1 3.13M rt3tll 3LL111%!][ '%31110111 3ggnd a%olll .land lcumoo owwpin seq o)els ayl 3nllcllnn .w uollels1331 �fl •lu3ttnla3no',3 31r.)s jo stu.Ie `Mel Cg `a.Ie %alau3�e IuaLudol3n31)3�j o% op Plnotls 3M •3n!le!pu1 lolleq .u) 3nllelsl531 _Ino III, 11!AJa% olid y3eq spun_I Wau1do13no1)o.1)aa.n1)3.101.13MOd atll onetl `r.Iu.lof!llr;� .10 %.I -.))OA a11l `3M •soI►I I Igltiuoclso.l 3le)s :),IC `.I lAOMOLI `d13les aggnd pun uolwanpa 3!I(1nd `amonalxe.I_Iu! 3![011,) •XI)!sgn% lu3ULII.I3n02 lnoyllM .10 11)!M `)1!11(1 3(1 IIV II!M X381 `ul3t11 .1oJ 131.1nill r. %I a.tatil it '13y-leLt1 33.11 )III Jo uollaun.l .1a(loml r, s! stuntpe)s s1.Iods cud pue s(IlLls_101rop o11m `slleul "'u1c1doli% 9u!pinlfl Onllel)Illl 31)1Ma11'l% JO a.InlelsQal 3111,ty.C1la3.111) plus_ (o13.13q ue3 pue `1u3u111_I3no, 3le)s JO ul.u'. ur. APAI)aa1loa pue Alle201 3.n's31au33e 343LI1 `XIleaol pa.I3l%11tnu1)e tl5no11.1. •CtL1.IOI!jVD u! %3!3133ae )uoLL1dOI3n3p3.t L94 III _I3n0 s_13MOd lln.1 sett 111311IL1.I3A05 3lels •%p331I ueutlrtl lea.] laoul o1 pounrlaa.l 3q ue3 sal01135e luatudolan3p3.t Aq 1)a1.13n1p rthu3.l.ina s3xel dl.l3(Io.ul ul IIO!II!q 6'1$' aLLL •s1s3.13111! 3)en1.l(1 (13).11)3 lou `a!Ignd 3111 Ia310.u1 pur. an.los 01 lu3ds aq pi nog% X3uom aI Iqn fj anttanajjju;)mdoianapajj �tuiutinjaa-d £t FReclaiminrr Redevelopment Revenue With $1.083 billion added annually to school funding, over 20,000 teachers could be hired, reclucillg class size, adding alter school programs and individual tutoring. Willi an added $627 million, cities and counties could hire 13,000 more police and sherMs office,:~, buy 30 million more library hooks, improve paranlcelics or expand youth services. INFRASTRUCTUREFUNU: Ratherthan add public personnel, the $ 1 9 billion could be dedicated to maintaining and improving public infrastructure. Current estimates run as high as $30 billion in major repairs need to our SIXOs, bridges, sidewalks and water systems. The unknown demands of' the current electricity crisis further strain the budget. Add school repairs and the needs are even marc staggering. Redirecting the $1.9 billion currently diverted by rcdcvelopmenl agencies into statewide inf-rastructurc would Make up for years in elelel-red nlainlenancc without raising taxes. It would provide local government with the Funds needed to fix their streets and classrooms. he original rationale of rccicvclopnlemt was to clinlinate blight. It was it temporary fix for a temporary problem. Itcclevelopnlent agencies were never supposed to hoard an over- growing slice of property laxcs indefinitely. Let them share it noxi _ More importantly, how bcltcr will blight really be Chnumated? 13y building more conlnlcrcial development? By cwourag&g California collslllners to buy evcl- Inore Incrchandisc? O; by he(ll'I- educating our children? What good are new NI I, stadiums in San Francisco. Lars Angeles or San I)iWgo, if our streets and water systems arc cnmdding? Any true fiscal reform must include the restoration of pr(q)erty lakes now diverted by redevelopment agencies. hl addition, reform of the sales tax will remove the motive for the Coll] rlercial slihsidics. Several relornl commissions (Chapler 10) have also reconllnended a grealer share of' general property taxes ; ,surcd for cities. In whalevcr Annc1mrigeoccurs, redevelopment will have no long-term I-uturt. in it system or rallonal government finallce. When redevelopment is fully understood, change will conic. quickly. When it is no longer De Ur bwwn U,Iwnunettl, policies promloling fiscal responsihilrly,Imeell lerpriscand (airplay for all Californians will finally he restored. 38 Rodovelopmenl: The Unknown Government 14 Sources I Suggested Further Reading Barbour, Hisa & Les is, Paul, California acrd the Local Sults Tax, Public Policy inslilute California, San Francisco, CA 1999. California Debl Advisory Commission, Recommended Pructicec_/or Redevelopment Agencies, Report. CDAC-5, Sacramento, CA, 1995. California Department of Finance, Cal/lirrnia Statistical Abstract, Sacramento, CA 1997. California Legislature, Senate Committee on Local Government, Redeveloping C'alifmwia: Finding ilre Agenda for the 1990'x, Reporl 457-S, Saciamenlo, CA 1989. California Redevelopment Associalion, DireCtor_v of MemberA encies and Allier! Firms, CRA, Sacramento, CA, various issues. California Redevelopment Association, lt'cdevclapnrcn.l./onrnrl, CRA, Sacramento, CA, various issues. California State Atidilor, statemide Redevelopment Agencies, Sacramenlo, CA 1996. California Slate Board of Equalization,Sa/es Tax Revenues by City, 1999-2000. California Slale Conlrollcr's 01 ice, hrcuarrchrl Trcrnacictions C.'onxrrning C'onrnrrcnily Redeveloptnew Areas, Fiscal Years 1984-85 to 1999-2000, Sacramento, CA. Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Ccntury, Growth Wilhin Bomuls: Report (?f (It(, Commission on Local Governance ftw the 21st Century, Slate of California, Sacramento, CA 2000. Dardia, Michacl, .ti'rtbsidi,.ing Redevelopment m Culilornia, Public Policy institute ol' California. San Francisco, CA 1998. Los Angeles County Grand .luny, Report on Redevelopment Agencies in Los Angeles Connly, Las Angeles, CA 1994. Morgan, William S., Redevelopmew llandhook, Dichl, Evans & Company, Irvine, CA 1997. Redevelopment: The Unknown GOVenllnCnt : S`) _ J V U _ 1 - ww r 3 - v v v_ V V 1 •L r � � !) ti r � � - v "J I •� •M. MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS FOR REDEVELOPMENT REFORM J14111rL Redevelopment: The Unknown Government First 1;'tlition: 0clober 1996 (5,000 copies) Second Edition: May 1997 (5,000 copies) Third Iidilion: Aup,usl 1998 (7,000 copies) Fourth lidition: April 2000 (10,000 copics) Filih F(litiun: .luly, 2001 (10,000 copics) U 44Foaa Please immediately confirm receipt of this fax by calling 333-6702 CITY OF LODI P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS SUBJECT: SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 3, 2001 TO CONSIDER UPDATING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR WATER, WASTEWATER COLLECTION, STORM DRAINAGE, STREETS, POLICE, FIRE, PARKS AND RECREATION, AND GENERAL CITY FACILITIES, AND AMENDING TITLE 15, SECTION 64 OF THE LODI MUNICIPAL CODE PUBLISH DATE(s): SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2001 SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2001 TEAR SHEETS WANTED: Three (3) please SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: SUSAN BLACKSTON, CITY CLERK City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 DATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 ORDERED BY: JENNIFER M. PERRIN DEPUTY CITY CLERK Faxed to the Sentinel at 369-1084 at (time) on (date) (pages) Sharon Phoned to confirm receipt of all pages at (time) Jac Jen (initials) ronns\advins.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, October 3, 2001 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be beard. The City Council will conduct a Pudic Hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider the following matter: a) Updating Development Impact Fees For Water, Wastewater Collection, Storm Drainage, Streets, Police, Fire, Parks And Recreation- "'Te, General City Facilities, And Amending Title 115. Section 64 of The Lodi Municipal Code Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Public Works Department Director, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All . interested persons are invited to present Meir views and comments on this matter. Written state- ments may be Bled with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. It you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only Mose Issues you or PUBLIC NOTICE someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspon- dence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council: Susan J. Blacksion City Clerk Dated: September 6, 2001 Approved as to form: Randall A. Hays City AngLy Sept. 612212001 —3664 �,� O F <O U� � ��DlFORt�`P DECLARATION POSTING On Thursday, September 6, 2001 in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a copy of Notice of Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Lodi to consider Updating Development Impact Fees For Water, Wastewater Collection, Storm Drainage, Streets, Police, Fire, Parks And Recreation , And General City Facilities, And Amending Title 15, Section 64 Of The Lodi Municipal Code (attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A") was posted at the following four locations: Lodi Public Library Lodi City Clerk's Office Lodi City Hall Lobby Lodi Carnegie Forum I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 6, 2001, at Lodi, California. ORDERED BY: SUSAN J. BLACKSTON CITY CLERK Jennifer M. Perrin Deputy City Clerk formsldecpost.doc •. CITY OF LODI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date: October 3, 2001 Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333-6702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, October 3, 2001 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a Public Hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider the following matter: a) Updating Development Impact Fees For Water, Wastewater Collection, Storm Drainage, Streets, Police, Fire, Parks And Recreation , And General City Facilities, And Amending Title 15, Section 64 Of The Lodi Municipal Code Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Public Works Department Director, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk Dated: September 6, 2001 Approved as to form: �k� or *�� Randall A. Hays City Attorney JACrYCLRKMF0RMS1NoGeespw.doc 9!5/01 lease immediately confirm receipt of this fax by calling 333-6702 CITY OF LODI P. O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 AI)VERTISING INSTRUCTIONS SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing - Updating Development Impact Fees for Water, Wastewater Collection, Storm Drainage, Streets, Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and General City Facilities; and to consider amendments to Title 15, Section 64 of the Lodi Municipal Code PUBLISH DATE(s): Saturday, October 6, 2001 Saturday, October 13, 2001 TEAR SHEETS WANTED: Three (3) please SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: SUSAN BLACKSTON, CITY CLERK City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 DATED: OCTOBER 4, 2001 ORDERED BY: 2UEL1 L. TAYL DEPU'.rY Cl Y CLER DEPUTY CITY CLERK Verify Appearance of this Legal in the Newspaper -Copy to File HAnC( L)2`1 Ik Faxed to the Sentinel at 369-1084 at _ (time) on Sharon Phoned to confirm receipt of all panes at liirms\advins.doc lials y. CITY OF LODI NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Date: October 17, 2001 .�• Carnegie Forum !' 305 West Pine Street, Lodi Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333.6702 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC. HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public hearing of the City Council of the City of Lodi to consider public comments/testimony regarding Updating Development Impact Fees for Water, Wastewater Collection, Storm Drainage, Streets, Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and General City Facilities; and to consider amendments to Title 15, Section 64 of the Lodi Municipal Code, has been continued to Wednesday, October 17, 2001, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Lodi Council Chambers, Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Public Works Department Director, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, Califomia. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk Dated: October 4, 2001 Approved as to form: Randall A. Hays City Attorney J:ICITVCLRKIFORMS\Nolconl.doc 1014101 ;. DECLARATION OF POSTING On Thursday, October 4, 2001 in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a copy of Notice of Continued Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Lodi to consider Updating Development Impact Fees for Water, Wastewater Collection, Storm Drainage, Streets, Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and General City Facilities; and to consider amendments to Title 15, Section 64 of the Lodi Municipal Code (attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A") was posted at the following four locations: Lodi Public Library Lodi City Clerk's Office Lodi City Hall Lobby Lodi Carnegie Forum I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 4, 2001, at Lodi, California. ORDERED BY: SUSAN J. BLACKSTON CITY CLERK Jennifer M. Perrin Deputy City Clerk rorms\dccpost.doc CITY OF LODI NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Date: October 17, 2001 Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333.6702 IN NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public hearing of the City Council of the City of Lodi to consider public comments/testimony regarding Updating Development Impact Fees for Water, Wastewater Collection, Storm Drainage, Streets, Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and General City Facilities; and to consider amendments to Title 15, Section 64 of the Lodi Municipal Code, has been continued to Wednesday, October 17, 2001, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Lodi Council Chambers, Camegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Public Works Department Director, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any . time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk Dated: October 4, 2001 Approved astoform: Randall A. Hays City Attorney J:%C1TVCLRK1FO1AMS%N01c0n1.dM 10/4/01 DECLARATION OF POSTING NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI I, Susan J. Blackston, hereby certify that on October 4, 2001 1 posted "NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI" to consider public comments/testimony regarding Updating Development Impact Fees for Water, Wastewater Collection, Storm Drainage, Streets, Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and General City Facilities; and to consider amendments to Title 15, Section 64 of the Lodi Municipal Code, near the Council Chamber door; that said Notice remained posted until after the hour set for said hearing, as shown on said Notice. A copy of said "NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING' as posted near the Council Chamber door, is shown on the attached and is made a part of this Certificate of Posting. Dated: October 4, 2001 (Date Posted - Must be within 24 hours) ORDERED BY: ORDERED BY: SUSAN J. BLACKSTON 1166 CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF LODI JENNIFER M. PERRIN DEPUTY CITY CLERK CITY OF LODI NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Date: October 17, 2001 •� Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333-6702 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public hearing of the City Council of the City of Lodi to consider public commentsitestimony regarding updating Development Impact Fees for Water, Wastewater Collection, Storm Drainage, Streets, Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and General City Facilities; and to consider amendments to.Title 15, Section 64 of the Lodi Municipal Code, has been continued to Wednesday, October 17, 2001, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the Lodi City Council Chambers, Carnegie Forum, 305 W. Pine Street, Lodi, California. Posted October 4, 2001 SUSAN J. B - CKSTON CITY CLERK of the City of Lodi J:ICITVCI.RMFORMSVdolcontpost.dx 1014101 CITY COUNCIL ALAN S. NAKANISHI, Mayor PHILLIP A. PENNINO Mayor Pro Tempore SUSAN HITCHCOCK EMILY HOWARD KEITH LAND Building Industry Assn. 1150 W. Robinhood Dr Stockton, CA 95207 Dennis Bennett Bennett Development P. O. Box 1597 Lodi, CA 95241 CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209)333-6706 FAX (209) 333-6710 EMAIL pwdepta@lodi.gov http:lkwww.lodi.gov September 26, 2001 H. DIXON FLYNN City Manager SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk RANDALL A. HAYS City Attorney RICHARD C. PRIMA, JR. Public Works Director of the Delta Jeff Kirst Ste. 4C P. O. Box 1259 Woodbridge, CA 95258 Baumbach & Piazza Frontier Development 323 W. Elm St. 2375 W. March Ln. Lodi, CA 95240 Stockton, CA 95207 SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider Adopting Resolution Updating Development Impact Fees for Water, Wastewater Collection, Storm Drainage, Streets, Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and General City Facilities; and to Consider Amendments to Title 15, Section 64 of the Lodi Municipal Code Enclosed is a copy of background information on an item on the City Council agenda of Wednesday, October 3, 2001. The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street. The Council will conduct a public hearing on this item. You are welcome to attend and speak at the appropriate time. If you wish to write to the City Council, please address your letter to City Council, City of Lodi, P. O. Box 3006, Lodi, California, 95241-1910. Be sure to allow time for the mail. Or, you may hand -deliver the letter to City Hall, 221 West Pine Street. If you wish to address the Council at the Council Meeting, be sure to fill out a speaker's card (available at the Carnegie Forum immediately prior to the start of the meeting) and give it to the City Clerk. If you have any questions about communicating with the Council, please contact Susan Blackston, City Clerk, at 333-6702. If you have any questions about the item itself, please call Wally Sandelin at 333-6709. Richard C. Prima, Jr. Public Works Director RCP/Im Enclosure i Cc: City Clerk NCPH