HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 28, 1991 PH(:ITY COUNCIL MEETING
May 28, 1991
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
CC -6 Notice of this meeting was published according to law, an
CC -46 affidavit of which is on file in the City Clerk's office.
CC -56 The subject of the this meeting, "Development Impact Fees",
was introduced by City Manager Peterson and Public Works
Director Ronsko. Mr. Ronsko then introduced
representatives of Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald &
Associates. The presentation consisted of the following
segments:
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PRESENTATION
Overview
(by City staff)
Fee Calculation Procedure
Cash Flow Analysis
AB 1600 Requirements
Program Administration
(by McDonald & Associates)
Water
Sewer
Storm Drainage
Streets & Roads
(by Nolte & Associates)
Police
Fire
Parks & Recreation
General City Facilities
(by McDonald & Associates)
Summary of Total Fees
Total City Fees
Comparison With Other Cities
Past Funding Sources
(by City staff)
The following persons addressed the City Council regarding
the matter:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Terry Piazza, Baumbach & Piazza, 323 West
Elm Street, Lodi;
Steve Pechir,, Baumbach & Piazza, 323 West
Elm Street, Lodi;
Dennis Bennett, 1711 Coventry Way, Lodi;
Jeff Kirst, 314 West Lockeford Street, Lodi;
and
Bili Mitchell, 4870 Gerber Road, Sacramento,
California.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
May 28, 1991
There being no other persons wishing to speak, the public
portion of the meeting was closed.
A lengthy discussion followed with the City Council asking
staff to respond to the numerous points that were raised in
this discussion. It was :gree( that arother meeting of
this •type will be held by the L ty Council in the near
future.
DECLARATION OF MAILING
On May 2, 1991 in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I
deposited in the united States mail, envelopes with first-class postage
prepaid thereon, containing a copy of the Notice attached hereto, marked
Exhibit "A"; said envelopes were addressed as is more particularly shown
on Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi,
California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 2, 1991, at Lodi, California.
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
(\''i7lut ih;-t)1.--fpm."-(-)L
ni ler% erri n
puty City Clerk
DEC/O1
TXTA.FRM
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDIPNG DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, May 23, 1991 at the hour of 7:00 a.m.,
or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Lodi City Council will
conduct a Public Hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi CA,
to hear the following matter:
a) Development Impact Fees - those fees charged to development for
construction of capital facilities.
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, Lodi, California, at or prior to, the City Public Hearing.
Dated: May 1, 1991
By Order of the Lodi City Council
ice M. eimche
City Clerk
Bobby W. McNatt
City Attorney
form:
/ /
7
DRAFT IMPAC- FEE MAILING LIST 4/17,91
S = Summary Table & Letter
F = Ful ! Study & Letter
THE: GIANNONI ORGANIZA_TON
1420 S MILLS AVE #E
LODI, CA 95242
JERRY HEM INGER
j 619 WILLOW GLEN DR
LODI, CA 95240
RON THOMAS
F PO BOX 1505
LODI, CA 95240
H&M BUILDERS
7 330 S FAIRMONT AVE
LODI, CA 95240
TED KATZAKIAN
5 777 S HAM LN
LODI, CA 95242
GRUP E DEVELOPMENT
5 4041 W BROOKSIDE RD
STOCKTON, CA 95207
LODI DEVELOPMENT INC
5 PO BOX 1237
LODI, CA 95241
WENTLAND-SNIDER
5 521 S HAM L`7 #A
LODI, CA 95242
BENNETT & COMPTON
PO BOX 1597
LODI, CA 95241
VERNER CONSTRUCTION
5 2707 E FREMONT ST #17
STOCKTON, CA 95205
BOB MORRIS
f 222 W LOCKEFORD ST ;+9
LODI, CA 95240
FRED BAKER
317 W LODI AVE
LODI, CA 95240
GOODEN CONSTRUCTION
5 114A N CHURCH ST
LODI, CA 95240
FHA PROPERTIES
3158 AUTO CENTER CIR #E
STOCKTON, CA 95212
DARYL GEWEKE - JW PROPERTIES
f PO BOX 1210 S' 3515 COUNTRY CLUB BLVD
LODI, CA 95241 STOCKTON, CA 95240
JEFF KIRST
r- 120 N PLEASANT
LODI, CA 95240
SURLAND PROPERTIES
S' 88 HOWARD ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
BAUMBACII-PIAZZA DILLON ENGINEERING RW SIEGFRIED & ASSOCIATES
323 w ELM ST /= PO BOX 2180 G 4045 CORONADO AVE
LODI, CA 95240 LODI, CA 95241 STOCKTON, CA 95204
THOMPSON-HYSELL ENGINEERS
1016 12TH ST
MODESTO, CA 95354
JIM GIOTTONINI
j 425 N FL DORADO
STOCKTON. CA 95203
PHILLIPPI ENGINEERING
595 BUCK AVE
VACAVILLE. CA 95688
HENRY HIRATA
5 PO BOX 1810
STOCKTON, CA 95201
BEARDSLEE DEVELOPMENT
110 GRAND AVE
CAPITOL, CA 95010
STOCKTON RECORD
PO BOX 900
STuCKTON, CA 95201
LODI NEWS SENTINEL RILEY-PEARLNMAN BROWNIAN DEVELOPMENT
125 N CHURCH ST 7= 11640 SAN VTCENTE BLVD 4.202 ,-� 1900 EMBARCADERO #201
LODI. CA 95240 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 OAKLAND, CA 94606
LIBRARY
CRAIG RASMUSSEN
PO BOX 560
LODI, CA 95241
HARRY MARZOLF
445 MADRONE CC
LODI, CA 95242
410111111111111Mi A.111.111
FRIEL=
JAMES GRIFFITH
/ - 1020 BRADFORD CIR
OR
SUSAN I-ITCHCOCK
T 615 S HUTCHINS S:
LODI, CA 05240 LODI. CA 95210
ROGER STAFFORD
801 S MILLS AVE
LODI, CA 95240
LARRY MINDT
r PO BOX 722
LODI, CA 95241
MICHAEL LAPENTA
1718 EDGEWOOD DR
LODI, CA 95240
HAWAII -SAN FRANCISCO
2200 POWELL. ST x1025
EMERYVILLE, CA 9460S
CAMRAY DEVELOPMENT
,- 7919 FOLSOM BLVD 1/320
SACRAMENTO, CA 95826
BRUCE TOWNE
PO BOX 185
WALNUT GROVE, CA 95690
LOWELL FLEMMER
818 GREENWOOD DR
LODI, CA 95240
,4
ROBERT BATCH
5 1819 S CHEROKEE LN #67
LODI, CA 95240
WE: SELL MATTHEIS BOWE
222 W LOCKEFORD ST
LODI, CA 95240
MIKE PEPPAS
S 16109 N MOORE RD
LODI, CA 95242
rq
(7 ac
-Z
A/ VQ/'GCY
DELMAR BATCH
(' 1767 E HARVEY LN
LODI, CA 95240
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSN.
r 777 N PERSHING #2C
STOCKTON, CA 95203
Development Impact Fee Presentation
Overview
City Staff
Fee Calculation Procedure
Cash Flow Analysis
AB 1600 Requirements
Program Administration
McDonald & Associates
Water
Sewer
Storm Drainage
Streets & Roads
Nolte & Associates
Police
Fire
Parks & Recreation
General City Facilities
McDonald & Associates
Summary of Total Fees
Total City Fees
Comparison With Other Cities
Past Funding Sources
City Staff
Development Impact Fees
Fee Calculation Procedure
Determine Service Area
General Plan Boundary
Establish Levels of Service
Existing Conditions
Determine Improvements to Meet Service Standard with New Growth
Capital Improvement List
Estimate Cost and Timing of Improvements
Capital Improvement List/Schedule
Identify Existing Deficiencies
Separate Analysis on Certain Projects
Determine Relative Service Demand of Various Land Uses
RAE (Residential Acre Equivalent) Schedule
Calculate Fee
Cost of Improvements/RAE's plus Cash Flow Analysis
Development Impact Fees
Cash Flow Analysis
Annual Revenue
Annual Expenses
Account for Interest
(either earned on fund balance or paid on loans)
Interfund Borrowing
Examples
Water - no borrowing
Sewer - borrowing
Water Impact Fee
Cash Flow
LIIID Net (Fee Revenue less Interest on Fund Balance - • Fund Balance
Project Costs)
$1.000.000
$800,000
$600,000 f
8400,000
8200,000
80
(8200,000)
(8400,000)
(8600,000)
011111111111
I I
11111122111.11
a
e
111•1111111111.
Program "Years' 8 & 9
are 5 year 'blocks
!••••••••••••••1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Program Year
WACASHFL.XLC
L] Net (Fee Revenue less
Project Costs)
8200,000
5100,000 1
80
(8100,000) t
(5200,000) :1
(8300,000)
(8400,000)
LJ
\.\
Sewer Impact Fee
Cash Flow
Interest on Fund Balance • - Fund Balance
7 -1
•
•
•
•
•
Program "Years'" 8 & 9 are 5
year blacks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Program Year
WINCASHFL.XLC
Development Impact Fees
AB1600 Requirements/
Program Administration
Separate Funds
Account for Interest
Annual Reporting
Minor Adjustments/Updates
Major Updates - General Plan
Fee Collection
Record keeping
Development Impact Fees
Water
Projects Included
Master Plan
Current plan plus updates
Admin. Bidg./Corporation Yard
50/50 split with Sewer, portion w/Electric Utility
Oversize Mains & Major Crossings
l09 and larger mains, major crossings per present practice
Will credit individual projects with portion of cost
Water Wells
All new wells to accomodate growth
Includes GAC filters in certain areas and standby power per Master Plan
Water Tank
Portion providing capacity for new growth (31%)
Total Cost
S9,263,525
Projects Not Included
Replacements/Reinforcements of Existing Mains
Generally improvements to distributions system in older areas
Miscellaneous Fire Protection improvements
Total Cost
S1,628,000
Development Impact Fees
Sewer
Projects Included
Master Plan
Current plan plus updates
Admin. Bldg./Corporation Yard
50/50 split with Water, portion wiElectric Utility
Oversize Mains
12" and larger mains •
Will credit individual projects with portion of cost
Lift Stations
In separate areas of benefit
Includes force mains
S639,500 not included below
Total Cost
S1.368,920
Projects Not Included
Replacements/Reinforcements of Existing Mains
Generally improvements to collection system in older areas
Total Cost
S1,005.500
Note: Wastewater treatment plant covered by existing separate fee
Development Impact Fees
Storm Drainage
Projects Included
Master Plan
Current plan plus updates
Basins
Per Master Plan, including pump stations
Approx. 1 acre per new basin in Parks Fee
Trunk Lines
30" & larger per Master Pian
Total Cost
$15,773.000
Projects Not Included
Replacements/Reinforcements of Existing Mains
Generally improvements to collection system in older areas
Total Cost
$1,051,000
Development Impact Fees
Streets & Ro?ds
Projects Included
Master Plan
Current plan plus updates
Widenings & capacity improvements to existing streets
Kettleman Lane, Lower Sacramento Road, Lodi Avenue
Lockeford Street, Victor Road
"Oversized" New Streets
Credit on R/W & construction cost of portion over 68 feet in width
Harney Lane, Century Boulevard, Guild Avenue, Turner Road
Improvements Q Hwy 12, 99
12/99 Interchange, Turner Road Overpass
Traffic Signals
New signals identified in Circulation Plan
50% of signals already meeting warrants
Miscellaneous Projects
WID box culverts
Railroad crossing improvements
Recent Capacity Improvement Projects
Portion or project attributable to capacity increase
Adjusted downward for capacity used between project construction and present
Total Cost
515,290.687
Projects Not Included
Reconstructions of existing streets
Street Maintenance
State, Federal & Measure K funding
Total Cost
514.893,513 General Fund (maintenance)
Si 6,010,250 Other funding;
Development Impact Fees
Police
Projects Included
Police Station Expansion
10.000 SF, 10 jail cells
Equipment
Personal equipment for 29 officers
8 patrol cars (equipped)
2 pickup trucks (equipped)
Animal control truck
Radios
Computer terminals
Total Cost
$2,430.000
Projects Not Included
Upgrades of existing systems
Proposed computer aided dispatch system
Development Impact Fees
Fire
Projects Included
Westside Station
Lower Sacramento Road N/Elm Street
Station equipment
Personal equipment fir 23 employees
Equipment
Ladder truck
2 sedans
2 minivans
Computer terminals
Station 1 (Downtown)
Minor Remodel
Total Cost
$1,065,000
Projects Not Included
Equipment Replacements
Truck R. engine replacements
Total Cost
Si,090,000
Development Impact Fees
Parks & Recreation
Projects Included
Master Pian
To Reline Needs, Projects and Estimates
Admin. Bldg./Corporation Yard
@ 45% per deficiency analysis
New "Standard" Parks
Per Table 9-1, 83 acres
Playground Equipment & Ball Diamonds
One New Pool
New Community Buildings
Total 44,000 SF, unspecified locations
Total Cost
S18,740,000
Projects Not Included
Admin. Bldg./Corporation Yard
@
55% per deficiency analysis
Replacements of Equipment & Enhancements at Developed Parks
Lodi Lake (except West side 13 acre expansion)
Misc. Lighting & Facility Upgrades
Hutchins St. Square
Total Cost
$11,374.000
Development Impact Fees
General City Facilities
Projects Included
City Hall Expansion
Portion of expansion in two phases (addition, remodel), including parking
Stadium Area Parking
Lock'. ford e Stockton
Library
Expansion or satellite site to be determined
Miscellaneous Equipment
Public Works Equipment
Finance Dept equipment, computer upgrade
Miscellaneous Projects
Fee program administration, monitoring (all categories)
General Plan. current plus updates
Total Cost
Si 1, 568,449
Projects Not Included
City Hall Expansion
ci4 27.8% per deficiency analysis
Total Cost
$1.171,770
City of Lodi
Draft Development Impact Fees for Capital Facilities
General Plan (GP)
Land Use Category
(Draft)
Total Assumed @ Max. Density
Fees' per Density Fee per GP Fee
Residential (per unit) per unit)
Low Density S38,170 acre 5 upa' $7,634 7 $5,453
Medium Density $58,100 acre 12 upa $4,842 20 ! $2,905
High Density $101,770 acre 24 upa $4,240 30 t $3,392
East Side Residential 540.100 acre 5 upa $8,020 7 ! $5,729
PR - low density $38,170 acre 5 upa 57,634 7 i 55,453
PR - med density $58,100 acre 12 upa $4,842 20 ! $2,905
PR - high density $101,770 acre 24 upa $4,240 30 $3,392
Commercial
Industrial
Neighborhood $40,010 acre
General $48,000 acre
Downtown $40,010 acre
Office $53,330 acre
30% far'
30% far
30% far
35% far
Light $32,520 acre 40% far
Heavy $31,470 acre 40% far
Industrial Reserve $32.520 acre 40% f2r
(per SF)
$3.06
$3.67
53.06
$3.50
(per SF)
40% $2.30
40% $2.75
200% i $0.46
50% { $2.45
51.87
$ 1.81
$1.87
50% j $1.49
50% $1.44
50% $ 1.49
' upa = units per acre
far = floor/area ratio (building square footage per acre)
' total fee includes Water, Sewer, Storm Drainage, Streets & Roads,
Police, Fire, Parks & Recreation and General City Facilities per
April 1991 draft study. Wastewater connection fee (tor wastewater
plant). engineering. building permit and other fees for service are
not included.
4'29,91 !MP FEE.XLS
City of Lodi Total Deve
Project Assumptions
Land Use:
Area:
Density:
#Units; Bldg SF:
Estimated Off -Site Imp-. $:
Existing Fees
Tentative Map:
Engineering (as updated):
$ par:
Sewer Connection
Base Rate t$/SSUI:
Unit of Measure:
# of Empl/acre:
Sewage Ser. Units:
Total Fee:
$ per:
Storm Drainage
Base Rate:
Total Fee:
$ per:
Building Permit
Assumed SF!OU
Bldg Val./SF:
Assumed Type:
Valuation:
Total Fee:
$ per:
Building Plan Check
Total Fee:
$ per:
Iopment Fee Examples
Residential
Low Density' Med. Density
10 acres 5 acres
5 upa . 12 upa
50 60
3400,000. $100,000.
$100.
819,600.
$394./unit.
8100.
36,100.
$103./unit
52.099. + 52,099.
1.25 units peri 1 .00 units per
3 Br. Home' 2 Br. Home
(per Table 7-1, GP Draft 81111
62.5, 60.0
8131,188. 8125,940.
$2,624./unitI $2,099./unit
Mech./Eiec,/Plumb. Permit
Est. Total Fee:
S per:
Strong Motion Instrumentatior• Fee
Total Fee:
S per:
Total Existing Fees:
3 per:
Proposed Impact Fees:
Total Proposed Fee:
(less existing SD fee)
Proposed S per:
Grand Total $ per:
$4,050/acre; $4,050/acre
340,500. 320,250.
3810./unit' $338./unit
2,000'
$49.00
avg. single fam.!
598.000
331,625.
$633./unit'.
65%i
320,556. !
$411./unit
1400
$ 44.70
avg. apt.
862.580
330,512
5509.1unit
of Bldg Permit
319,833.
3 331.1unit
80.03 'per SF
33,000. $2,520.
$60./unit i $42./unit
3343.
37./unit!
)
3246,912
$.$,938./unit)
338,170/acre' 358,100/acre
80.07 res.
5263.
S4./unit
8205,517
$3.425./unit
Non -Residential
Light Ind.
5 acres!
40%1
87,000
8125,000.
3100.
37,350.
$0.09/SF
82,099. i
1 unit per Si
employees
20;
12.5
826,238.
$0.30/SF
$5,400/acre.
827,000.
$0.31/SF!
823.60
111 N !
82,053,200
3 6, 769
$0.08JSF(
$4,400.
$0.05/SF`
Office Commercial
2 acres 5 acres
35% 30%
30,000 65,000
$50,000. ' S150,000.
$100.
33,600.
$0.12/SF
82.099.
1 unit per Si
ernployees.
48
12.0'
525,188. '
$0.84/SF+
3100.
38,600.
$0.13/SF
82,099.
varies w/use
assumed 5
28
28.0
558,772.
$0.90/SF
55,400/acre! 55,400/acre
$10,800. ; $27,000.
$0.36/SF` $0.421SF
849.60 .
V N'
51,488,000 "
35,356 •
$0.18/SF'
33,481.
$0.2/SF'
534.00
V N
S2.210,000
87,161
30.11/SF
34,655.
$ 0.071SF
50.02 ;per SF (estimated)',
31,740. ; 3600. 31,300.
$0.02/SF:• $0.02/SF. $0.02/SF
80.15 non res.lper 51000. val. (State mandeted)
3308. i 3223. 3332.
50.004/SF. $0.01/SF. $0.01/SF
1 t
$73.904 i 549,349 3107.919
$0.85/SFI $1.64/SF( $1.661SF
332.520/acre' $53,330/acre 340.010/acre
(
3341,200. 3270,250. $135,600. 895,860. 3173,050.
56824./unit: $4,504./unit 31.56/SF' $3.20/SF$2.66/SF
( I I
$11,762./unit $7,929./unit 32.41/SF $4.84/SF $4.321SF
Aeeumoe proper zoning, env,ronmentel clearance, etc.
5,7491 ttV FEEL xt5
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
I 8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF IMPACT FEES
CC I( ( Ito BY CITY CF V.SA2 {A
Poerage: $8483
1 1
0
-o
:r3
0
0
w
Walnut Creek
0
0
Santa Rosa
Cf)
C C
V V
a, 0
�P
8
0
0
c
11
=7:
a)
0
0
Ct S
IMMO
CO
Santa Maria
0
c
Bakersfield
co
TYPES OF IMPACT FEES CHARGED
STUOY COP PtETED BY CT' OF :-i St:.
Sanitary Storm Parks & General
City Transportation Sewage Water Drainage Recreation School Government Other
Bakersfield • • • •
Chico • • • •
(;jp,• S •I 1 • • • •
EScondid° • • • • 1 • •
Fairfield • • • • •
Fresno • • • • • • •
Hanford • 0 0 0 •
Lodi • • •
Merced • • 0 • •
Modesto • • • • • •
Napa • • • •
Pstalurna • • • a a • 0
Portmille • • • •
Redding • • 0 0 • • •
Santa Cruz1 • • • •
Santa Marla • • • • 0 •
Santa Rosa • • • • •
Tulare 0 • •
'Turlock • 0 • 0 • • •
Visalia • • •
Walnut Creek • • • • •
IWoOd'and • • •
RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE COMPARISON
per dwelling unit
Assumption: 3 -bedroom, 2000 SF single-family dwelling et 5 units per acre
Fee Category LODI FAIRFIELD TRACY GALT MANTECA STOCKTON WOODLAND CLOVES DAViS
- Nctee_ a. a. b. C.
Water S902 $2,346 91,400 31.800 92,222 91,395 9278 5240 3719
Sewer 3216 54,851 52,600 53,000 82,222 91,959 51,440 51,924 91:257
Storm Drainage 91,476 55,204 5360 3498 91,782 5448 5210
Streets & Roads 91,076 57.770 $1,139 32,008 5472 52,255
Police 9226 5196
Fire
$253
5102 3205 5115 5173
Parks & Recreation 52.362 91,579 54,404 $592 $1,429 5800 9488 52,166
General City Fac. 51,274 51,663 91,155 8350 561 5732 51,057
Wastewater Conn. 52,524
Garbage5140
-
------ - ---- --- ----------- -- -
Traffic $732 --- -"-....__.--- _-
Public Safety (Police, Fire) 375 5335
Bridges/RRCrossingsi $176
Route 104/Twin Cities Rd $375
NE Area improvements 94,326 _
NE Area Water storage 9121
Traffic Signal L$200 580 $146
Major Equipment Purchases 9350
Highway Interchange 9500
Libraries - -- --•-- ----._
-- --- - - $2 34
Community Rec. Center 9128
Administrative Charge -_-,- $ 183
Open Space Preservation 4303
Core Area Enhancements 96
City Construction Tax 93.220
General Government 92,148 - -- -
Total: $10,258 S10,924 823,116 812,677 86,934 87,745 85,937 84,034 S12,144
Average: 810,419
Notes:
a. A[t&icable if not rn assessment district or special area of benefit.
b. !ncfudee $950 for well development. If in assessment district or NE area, this fee is not charged.
c. Includes standard connection lee end surface water facilities fee.
d. Will increase substantially because of D8CP cleanup, ureter cost not included.
e. Davie subtotal verses by sub area from $6,761 to 310,705 (used average) plus City construction tax (voter approved) of 81 611 eq.ft
f. No lift station fee included, other fees hosed on A-1 area.
g. Per Visalia study; Gen. Gov't includes storm, street & mise. oversiltng.
5124,''91 IMPAC2.XL5
Past Funding Sources
Property, Sales & Misc. Taxes
A pprox. S9,200,0001year
Doe.5 not cover Police. '=ire & Parks/Recreation Operating Flpenses
General Obligation Bonds
Storm Drain, Public Safety, General Government Projects
Require Voter Approval & Revenue Source To Repay
Utility Funds
In Long Past - Paid For All Improvements
More Recently - Paid Only For Oversize & Major Facilitiees
Fee Pro, rarn Would Shift All Needed Capital Facility Costs to !'kw Development
Federal Revenue Sharing
Approx. 54.0,000/year in 70's & 80's
City Hall Remodel, Misc. Storm Drains, Public Safety Projects & Equipment
Ai) Longer Available
Federal EDA Grants
Amounts Varied Per Project
Library, Trunk Storm Drains & Sanitary Sewers
M Longer Aluilthlc
IUD (CDBG) Grants
Approx. S300,000/'year in late 80's to present
Restricted to Certain Areas/Uses
State Grants
Amounts Vary Per Project
Park Improvement Projects
;tvn,!ahi1ity Varies w/State Bond Issues
Private Donations
Amounts Vary Per Project
Hutchins St. Square, Service Club Projects rst? Parks & Medians
.•t<tt abilitti Varies: Arm'unt Small Compared to Demand
PUBLIC DRAFT REPORT
CITY OF LODI
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Prepared for:
CITY OF LODI
Prepared by:
NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES
1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95835
(916) 641-1500
NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES
123 N. Sycamore Avenue, Suite 101
Manteca, California 95336
(209) 239-9080
AND
ANGUS MCDONALD AND ASSOCIATES
1950 Addison Street, Suite 107
Berkeley, California 94704
015) 548-5831
NOLTE and ASSOCIATES
Entenren : Namw,s / Swre,on
April 1991
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Pace No.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of the Fee - 1
Planning Period 1
Basis of Costs 1
Background - Development Forecast 2
Residential Acre Equivalents 2
CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 4
SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES 4
Phasing of Improvements for Maximum Efficiency 4
Assumptions/Concepts 4
Procedure for Staging Public Improvements 6
Comments on Specific Projects and Services 7
Streets and Roads 7
Parks and Recreation 7
Water 8
Police, Fire and General Facilities 8
Identifying Projects Curing Existing Deficiencies 8
Interfund Borrowing 8
Detailed Methodology 9
Summary of Fees 10
Changes In Land Use Entitlements 10
CHAPTER 3 WATER SERVICE 14
OVERVIEW 14
Supply 14
Distribution System 14
Water Master Plan 15
Water Reimbursement Policy 15
Existing Deficiencies 16
PLANNED WATER FACILITIES 16
Supply 27
Distribution System 27
Treatment 27
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING 28
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE 28
Relationship of Water Projects to New Development 28
Relationship of Water Projects to Land Uses 29
Recommended Fees 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Pave No.
CHAPTER 4 SEWER SERVICE 31
OVERVIEW 31
Collection System _ 31
Treatment and Disposal 31
Master Sewerage Plan 31
Sewer Reimbursement Policy 32
Existing Deficiencies 32
PLANNED SEWERAGE FACILITIES 33
Collection System 33
Treatment and Disposal 33
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING 33
Relationship of Sewer Projects to New Development 37
Relationship of Sewer Projects to Land Uses 37
Recommended Fees 39
BURDEN ANALYSIS FOR SEWER SUB -ZONES 39
CHAPTER 5 STORM DRAINAGE 42
OVERVIEW 42
Collection System 42
Detention Basins 43
Master Storm Drainage Plan 43
Master Storm Drainage Fee 43
PLANNED STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 43
Collection System 44
Detention Basins 44
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING 44
Relationship of Storm Drainage Projects to Uew Development 49
Relationship of Storm Drainage Projects to Land Uses 49
Recommended Fees 49
CHAPTER 6 STREETS AND ROADS 51
OVERVIEW
Existing Traffic Conditions
Circulation Plan
Existing Deficiencies
51
51
51
51
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
PLANNED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS 52
Developer Required Improvements 52
Street and Road Improvements 63
Freeway Improvements 63
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING 65
Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to New Development 65
Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to Land Uses 66
Recommended Fees 66
Regional Facilities 66
CHAPTER 7 POLICE 68
OVERVIEW 68
Level of Service 68
Existing Police Facilities 68
Existing Deficiencies 69
PLANNED POLICE FACILITIES 69
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING 69
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE 72
Relationship of Police Projects to New Development 72
Relationship of Police Projects to Land Uses 72
Recommended Fees 72
CHAPTER 8 FIRE 74
OVERVIEW 74
Level of Service 74
Existing Fire Facilities 74
Existing Deficiencies 74
PLANNED FIRE FACILITIES 74
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING 76
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE 76
Relationship of Fire Projects to New Development 76
Relationship of Fire Projects to Land Uses 16
Recommended Fees 76
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
CHAPTER 9 PARKS AND RECREATION
OVERVIEW
Level of Service
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
Existing Deficiencies
PLANNED PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to New Development
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to Land Uses
Recommended Fees
CHAPTER 10 GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
OVERVIEW
Level of Service
Existing Deficiencies
PLANNED GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of General City Projects to New Development
Relationship of General City Projects to Land Uses
Recommended Fees
APPENDIX A
Pave No.
78
78
78
78
80
80
87
87
87
87
87
89
89
89
89
89
89
93
93
93
93
95
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Title
3-1 Water System Improvements
4-1 Sanitary Sewer System Improvements
5-1 Storm Drainage Improvements
6-1 Typical Street Section
5-2 Street Improvements
9-1 Parks and Recreation Improvements
Paae No.
26
36
48
62
64
86
Table Number
LIST OF TABLES
Title Pane No.
2-1 Summary of Estimated Major Capital Improvement 5
Program Costs and Funding Services
2-2 Summary of Development Impact Fees - All Fees 11
3-1 Development Related Capital Costs and 17
Phasing - Water
3-2 Summary of Development Impact Fees - Water 30
4-1 Development Related Capital Costs and 34
Phasing - Sewer
4-2 Summary of Development impact Fees - Sewer 38
4-3 Sewer Sub -Zone Fee Calculations 40
5-1 Development Related Capital Costs 45
and Phasing - Storm Drainage
5-2 Summary of Development Impact Fees Storm Drainage 50
6-1 Development Related Capital Costs and 53
Phasing - Streets and Roads
6-2 Summary of Development Impact Fees - Streets 67
and Roads
7-1 Existing Deficiencies Analysis - 3olice 70
7-2 Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - Police 71
7-3 Summary of Development Impact Fees - Police 73
8-1 Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - Fire 75
8-2 Summary of Development Impact Fees - Fire 77
9-1 Inventory of Existing Park and Recreation Acreage 79
9-2 Inventory of Existing Park and Recreation Facilities 80
9-3 Existing Deficiencies Analysis - Parks and Recreation 81
9-4 Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - Parks 82
and Recreations
Table Number Title Page No.
9-5 Summary of Development Impact Fees - Parks and 88
Recreation
10-1 Existing Deficiencies analysis - City Hall 90
Facilities
10-2 Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - General City
Facilities 92
10-3 Summary of Development Impact Fees - General City 94
Facilities
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The enactment of AB 1600 (Government Code §66000 et. seq.) has generated
formal and stringent requirements for documenting the basis for valid
development impact fees. In response to the changing legal climate, as well -
as the desire to have a comprehensive financing plan for the various public
facilities in Lodi, the current fees must be updated and new numerous fees
need to be implemented.
The goal of the Development Impact Fee Study is to prepare development impact
fees which will provide funds to construct various types of improvements such
that the City of Lodi's adopted level of service is maintained throughout the
planning period. This goal will be attained consistent with the requirements
of AB 1600.
Purpose of the Fee
The purpose of development impact fees is to provide adequate financing for
the various public facility projects that are required to implement the City's
General Plan. The fee is imposed such that new development will bear its fair
share of providing adequate infrastructure.
The fees collected will be used to finance the design, construction, and
inspection of streets and roads, Water, Sewer, Drainage, Parks and Recreation,
Police, Fire, and General City facilities. The fee revenue will also be used
for a major update of the fee program, which is to be performed every 5 years.
Planning Period
The proposed General Plan before the City of Lodi covers a planning period of
April 1987 to 2007. For the purposes of the fee study, the planning period
was broken down into fiscal year increments: 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93,
1993/94, 1994/95, 1995/96, 1996/97, 1997 - 2002, and 2002 - 2007. The
planning increments are the basis for projecting fee collections, capital
improvement expenditures and cash flow analyses.
Basis of Costs
Capital improvement schedules have been prepared for the Proposed General Plan
that cover Water, Sewer collection (but not the wastewater treatment
facility), Storm Drainage, Streets and Roads, Police, Fire, and General City
facilities. Capital costs included in the General City facilities category
are, for example, city hall expansion, library expansion, fee program
monitoring, parking lot construction, and miscellaneous projects not failing
1
RMq:46
into other infrastructure categories. Project descriptions for each project
were developed with the assistance of City staff, other City -retained
consultants, and the authors. For each major project, estimates of cost have
been prepared utilizing current cost data from the City, recent bids for
similar projects, contractors and suppliers. Estimates of cost are based upon
January 1, 1990 dollars throughout this report. The Engineering News Record
20 -Cities Average Construction Cost Index for January 1990 was, at that time,
4673
Background - Development Forecast
The first step in calculating a valid development impact fee is to prepare a
forecast of the timing and rate at which the City will develop. This forecast
must be consistent with Lodi's General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance.
The development forecast serves two purposes:
• The development forecast provides the basis for determining when the
required infrastructure must be completed to maintain the targeted level
of service set forth by the City.
• The development forecast plays a significant role in forecasting cash
flow. The amount of development that occurs throughout the plannina
period determines the amount of the fee and the development in any
particular year determines the total dollars that are available to fund
improvement projects.
The forecast of final mapping was prepared per gross acre by the City of Lodi
and is presented in Appendix A. Because the City will collect development
impact fees at the time of the final subdivision map is recorded, a forecast
of final mapping was used to estimate the inflow of cash. The construction
capital outlay forecast was based upon the City's proposed Growth Management
Plan which provided the probable location of development.
The annual update of the fee program will include an assessment of the extent
to which development in Lodi has been occurring as forecasted. If rates of
development begin to depart substantially from expectations, the development
forecast and fee program will be updated based cn a forecast that reflects
then -current expectations.
Residential Acre Equivalents
After the amount of development was forecast for each land use category, a
conversion was made into the number of Residential Acre Equivalents (RAE's)
that would be developed, for each category of public improvements. An RAE
factor measures the use or burden a land use places on a category of public
improvements (e.g., water .-upply or roadway improvements) relative to the use
or burden placed on those improvements by an acre of single family dwellings
in the low-density residential category.
2
41+'J:1 N
As one simple example, the water service RAE factors reflect relative water
consumption. Since the Low Density residential category is selected as the
use from which all other land uses are measured, this land use category has a
RAE factor for all services equal 1.0 RAE per acre. All other RAE factors for
the category of public services being considered are scaled relative to this
"base" RAE factor for the Low Density Residential land use category.
For this example, the RAE factors for water are calculated in the following
manner for low density and medium density residential land use categories.
Assume.a.population and unit densjty_as shown below.
Land Use Population Unit Density
Low Density 2.75/unit 5/acre
Medium Density 2.25/unit 12/acre
Also, assume a per capita average water consumption of 285 gallons per day.
Therefore, the water demand per acre can be calculated as follows:
Low Density:
Medium Density:
Demand = 2.75 x 5 x 285 = 3,919 gal/day/acre
Demand = 2.25 x 12 x 285 = 7,695 gal/day/acre
By this method, the results indicate that the demand of medium density
residential land exerts a 2 times (7695/3919 = 1.96) greater demand upon water
supply and transmission facilities than does low density residential.
Therefore, a RAE factor of 2.0 is assigned to medium density residential for
water remembering, of course, that low density residential is the baseline
having a RAE factor of 1.0.
3
ItrOLQO-h
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES
Capital improvement projects to support the Proposed General Plan and other
City improvements are to be funded through a number of sources. In the course
of identifying Proposed General Plan capital improvements, a number of
existing deficiencies were identified in each of the service areas that are
not to be funded by development impact fees. City staff has projected, where
possible, the sources of funds to Finance those projects and/or portions of
projects that are not development related as summarized in Table 2-1.
During the ce':rse of assembling the information included in this report and
summarized in Table 2-1, a number of capital improvement plans, old and new,
were reviewed. Information has been taken from these capital improvement
plans and has been included in the table. Because the planning horizon for
the capital improvement plans provided by the City are not synchronized with
the General Plan period, the totals for capital improvements in Table 2-1 are
not comparable to the City plans.
Phasing of Improvements for Maximum Efficiency
The matching of required public improvement projects to revenues from the
development impact fee program was an iterative process that included close
coordination with the Growth Management Plan. Two objectives were served:
• The location and timing of new public improvements in Lodi were planned to
help assure an orderly and cost-efficient pattern of development.
• Public improvements were timed to assure that Level of Service (LOS)
targets for each service were reasonably maintained.
Insofar as practical, the growth rates that are part of the Growth Management
Plan can be accommodated throughout the City. Development can occur
simultaneously in several areas of the City, rather than be concentrated in
one area at a time. A temporary quasi -monopoly on supply of developable land
is avoided.
The following paragraphs describe some of the basic assumptions and concepts
that were used in arriving at project phasing. Additional information
concerning specific facilities 2s included at the end.
Assumptions/Concepts
The following assumptions and concepts guided the process of preparing the
development forecast and staging of public improvements to meet LOS targets.
4
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES
04/11/91
STORM SAN STATE AND GAS TAX DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM GENERAL WATER SEWER DRAIN JOAQUIN FEDERAL FUND& MEASURE'K' IMPACT FEE
OL.CRIPTION COSTS(1) FUND EURO FUND FUND COUNTY FUND T.D.A. FUNIS OTHER FUND (2)
1. Wane Salam 510591.525 30 01,628.000 S0 30 SO 30 30 90 30 $9.253.525
L . Sewer Service (3)
3. 9mn Orainags
4. Streets and Roads
5. Ponce
O Fns
7. Parts .414 Recreation
8. General Ca v Facitees
TOTAL:
23,013.920 10 SO 91.005.500 S0 S0 S0 S0 30 5630.500 (4) 91,368.920
310.824.000 5930.000 SO SO 3121.000 50 53 30 90 50 515.773.000
$46.194,450 S14,893,513 SO 90 SO 3776,000 5531.000 573.552,500 31.450,750 So 515,290,887
92.576.000 3146.000 SO SO SO 50 50 30 50 50 52.430.000
32.156000 31,090000 SO SO SO SO 30 SO 30 SO 31,065.000
330.114.000 55,021000 SO 30 SO SO SO 50 SO 38,3.53,000 (5) 318,740,000
513,190,219 51,621,770 SO SO 7 SO 50 ii SO SO S0 ] 30 511,566,449
5124.959.114 1523,702.283 1 51.628.030 1$1,005.500 ! 5121.000 1 5176,000 t 5831.000 $13,552,500 [.$1;450.:.7.
. $1;450.750 t' $6,992.500. ' 5.575.499.581. I
NOTES:
1. Costs do not include streets and utilities within development projects typically constructed by the developer as normal improvements.
2. "L.lvelopment Impact Fee Fund' will consist of eight separate funds, one for each category 01 facility.
3. E ewer service does not include the wastewater plant expansion which is tundeo by the existing wastewater connection lee.
4. L ft Station area of benefit lees.
5. Hutchins Street Square Fund.
6. Dollar amounts are in January 1, 1991 dollars
Pogo 1 or 1
• Development of new residential land will be limited such that the
population will grow at 2% based on the September 1989 population. This
allows more units (acres) in the early years than in middle years due to
"catch up" after the wastewater moratorium.
• Commercial development will tend to follow residential development, except
where one major -development is currently being processed (Lodi Shopping
Center, also called Sunwest Plaza, at the SE corner of Lower Sacramento
Road and Kettleman Lane).
• Industrial development was assumed to grow uniformly.
• The implementation of the Growth Management Plan will discourage new
developments that require extraordinary extension of utilities or other
improvements, such as trunk lines through agricultural property. This
will help lower the cost of development and reduce disruption of
agricultural activities.
Procedure for Staging Public Improvements
The specific steps that led to the staged Capital Improvements Program are
described in the following paragraphs.
• The annual number of units to be allowed was converted to acres based on
an average of seven units per acre per the Draft General Plan.
• Sub -areas surrounding the City were identified based on available storm
drain basins, utility trunk lines, major streets, General Plan limits, and
natural boundaries.
• The acreages were matched with the sub -areas and broken into three phases:
one 7 year block followed by two 5 year blocks.
• The above two steps were repeated until the acreage provided in each phase
matched the number of units in the first step.
The majority of the projects were then placed in the appropriate phase
coinciding with development of the adjacent area. This would include projects
in which the impact fee fund would be used in conjunction with frontage
improvements by a developer such as for oversized lines and major street
crossings. As noted in the assumptions, there should be few cases in which a
utility gust be extended outside the development. (Exceptions and
cla,lfications are noted below.)
Careful attention was paid to the timing of construction of public
improvements, compared to increases in development and demand for services.
Each improvement was staged to insure that it would be completed and in place
6
c.`n0 T1 N
before the actual level of service had declined below the City's Level Of
Service target.
In support of the objective of avoiding degradation of service level, the City
of Lodi intends to collect development impact fees in advance of the date of
final inspection or the date a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Delaying
residential fees to the time of occupancy would assure that completion of
public improvements would considerably lag the residential development that is
creating a significant percentage of the demand for the improvements. To
avoid this situation, the City's fee ordinances will provide that development
impact fees are due at the time that a final subdivision map is filed. Public
capital improvements can then be constructed in parallel with the process of
readying parcels for development and constructing residences. The service
capacity provided by the public improvements can be in place at the time that
increased demand actually occurs.
It is possible that developed parcels within the existing General Plan will
undergo redevelopment or a change in the land use resulting in assessment of
additional fees. In such instances, fees would be collected upon issuance of
the building permit.
The present document constitutes a "...proposed construction schedule or
plan..." for seventeen years. The various fee ordin.nces will ensure that
"...an account has been established and funds appropriated..." Accordingly,
the quoted requirements of Government Code Section 66007 have been met. Lodi
can collect residential impact fees in advance of final inspection or
occupancy.
Comments on Specific Projects and Services
The following paragraphs explain the reasons for the staging of certain key
projects.
Streets and Roads
• The Highway 12 (Kettleman Lane) Project Study Report was placed early in
the program. This Report will take some time to do and the results will
affect the scope and cost of subsequent projects.
• Street capacity improvements were phased based on examination of the
present and future volumes, capacity of existing improvements and the
capacity after the new improvement.
Parks and Recreation
• The Master Plan Study was placed early since it will take s.;me time to do
and the results will affect the scope and cost of subsequent projects.
7
• Parks would be completed by the end of the phase in which adjacent
development occurred.
Water
• No new wells would be required in 1990/91 since no annexations/new housing
would be occupied in that year.
Police, Fire and General Facilities
Projects were phased based on discussions r,.th the Police and Fire Chiefs
and other department heads.
• The west side fire house was placed in the first phase since it is located
in the corresponding area.
Identifying Projects Curing Existing Deficiencies
The entire list of capital improvements was reviewed to identify projects
which primarily cured existing deficiencies. Projects that were excluded from
the fee program based on this evaluation are any type of replacement, repair
or renovation of an existing facility which provides for little or no added
capacity.
In addition, large projects, or groups of projects, in Parks and Recreation,
Police and General City Facilities were evaluated on an individual basis. The
results of this level of analysis is that certain projects were split between
new development (fee program funded) and existing development (other financing
source).
Interfund Borrowing
The staging of capital improvements frequently produces cash flow deficits in
one or several of the fee funds. This is the result of large projects that,
once completed, provide capacity beyond the year of construction and beyond
the time in which the funds are required to construct the project. One
approach .o deal with cash flow deficits is through interfund borrowing.
Interfund borrowing is predicated on the creation of a "Pooled Money Fee
Account" into which the annual surplus from each fee account flows and from
which borrowing to cure cash flow deficits occurs. Each fee (i.e. Water,
Sewer, etc.) is calculated and accounted for separately. Positive fund
balances earn interest revenue and negative fund balances accrue interes+ to
be paid. Under this approach the development impact fee has two parts.
1. Portion Of The Fee From Construction Of Improvements: This
part of the fee is equivalent to the average cost of the
programmed improvements per RAE.
8
2. Portion Of The Fee From Finance Charge: The finance charge is
set such that the ending balance in the particular fee Fund is
as close to zero as possible. In cases where the cash flow is
relatively smooth such that no borrowing will take place, it
is entirely possible that the "Finance Charge" will be
negative. This is the result of interest earnings over the
course of the program.
On the other hand, when funds must be borrowed a positive
finance charge, and thus higher fee, is required to pay the
interest cost involved in borrowing among funds.
The test of whether or not interfund borrowing is successful in compensating
for the cash flow deficits is the ending fund balance in the Pooled Money Fee
Account. If this figure is positive throughout the program then interfund
borrowing has served its purpose and cured the cash flow problems. If any of
these figures are negative, interfund borrowing has not fully alleviated the
cash flow deficits. Adjustments to the project staging, or borrowing from an
outside source would be necessary to fund the program using the interfund
borrowing approach.
The cash flow analysis indicates that almost every fee has cash flow problems.
These issues have been resolved through inter -fee -fund borrowing such that the
program of capital improvements are funded in the year required.
Alternatives to this approach include borrowing from other City funds, which
would also entail repayment with interest, and "borrowing" from developments
early in the program. This would entail charging a higher fee to the initial
development projects and repaying it in later years with fees from subsequent
development. Both alternatives require additional administrative effort and
result in a higher fee.
Detailed Methodology
A project phasing schedule is prepared, as determined by the development
forecast and the adopted service standard, showing the timing of the
expenditures required for each improvement. A forecast of Residential Acre
Equivalents is prepared, then converted into a forecast of revenues collected
from the fee in each period. The fee and cost of capital improvements are
inflated, for purposes of analysis, at the same rate. However, it was assumed
that the inflation effects on the fee are lagged one year due to the fact that
the fee is only updated at the end of each year. Because the General Plan was
not completed in the 1990-91 fiscal year, ail capital costs were inflated to
January 1991 dollars and the fees then calculated.
The amount of the finance charge is manipulated until:
All projects have been constructed at their then actual year
cost;
9
Only a nominal surplus remains in the Development Impact Fee
account at the end of the planning period.
Summary of Fees
A summary of the development impact fees is presented by major land use
category in Mable 2-2. This summary presents the summation of the impact fee
imposed for each of the relevant facility categories in the development impact
fee plan. The fee for each particular category of public improvement is
presented in the applicable chapter (e.g. Streets and Roads - Chapter 6).
Each fee, except portions of the sewer impact fee is imposed citywide
throughout the entire planning period.
Each fee will be fine-tuned annually to reflect inflation and other minor
adjustments. Annual updates of the fee should be based upon the increase in
construction costs for the year as determined by comparing the ENR 20 Cities
Average Construction Cost Index for the beginning and end of the year. The
first annual fee update (1989-90 to 1990-91) is reflected throughout the
report. Fee calculations for this report were done to the nearest $1.00 and
have been rounded to the nearest 510.00.
Changes In Land Use Entitlements
Parcels may undergo redevelopment or a change to a more intensive land use.
The development impact fees that will be due reflect the difference between
the fee appropriate to the more intense use and the fee that would have been
appropriate to the previous use. In concept, the various classes of
infrastructure had the capacity to meet the demand placed by the original land
use. The intensification of use will create additional demand. Additional
capacity must be purchased through the incremental development impact fee.
For the case when a proposed development would result in a more intense demand
upon infrastructure than planned, it may be appropriate to assess a special
fee. Purpose of such a special fee would solely be to insure that
services/benefits provided by the City are fairly paid for by the user. Of
course, by the nature of setting fees based upon a service standard, the focus
is upon the City and neighborhood averages. Therefore, demand deviation above
and below the average is assumed. Defining the maximum permitted demand
deviation before assessing a special fee should be up to the Public Works
Director.
10
4t,M)1' N
'Land Use Categories
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
East Side Residential
TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
ALL SERVICES
04715/91
Parks and General City
Total Water Sewer Storm Drainage Streets & Roads Police Fire Recreation Facilities
Fees RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee RAE(1) Fee
538.170 1.00 54.510 1.00 51,080 1.00 57.380 1.00 ;5,380 1.00 31,130 100 3510 1.00 511,880 1.00 5e.370
558,090 2.00 59.010 2.00 52.160 1.00 57.380 1.96 310.550 1.77 52.010 1.96 51.000 1.43 316,880 1.43 59,100
$101,770 3.50 515,770 3.50 53.790 1.00 57.380 3.05 316,420 4.72 55.350 432 32,210 2.90 $33,040 2.80 517.810
$40.100 1.00 $4,510 1.00 31,080 1.00 57,380 1.00 35,380 1.09 51,230 1.10 5560 1.10 512,970 1.10 56,990
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Densly 538,170 1.00 $4,510 1.00 51,080 1.00 37,380 1.00 35.380 1.00 51.130 100 5510 1.00 511,810 1.00 56,370
Medium Density 558.100 2.00 59.010 2.00 52.170 1.00 37,380 1.96 310.550 1.77 52.810 196 S1.000 1.43 516,880 1.43 99,100
High Density 3101.770 3.50 315.770 3.50 53,790 1.00 $7.380 3.05 516,420 4.72 55,350 4.32 52,210 2.80 $33,040 2.80 517,810
CO$M4ERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercia 540,010 0.64 32.880 1.25 31.350 1.33 $9,820 1.90 510,230 4 28 54.860 2.77 51,420 0.32 33.750 0.89 55,700
General Commercial $48.000 0.64 32.880 1.25 51.350 1.33 $9,820 3.82 320.570 2.59 52,940 1.93 3990 0.32 33.750 0.89 55.700
Downtown Commercial $40,010 0.84 52,880 1 25 51,350 1.33 59,820 1.90 510230 4 28 34,960 2 77 51,420 0 32 33,750 0.89 35,700
Ottrce Commercial 563.330 0.64 52,880 125 51.350 1 33 59.820 3.27 .517,610 3 72 34.220 2 46 51,260 0.54 56,430 1.53 59,780
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial 532,520 0.92 54.150 0.33 3360 1.33 39.820 2.00 510.77,-... :..30 5340 064 5330 0 23 52.680 0.64 34.070
Heavy Industrial 531.470 0.92 54.150 033 $360 1.23 59.820 1.27 56.840 0 19 3210 0 61 5310 0 33 33.690 0.93 35,890
Industrial Reserve 532.520 0.92 34.150 0.33 5360 1 33 59,820 2.00 310.770 230 $340 064 3330 0.23 52,680 0.84 54,070
Source: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDooaid d Associates
NOTES.
(1) Residential Acie Equivalents
(2) Doke' amounts shown are In January 1. 1991 dollars.
An example of more intense demand for service than provided for in the fee
structure is a shopping center that is located in a neighborhood commercial
land use. The specific use (shopping center) is allowed in the land use
(Neighborhood Commercial). In the case of the Streets and Roads Fee, a net
trip rate of 10.5 peak hour trips is assumed for Neighborhood Commercial but
the City Circulation Plan assumes 30 peak hour trips for shopping center uses.
In this case, the deviation above the service standard provided by the fee is
approximately 200%. Therefore, a special fee is recommended, -
The opposite example to an intensification of use would be a parcel that
develops at a use that is less intense than its land use entitlement. The
various fee ordinances should provide for a "exception procedure" to deal with
instances that simply were not contemplated at the time that the ordinance was
adopted. As a generalization, exceptions should be granted sparingly.
Facilities were sized based on the expected land uses and in many cases
capacity will be provided in advance of total demand because of the inability
to build certain classes of projects in stages. If exceptions are granted
easily, particularly in the later years of the planning period, sufficient
development impact fees will not be available to complete the Capital
Improvements Program.
An additional consideration is that although a parcel may be developed
initially in a less intense use, it may undergo redevelopment in future years.
The full fee would be due. If, subsequently the parcel was redeveloped, it
would receive credit for the fact that the full fee had been paid. Only if
the future use was more intense than the original land use category would a
higher fee be due.
The amount and timing of redevelopment and reuse cannot be predicted with any
accuracy. Accordingly, the development forecast on which the fees were based
includes only new development. If proposals for significant amounts of
redevelopment or reuse are forthcoming in future years, the effect of this can
be considered during the annual update of the fee ordinances.
Successfully implementing a 17 year, 5124,000,000 Capital Improvements Program
is a major undertaking. It will require a very serious effort at program
management and monitoring of actual performance as compared to plan.
The Capital Improvements Program contains specific line items to provide the
cost of staff or consultant services to act as Program Manager for the Capital
Improvements Program. A budget is also provided for a major General Plan
Update/Capital Improvements Program and Development Impact Fee Update every
fifth year.
12
The program management function should include a responsibility to monitor
actual performance compared to plan. This monitoring function can be combined
with any environmental impact monitoring program that is recommended either in
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on each update of the City's update of the
General Plan or in the EIR's for major projects.
13
CHAPTER 3
WATER SERVICE
OVERVIEW
Water service to Lodi residents is provided by the City. Major components of
the water system include wells, distribution piping and a single elevated
storage tank. The following sections will describe the City's existing supply
and distribution facilities, current planning for expansion of the system,
7olicy relating to cost sharing for major facilities, and existing water
service deficiencies.
Supply
Water for the City of Lodi is pumped directly from wells located within the
City limits. At present, wells discharge directly into the distribution
system. Of the 25 wells needed to serve the existing City, 20 are currently
producing. Three wells are not producing due to contamination. Funds have
been appropriated to construct two new wells and to construct two replacement
wells. Also, funds have been appropriated to design treatment facilities for
the removal of DBCP.
Water quality in the aquifers tapped by City wells is generally good.
Recently adopted Department of Health Service (DNS) standards for
dibromochloropropane (DBCP) will impact the City because the DBCP
concentration at 11 well sites exceeds the new State standard. Presently, the
City is preparing to conduct pilot studies of granular activated carbon
filtration units to remove the DBCP from the water. With respect to DBCP, the
better wells are located in the northeast sector of the General Plan area.
Groundwater levels within the basin have steadily dropped over the last years.
Concerns for salt water intrusion is a regional concern but may not be a
threat to Lodi due to influence of the Mokelumne River as a major contributor
to replenishment of the groundwater basin.
Well yields in Lodi are good. Individual wells produce an average of 1,600
gallons per minute. Pumping levels vary across the well field by
approximately 80 feet, with the shallowest water in the northeast area and the
deepest water in the southwest area. The City operates a Supervisory Control
and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to assist in operating the well field,
maintaining pressures in the system, and recording operating data.
Distribution System
Existing distribution piping within the City ranges in size from 2 to 14 inch.
By current standards, any distribution piping smaller than 6 inches is
14
substandard. Smaller pipe was primarily used in the older portions of town
and it has, in many cases, been constructed in backyards and alleys.
Backbone of the City distribution system consists of a network of 10 and 14
inch pipe laid on an intersecting grid. Grid intersections are typically
separated by a distance of 1/4 to 1/2 mile.
-Pressures within the distribution system are maintained using an elevated tank
and with assistance from the SCADA system. Water elevations in the tank are
consistently 165 to 180 feet, resulting in a 49 to 55 pound per square inch
pressure at the tank.
Water Master Plan
Current planning for the expansion of water supply and distribution facilities
to serve the City through the period of the General Plan is embodied in the
"Water Master Plan" prepared in 1990. Based upon the General Plan projected
population and average water demands of 285 gallons per capita per day, total
average day water demand at 2007 will be 22.1 million gallons per day.
Existing (1987) average day demand is 12.58 million gallons per day.
A number of planning and design recommendations were presented in the Water
Master Plan. Those recommendations that affected the information presented in
this report are summarized below.
1. Design for future wells should conform to that for recently
constructed wells: 21, 22, and 23.
2. Well and distribution system should be capable of meeting maximum day
demands with 20% of the wells out of service.
3. For each 2,000 equivalent persons added to the system, a new well
should be constructed.
4. One of every three wells should be equipped with standby power.
5. Re-evaluate the Water Master Plan at least every 5 years.
Water Reimbursement Policy
Under the City's Water Main Extension policy, applicants are reimbursed a
portion of the construction cost of oversize mains and major crossings.
Commonly, city's and agencies share in the cost of constructing special items
of infrastructure, especially, since these special items are typically part of
the backbone of the system.
F.-- oversize mains, the reimbursement policy applies to water mains larger
than 8 inches in diameter. Major crossings covered by this policy are
Woodbridge Irrigation District canals, Southern Pacific Transportation
15
Company, Central California Traction Company, Highway 99, Highway 12 west of
Highway 99, lower Sacramento Road, and Hutchins Street south of Kettleman
Lane. For major crossings, the City will reimburse one half the cost of
construction.
City water reimbursement policy is reasonable for the facilities to which it
applies. In developing the fee program for water service, the existing policy
has been applied to oversizing of water mains and construction of major
crossings. For the purposes of this report, reimbursable construction costs
are assumed to include materials, construction, administrative, engineering
and inspection. Administrative and engineering reimbursement is limited to
10% by City ordinance.
Existing Deficiencies
The Water Master Plan identified a number of existing deficiencies in the
water distribution system. These deficiencies generally include replacement
of older pipe and construction of additional mains to reinforce the
distribution network in older areas of the City. Significant water quality
(DBCP) deficiencies exist at 12 of the 20 producing wells. Estimated cost to
correct the pipeline and water quality deficiencies is $8.2 million. Pipeline
reconstruction will be funded through the City water fund. DBCP facilities
for existing wells will be constructed using loaned State funds that will be
repaid by customers through water service rates.
Specific listings of the projects earmarked to correct existing deficiencies
are not included in this report. Estimates of probable construction cost have
been developed for the existing deficiency projects identified by the City.
Total estimated cost to construct these projects is $1,628,000. Funds to
construct these projects will come primarily from the Water Fund.
PLANNED WATER FACILITIES
Water facilities to serve buildout of the General Plan were identified in the
Water Master Plan. As part of the public facilities financing effort of the
General Plan, specific project descriptions were generated for those
improvements identified by the Water Master Plan. Generally this effort
included defining the length and size of pipe and appurtenant facilities;
defining the additional equipment to be provided at the wells; and identifying
the canal, street and railroad crossing that involve cost sharing by the City.
A summary of these facilities is presented below and described in Table 3-1.
Project numbers listed in Table 3-1 are used to identify the project locations
on Figure 3-1.
In Table 3-1, two columns are shown, Program Cost and Impact Fee Fund.
Program Cost is defined as project Losts to be funded through the City Water
Fund. Program Cost does not include costs borne by the developer. Program
Cosi does include costs allocated to the Impact Fee Fund. Costs listed in the
Impact Fee Fund column represent those costs for specific projects alloc2ted
16
TABLE 3 - 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
04105191
reject Description Rearm !mead
Number Coat Fee Fund 109081 1001/92 1992/43 1693/94 1994/95 199598 1996/97 1997-2002 2002-2007 I
WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS
50651001 Turner Rd transmission nun 316000 516,04. $O 50 SO SO 50 so SO $2,613 513.367
consisting of 2.050 If 10 -inch
wale. main from easterly of the
Central Caf11. bastion Co.
(oversized mein)
MWSX010 Turner Road transmiasron main 020.000 520,000 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO 70 520,000
(5t'.VS0701) includes ernanuction
of the main under the Cannel Calif.
• Traction Co. (coat sharing)
-a
UIWS1002 Lid Avenue transmission main 33.000 59.000 S0 R) SO So so 50 30 31,470 57,530
consisting of 1,2001f 10 -inch
water main easterly hom CIuO
Ave. to Central Calif. 'reaction
Company (oversized main)
MWS0003 03501110Hnc1, sealer main 511000 511.000 50 50 50 50 i0 $11,000 30 50 $0
soothed), from Lodi Avenue
(oversized main)
MWS1004 Guild Avenue transmission 03E.000 336.000 50 • 50 00 SO SO j0 $36,000 50
main consisting of 6,600 If
10 -inch wale main along
future Guild Avenue between
Pine and Kefleman. (ova sized main)
MWS1005 Transmission main parallel it, and
adjacent to Central Cant, Traction
Co. RR flacks. consisting ul appror
6,600 II of 10 -inch ware, line
between Pine and Kellleman
(oversized main)
PAGE 1 Cr 9
$51 000
351.000 50 SJ Se, SO SO SO SO SO 051000
TABLE 3 — 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
04105/91
Projecl Description Program impecl
!umber Coro Fee fund 1990/91 1981/92 1992/93 194194 1994/95 199 1996/97 1997-2002 2002-2007
MWSI000 Industrie/ Way lrar.amieionmain 57,000 37.000 27.000 SO 50 50 SO 50 SO SO SO
consisting of 000 If 10 -inch
water main to the west of Clue
Avenue. (oversized main already
constructed)
MWSI007 Industrial 'Nay transmission main
consisting of 0.185110 -Inch
water main to 150 east of Clue
Avenue extending MWS1000.
(oversized main)
59,000
39,000 SO SO 50 SO SO SC' SO 59.000 SO
c MWS10013 Beckman Road transmission main 110,000 510,000 30 50 510,000 50 50 50 10 SO 10
consisting of 1,3001f 10 -inch
water main to the north of
Kentemann Lane. (oversized main)
MWSbOB Clutl Avenue transmission main 520.003 523.000 30 SO 50 S0 SO 020.000 SO 30 30
consisting o12,600 If 10 -inch
water main along haunt Wrest
between Kettleman and Vine
(oversized main)
3,1W01010 /Cattleman Lara transnnssiort main 357.000 357,000 50 30 SO SO 30 517.000 30 30 540,000
consisting ol 3 6801f 12 -inch
wale, main westerly from Lowur
Sacramento Road 10 Mille Avenue.
(oversized main)
MWSIOI1 1111110f Road transmission main $20.000 320.000 30 59,714 33,007 53,065 $3,130 51,084 50 30 10
consisting o1 2 600 11 10-4nch
water main horn Lower SaClainenlo
Road. loveruzed mai.)
PAGE 2 07 9
TABLE 3 - 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
04,105191
Project Description Program Impact
Number Cosi Fee Fond 1090/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1694/95 1995/99 1996437 1997-2002 2002-2007 I
MWS1012 f pplesod Drive transmission main 510.000 110.000 SO 54,857 11.503 51,532 51.565 5542: 30 SO SO
consisting 011.300 0 10 -inch water
mein consisting of 1.300 tt 10 -inch
water main southerly from Tamer Road
to Me existing main. (Oversize main)
1AWS10/3 Lower Sacramento Road transmission 14.000 64.000 S0 54.000 50 50 SO SO 1 SO SO SO
main consisting M 5501110 -inch
water main northerly from Yosemite
Avenue. (oversize mein)
r- 4WS)0t4 Applawood Drive transmission main 5105900 3105900 30 SO SO 30 30 SO SO 30 3105,000
`i:r consisting ct 13.480 11 10 -Inch
water main southerly from existing
Applewood to Nsrney Lane. (Oversi2e0
main)
MWSX001 Applewor, Drive transmission main 39.000 59,00"- 30 SO 30 SO SO 50 SO SO 59,000
MWS:u14 also includes construction
c: a 10 -inch 00121 Ina under 010
W.10 Canal (cost JlarinO)
MWSX002 Applewood Drive iraramlsston ml(Il 59,500 30.500 50 SO SO SO SO SO 50 59,500 SO
IM W51014) also inciude construction
01 a 10 -inch rater line across
Lower Sacramento Rued (cost sharing)
MWS1015 Evergreen Dave toenennesinn main 525.000 525.000 80 012.143 33.759 53.831 $3.312 51,355 30 30 30
ccna.M.ng of 3.2601/ 10 -Inch water
southerly end easterly Iron exr9mg
Eve/green Diem es Lwwn Sacrenrenlo
iOVereiie 100111)
PAGE 3 OF 9
..� Sciaa 421ii natir. EMI allots intim war emu imam wow
TABLE 3 - 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
04/05191
Project Description Program Impact
Number Cot Fee Fund 1990/91 1991/92 1992193 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996,97 1997-2002 2002-2007 1
MWSX009 Evergreen Drive main(MWS1015) 59.500 59.500 30 SO SO SO 39.500 SO S0 5o Som
Indhldet construction of the main
under Lower Sactamerdo Road (coq
snaring)
laWSt016 Lodi Avenue transmission main 520000 920.000 SO SO SO SO S0 SO SO 5326d 316.734
cenais mg of 2 600 11 10 -inch
water main westerly troch Lower
Sacramento Road to General Plan
Boundary (oversize min)
MWS1017 Vme Streetlransmrswen main 313.000 318.000 SO SO SO SO SO 30 90 92.939 515.061
Consisting 012,250If 10 -inch
pwater main westerly of Lower
Sacramento Road along • future
street alignment. (oversized main)
MWSIO1a Keulernen Lane transmission main S34.000 334.000 SO S3 SO SO SO SO SO 55.552 $28.448
consisting of 4.350 11 10 -Inch
water main westerly of Lower
Sacramento Road in Sylvain Way.
(oversized main)
/WSW t0 lower Sacramento Road transmission
mein consisting of 5.200 if 10 -inch
water mein northerly to Kettleman
Lane to the W 1.0. Canal.
(oversized main)
541.0000 249 000 SO SO ;u SO 50 221.000 SO 53.268 316,733
MWSX003 Kalileoan/Lower Sacramento Road 513.000 313 000 SO SO SO SO So 50 So 513.000 SO
transmission mains (M W 4107E and
SUNSPOTS) also exam mg under
the two exfslmg roads. (cO5t sharing)
PAGE 4 OF 9
TABLE 3 - 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
gams mac was NOV MOM
04105/91
IProjact Deacripion Program Impact
Number Cost Fee Fund 1990/91 1901192 1992193 1993/94 1504/95 1995198 1998197 1687-2002 2002-2007
MWS1020 Mills Avenue bensmrms'on main 511.000 311.000 00 50 50 30 SO 30 30 311.000 S0
000.sdng 011.400 If 10 -inch
water main 90000rly horn Ken'amen
Lane to W.1.D. Canal (oversized main)
MW$X004 Mills Avenue transmission main 39.000 59.000 SO SO 50 50 30 SO SO 39,000 SO
(MWS1020) also includes construction
of the main under me W.1.D. Cenat
(cop shilling)
MW 3X005 Mills Avenue transmission main 39500 50500 SO SO SO SO 50 SO 30 59.500 50
(MWS1020) also includes coh0nxhon
of the main under Ketleman Lane
(cost staring)
MWS1021 Gemury Blvd transmission mem 35.000 55,000 SO SO SO S0 SO 35.500 SO SO SO
consisting of 1.3001110 -inch
ware, main westerly horn Sage
Way Wong future Century BNS.
alignment 10 )Win 9w anpmg
main (O.errezed main)
MW21022 Century Blvd. transmission main 522.000 222,100 30 SO 3O SO SO 50 SO $3.592 318.408
consisting 012.76011 10 -inch
water main along lulurs 01909001
from Lower Saeramenlo Road to
general plan boundary. (oversized
main)
MWSX007 Canfury 8)vd. transmission main
(MWSI021) and M WS1022) also includes
consiructfon a1 the mein Uildef LowOr
Sacramento Road. (cost snanue)
PAGE 5 OF 9
39.500
59.500 30 SO SO 50 SO SO SO SO 39,500
TABLE 3 — 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
P oject Dercription Program h p.0
Nunlha. Cosi Fen Fund 199041 1991182 1992193 1993/04 109o41B3
MW51073 Future transmission main conrwng 951.000 *51,000 SO f6 10 20
of 2.9001f 10 -inch aligned a1ween
and parallel to Century and Harney,
Mance southerly from the canal to
Marney. (overs.re main)
933.000 933.000
Irt VS1024 I bonny Lane IranwMsa.On main
consisting 017.90011 I0 -Inch
wale( main westally from Ham lane
It/ the western boundary of IM general
Wan area..(e.* aired main)
Hamay Lane transmission ft4WSX0211 99.000 *9,000 S0
au:ludas canshuclion of a 10 -inch
wales line under the W.I.D. Canal
(cunt sharing)
Il1W5X001 Kerney Lane hansnission main
(M W SI024) includes c0ndructnm
ul lha main urldei Loww Sacrarnemd
Ruta. 'cost share)
11W 51023 Century Bad. lranamlsai0n mem
cratrstmg W 1,0901110-inchsmarm
meal easterly from 51001/100 St. t0
Clecbadea Lane, Iomrsired main)
e1M(51020 ChstonsvMrney Ilan amisaion male
conalarrng of 4,70011 10 -inch water
mam easterly from SP adrwd .kq,
Hammy, thence, NOrtarly along
Ch 101190 to Century Blvd. (ovalsitdd
mam)
PAGE 6 OF 0
00,500 99,500 SO
SO
90 S0
30.000 58,000 50 13.915 SI 703 31.225 91,252 $434
373.000 073.000 9n 335,459 510975 511.186 311,424 53,057
04/05491
1909997 0007-2002 2002-20071
090.000 141,000 30
$0
921.000 112,000
50,000
SO
30
59.500
SO
TABLE 3 - 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
04105/91
rProject Description Program Impact
ltumber Coat Fee Fund 1990161 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994795 1995./98 1996/97 1907-2002 2002-2007
WATER WELLS - -
MWNf1001 Installation of Water Well •A• 2723,000 5723.000 SO SO i0 SO SO So 5723,000 20 S0
with pumping capacity 011,600
GPM and a Granular Activated
Carbon Fitter
14WW1002 Installation of Water Well's' 5723.000 2723.000 30 50 i0 50 SO 50 50 SO 3723,000
with pumping capacity of 1.600
GPM and a Granular Activated
Carbon Flner.
MWW1003 installation ol Water Well "C• 3773000 $773.000 SO s0 00 30 SO SO 50 SO 3773.000
N
to with pumping capacity d 1,800
GPM. a Granular Activated Carton
Filter, and Standby Power
MWW1004 Installation of Water Well •D' 5723000 5723000 SO SO 50 50 30 SO SO 5723.000 50
with pumping capacity .A 1,600
GPM and a Granular Activated
Catton Filer
MWW1005 Installation ot Water Well •E• 3723.000 5723.000 30 20 SO SO 50 SO 30 0723.000 50
with pumping capacity of 1610
GPM and a G. anular Activated
Carton Fitter.
MWW10O8 In0taltation 01 Water Watt •F• 5345,000 3345.000 SO SO SO SO 50 50 30 3345,000 SO
with pumping capacity of 4,000
GPM and Slandhy Power
MWW1007 Installation of Water Weil •0' 5295.000 5295.000 50 5295.000 SO 00 50 SO 30 So SO
with pumping capacity 01 1.900
GPM.
PAGE 7 OF 9
TABLE 3 -
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
04/05191
!Project Description program Impact
Number Cost Fee Fusel 1990491 1991792 1992/93 1993194 /994/95 1995196 199697 /997-2002 2002-2007 I
MWW10061nstallation of Water Well '11" 6345.0005145.000 30 SO 5345.000 30 30 50 SO S0 50
with pumping capacity ol 1,000
GPM and Standby Power.
MWW1009 Installation of Water Wall '1' 3345.700 9345,000 SO SO SO 30 3343,000 30 50 SO SO
with pumping capacity o$ 1,600
GPA! end Standby Power.
MWW1910 Installation of Water Well"A' 3295.000 3295.000 30 SD SO 5205.000 SO SO 30 S0 SO
W91 pumping capacity of 1,600
GPM.
N MWW101 Iniellat,un of Water Well "K' 5345.000 S345.000 50 20 SO SO SO 5345.000 30 30 50
with pumping capacity of 1.000
GPM.
MWWI0/2 Installation W Water War, '1..." 3723.000 3:23,000 30 SO SO SO SO 50 SO 5723.000 SO
with pumping capacity of 1.600
GPM end • Granular Activated
Carbon Filter.
MWWIOI3 Installation 04 Water Well • M' 2773.000 0773.000 SO SO 50 50 30 SO 50 30 3773000
with pumping capacity of 1.600
GPM. a Granular Activated Carbon
Filler. end Standby Powor
MWWIOI4 Installation of Water Well' N' 5295.000 0295.000 SO SO SO 30 50 5d SO SO 3295.000
with pumping capacity 41 1800
EPSA.
PAGER OF 9
a`ere �....-.a a•....+
v.aca. .,..,.r.
TABLE 3 — 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
Bored Descripon Program Impact
N4mber Coal Fee Fund 1890/91 1991/92 199293 199391 1994/95 5895196 3996197 1997-2002 2002-2007
WATER CROSSINGS
.••••••••S i"'a'a1 S: MS
04705!91
MWS0001 Water Master Plan -1990
MWS00€2 Walla Matet Plan
and C.I.P. Update -1997
557.369 357,369 357.369 SO 50 SO 30 30 SO 30 SO
320.000 320,000 50 50 SO SO 10 SO 520.000 50 SO
MWS0063 Water Master Plan 520.000 520.000 50 SO SO 50 SO SO SO 320.000 50
and C.I.F. Update -2002
MWS0004 Public Works Adman 8td9 Exp (5046) 3341500 5341,500 So $0 3341.500 SO 30 SO SO 50 30
MWS0005 Public Works 5lorage Faceey (50%) 5235.000 5235.000 SO 00 S0 $235 000 SO SO 30 SO 30
N
MW50006 Public Works Garage/Wash Face (33%) 5168667 3166,667 SO 5166.687 S0 30 SO 30 30 30 SO
Upgrades to Existing Faeakties 51.928.000 30 5O SO SO SO 30 SO SO S0 SO
New Dsve)opment Share 0) Eaisang Facilities
a Water Storage Tank (3196)
'TOTAL WATER COST
PAGE 9 O 9
5183489 3183,489 30 $)1468 111.46E 311.468 311,468 311.468 011.468 557,340 057,341
•
$10.891.525f $9.263,525 = SG4.3691 $5433.194 $728,415 $562.307 j $387.251 j $437.841 1..$764;468 ''',$2.782.0371 $2,992.6441
• •
G P STUDY AREA
meciy141 l3� ` 4r�' -rr :. �x!vtksri2c6_ "S!. h1 " q - •j oo ,:.
11-T11,3_16 { ' 9 r.' i -4.7:711;• '�tY_.�:_ 1:i l;i' 41WWi�li`y
UN—`'i ` y 1 l ., t ':.' .- ;�a1 � '. III'
_�yr t `I^ MWwI
t iC{, .. _
rMN'Y/L2 � %. ILi.7lia , . - 4 _ ..4-,--.a Y='- f _
MWS!,;,. .Y• •__ .
017
tf
- MWSf ole
'''''.:r-----4 ��x99D O —I _rN.d r _.
MW Yr10fnI�
t COj MWS k..:10 :1
_
•
•
'. •. n f '` '"i': I , . .•Slate, t ,.-..:=.! r
L.
•
v-. �•.��,\_1•nl. ...
1 Y/•c'
\ MWSx 008 Q010'11_003
LE.ND
• Futve Weil
Fume Pipe
MW W 1005 %%ter Sys em
Impareemeett
Rnpect N4ar•.ber
FIGURE 3--1 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
26
61• •"...Ow ...0\.,•
ITE N. MI
to future developed identified in the General Plan. Where the cost in the
Program Cost and Impact Fee Fund columns are the same, the entire project cost
has been allocated to future development. The usefulness of differentiating
the costs will be evident in latter sections when Program Costs are to be
funded by other sources or include costs to correct existing deficiencies.
At the end of Table 3-1, an item is listed as "New Development Share of
Existing Facilities". This item summarizes already incurred City costs to
construct projects with capacity reserved to serve future development.
Depending on the project, a percentage of the actual construction cost has
been allocated to future development as shown in parenthesis.
In the case of water service, the new water tank falls into the category of
existing facilities serving future development. As indicated in Table 3-1, 31
percent of the actual construction cost adjusted to January 1990 dollars has
been allocated.
Supply
Through buildout of the General Plan, the City will continue to rely upon
groundwater as the sole water supply. Project average day demand at buildout
is 22.1 million gallons per day. A total of 14 new wells will be required to
supply to water to the General Plan area. Proposed locations of the new wells
marked on Figure 3-1. Five of the new wells will be equipped with standby
power generators.
Distribution System
Additional water mains will be required to distribute water to the area. With
regard to funding water main extensions, the City is responsible only for
water mains 10 inches and larger in diameter. Approximate location and limits
of these water mains are shown on Figure 3-1. Actual location and alignment
of the water mains may slightly change when site specific planning is
completed.
Treatment
Two types of treatment are assumed to be provided at the wells sites:
emergency chlorination and granular activated carbon filtration. Chlorination
of the water is not routinely required, however, permanent chlorination
facilities will be constructed at selected well sites. The cost of
chlorination facilities (approximately 57,500 per well) is small compared to
the cost of a well and is not listed separately. The totals for all wells
include sufficient contingency to cover this expense at selected wells. It is
assumed, granular activated carbon filtration units will be constructed at 5
of the 15 new wells.
27
a,.v. has
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
In Table 3-1, a summary of the water projects and estimated costs is
presented. Estimated costs are referenced to the Engineering News Record 20
Cities Construction Cost Index for January 1, 1990 of 4,673. Water main
extension costs represent only the City's funding responsibility per the City
Reimbursement Policy. In actual fact, the developer will be constructing the
improvement and will receive back from the City a portion to cover the cost of
oversizing the pipelines and the City's share (50%) of major crossings.
Phasing of the improvements is presented in Table 3-1 and is based upon the
Forecast of Units Constructed Over the General Plan Period (Appendix A)
provided by the City. In Table 3-1, the phasing is divided by year for the
first 7 years followed by two 5 -year increments. Costs for projects serving
General Plan development funded on or before July 1, 1990 are shown in the
current year (1990/91). Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to
the January 1, 1990 dollars.
Many of the projects listed in Table 3-1 are oversizing projects wherein the
City's participation is limited to reimbursement to the developer for
oversizing costs. It is not intended that the Program Cost shown in the table
reflect the total cost of construction. Similarly, for projects such as the
Public Works building expansion, the costs have been divided between the water
and sewer impact fee funds and the costs shown are the portion allocated to
the water impact fee fund. Also, where a project partially serves the
existing community and partially the general plan expansion areas, only the
cost allocated to the general plan areas are shown.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Water Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between (1) a fee's use and (2)
the type of r+evelopment on which the fee is imposed. To establish such a
relationship, it must be shown that the type of development that is going to
be charged the fee actually uses, is served by, or benefits from the public
facilities that are to be financed by the fee revenue.
Because of the logical growth patterns conceived in the Proposed General Plan
and because of the planning effort set down in the Water Master Plan, the City
ensures that all water facility improvements will primarily benefit the
residential, commercial, industrial and quasi -public land uses within the
General Pian area. Each and every water project tc be financed by the fee
program will provide the same level of service to the Proposed General Plan
area as currently provided to the existing community of Lodi. Although other
projects have been identified that will correct existing deficiencies, these
project costs will not be included in the fee program.
28
Relationship of Water Projects to Land Uses
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 cf, or benefit from, the improvements.
This is accomplished through the use of' a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates the relative responsibility to pay for
improvements for each land use category in relation to the single family
detached residential category. A summary of the RAE factors for water is
presented in Table 3-2. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship
between the cost of the required water projects and financing burden placed on
each land use.
Recommended Fees
A summary of water fees for each land use benefitting from the water projects
is provided in Table 3-2. The total fee for low density residential use is
$4,510 per acre.
29
TABLE 3-2
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
WATER
Land Use Categories
I1-Apr_91
Unit RAE Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $4,510
Medium Density Acre 2.00 $9,010
High Density Acre 3.50 $15,770
East Side Residential Acre 1.00 $4,510
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $4,510
Medium Density Acre 2.00 $9,010
High Density Acre 3.50 $15,770
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial Acre 0.64 $2,880
General Commercial Acre 0.64 $2,880
Downtown Commercial Acre 0.64 $2,880
Office Commercial Acre 0.64 $2,880
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial Acre 0.92 $4,150
Heavy Industrial Acre 0.92 $4,150
Industrial Reserve Acre 0.92 $4,150
Note: Dotrar amounts are in January t, 1991 collars.
Sourcos. Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
CHAPTER 4
SEWER SERVICE
OVERVIEW
The City of Lodi has provided sewerage services to its residents since the
early 1920's. Major 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 located approximately 6 miles
southwest of the City.
Collection System
The sanitary sewer collection system within the City includes more than 155
miles of pipeline. Sizes of the main sewers range from 4 to 48 inches in
diameter, with 6 inches being the most common. Domestic and limited
industrial wastewater flows (mainly the PCP Cannery and other industries along
Sacramento Street) are kept separate. The separate industrial system is not
addressed in this study.
Five sewer lift stations provide sewerage service to outlying areas of the
City where conditions prohibit gravity systems. These existing lift stations
are: Cluff Avenue Station, Mokelumne Village, Rivergate, Woodlake, and Park
West.
Treatment and Disposal
White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility is owned and operated by the
City. Currently, the plant is operating at the design capacity of 6.2 million
gallons per day (MGD). Expansion of the plant to a capacity of 8.5 MGD is
currently under construction. Future expansion, to 10.3 MGD is planned.
Facility costs and financing for wastewater treatment and disposal are nct
addressed in this report. These issues have been addressed in separate
studies and a financing mechanism, the Wastewater Connection Fee, has been
established.
Master Sewerage Plan
Planning for sewerage collection facilities to serve the expanded General Plan
area are addressed in the report by Black and Veatch, "Sanitary Sewer System,
Technical Report for the 1990 General Plan Update." Included in the report
are results of a comprehensive hydraulic evaluation of the existing collection
system and proposed expansions of the collection system to serve an expanded
City.
3i
..my tie
the Master Plan presents recommendations for gravity and pressure sewer
design, sewer lift station design, and collection system maintenance.
Recommendations for sizing and location of new facilities are presented that
will serve the General Plan expansion areas as discussed in the section
"Planned Sewerage Facilities". In addition, Master Plan identifies a number
of collection system deficiencies that are described in the subsection,
"Existing Deficiencies".
Sewer Reimbursement Policy
Commonly, developers are required to construct sewer trunk lines with greater
capacity than needed in order to provide service to expanding areas of a
community. It is not very common that a City or agency is able to get
property owners to pay in advance for sewer capacity that they do not plan to
use in the near future and, as a result, cities and agencies pay for the
oversizing of sewer trunks. Policies for reimbursing for oversizing costs
vary from community to community.
Under the City's Sewer Trunk Extension policy, applicants are reimbursed a
portion of the estimated construction cost of oversize trunk sewers. For
oversize trunks, the reimbursement policy applies to trunk sewers larger than
I0 inches in diameter. For the purposes of this report, reimbursable
construction costs are assumed to include materials, construction,
administration, engineering and inspection. Administrative and engineering
reimbursement is limited by City ordinance to 10%.
City reimbursement policy as it relates to oversizing of sewer trunk lines is
reasonable. Historically, the oversize cost of gravity sewer lines has been
spread throughout the City. In preparing this report, the existing policy and
historic practice are assumed to continue in force during the General Plan
period.
Existing Deficiencies
A number of existing sewers within the City are operating above design
capacity as determined by the methods presented in the Master Sewerage Plan.
Correction of the problem requires the construction of parallel sewers to
relieve the surcharge condition. Listing of these sewers is presented in the
Master Plan. Maintenance deficiencies within the collection system were also
identified consisting primarily of sewer cleaning that had not regularly been
performed in the past.
Based upon construction costs referenced to January 1. 1990 dollars, the
estimated cost to construct those parallel relief sewers is S1,005,500.
Estimated cost to clean the existing sewers is 5165,000. Source of funding
for these deficiencies has been identified by the City to be the Sewer Fund.
32
PLANNED SEWERAGE FACILITIES
Sewerage collection facilities to serve the expanded City have been identified
in the Master Sewer Plan. A summary of these facilities is presented below
and in Table 4-1. Project numbers listed in Table 4-1 are used to identify
the project locations as shown on Figure 4-1.
Collection System
Expansion of the existing collection system to serve new areas will require
construction of new gravity sewers and lift stations as described in
Table 4-1 and shown on Figure 4-1. Two new lift stations and expansion of an
existing lift station are planned; one near Kettleman Lane (Highway 12), a
second near Harney Lane, and expansion of the existing Cluff Avenue Lift
Station. Additional gravity sewer trunks will be required to serve the
General Plan areas. Only those trunk lines that are larger than 10 inches in
diameter are considered in this report and are listed in Table 4-1.
Sewer collection facilities can be divided into two categories: gravity
facilities and pressure facilities. As previously mentioned, City policy has
historically provided for reimbursement of oversize gravity facilities and for
payment of oversizing costs from the Sewer Fund, thereby, spreading the costs
City-wide. Pressure facilities costs (i.e. lift stations and force mains)
have been spread over areas of benefit. For each lift station in the City a
specific area of benefit is defined. In this report, it is assumed that lift
stat4on and force main costs would be spread over individual special fee areas
corresponding to the areas of benefit. Also, it is assumed that gravity
facilities costs would be spread City-wide and oversizing costs for facilities
serving future growth would be paid from development impact fee funds.
Treatment and Disposal
Expansion of the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility is currently
under construction. Costs of the expansion and future planned expansions are
not considered in this report. Funding for these improvements has been
arranged by the City and reimbursement will come from rates and the City
Wastewater Connection Fees collected at the time of building permit issuance.
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
In Table 4-1, a summary of the sewer projects and estimated costs is
presented. Estimated costs are referenced to the Engineering News Record 20
Cities Construction Cost Index for January 1, 1990 of 4673. Sewer trunk
extension costs reflect only the City's funding responsibility per the City
Reimbursement Policy and do not reflect the total estimated construction cost.
Phasing of the improvements is based upon the Forecast of Units Constructed
Over the General Plan Period (Appendix A) provided by the City. In
33
Project Description
Number
MSS1001 Beckman Road sewer uunir
comprising 1,10011 of 10 -inch
sanitary sewer pipe and manholes
kom Pine Street to Lodi Avenue.
MSS1002 Western boundary sewer Trunk
consisting 0(5001!, 12 -inch,
5001f 15 -inch, 2,00011 of
18 -inch. 2.000 nor 21 -inch,
and 2,50011 ot 24 -inch sewer
pipe connecting to the existing
48 inch sewer trunk W the
treatment plant. (ovefsiie)
1.1881003 Oversize gravity sewer to Harney
Lane lift statidn comprio g 2.700
It of 12 -inch and 1,00011 o1 15 -
Inch sewer trunk.
M551004 Harney Lane i0 station and
forts main comprising 3 -ten
horsepower pumps having •
combined 1,000 GPM capacity and
2,800 I1 of 8 -inch pipe.
MSS1005 Ketllemen Lane lilt shoran and
torte resin with 2 -five
horsepower pumps and 450 GPM
capacity and anon face main
under Kettleman Larw.
MS51006 CWtt Avenue tilt Nation upgrade
and parallel force main 01111 2
Steen horsepower pumps and e
1,500 GPM capacity
MSSI007 1,40011 of 18 -inch parallel
trunk line in Lowe. Sacramento Rd
nom Taylor Rd. to Kettleman Lane
MS51008 2.500 ft of 15 -inch parallel
trunkline in Lower Sacramento Rd
Iran Lodi Avenue in Elm Sheet
PAGE 1 OF2
TABLE 4 — 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
SEWER
0410521
Program Impact
Coq Fee Fund 1990(91 199122 1992193 1950194 199425 1995/96 1996197 1997-2002 2002-2007
549000 549.000 SO 30 30 SO - 1.0 50 50 So 349,000
$300.000 3300.000 SO SO SO 30 SO 30 50 50 3300.000
348.000 548,000 SO 50 SO SO SO SO 30 548,000 SO
.5262.500 30 (1) SO 30 30 30 50 SO 30 60 50
3192.000 50 (2) SO SO 50 50 50 SO 50 SO SO
5185,000 SO (3) SO 50 50 50 SO 50 50 SO 50
542,000 542.000 30 50 30 30 50 SO 50 542.000
349,000 349.000 50 SO S(. SO 50 549.000 SO 50 52
TABLE 4 — 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
SEWER
04105/91
Project Description Program Impact
Number Cost Fee Fund 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993194 1994195 1995198 1998/97 1997-2002 2002-2007
1.4591009 Oversee gusty sewer m Harney 515,000 915.000 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO 515000 SO
Lane to III station. consisting of
1 ao0 it of 12 -inch pipe west ham
Lower Sacramento Road. (oversize)
GCFM06 Public Works Administration 9341.500 9341.500 SO SO 5341.500 30 90 $0 SO So So
Bldg. Expansion. f50%)
GCF1007 Public Works Storage Facility (50%) 3235,000 5235,000 50 S0 SO 9235,000 S0 SO 50 90 SO
GCF1008 Pub. Works Garage/Wash Facil. (3336 3168.687 5166.667 SO 5166.e67 SO SO 50 50 SO 90 SO
14990001 Sewer Master Plan - 1980 982.753 982.753 562.753 SO 50 50 50 50 So 50 50
MSS0002 Sewer Master Man and C.I.P 520,000 520,000 SO SO SO SO SO SO 920,000 0 SO
Update - 1997
MSS0003 Sewer Master Plan and C.I.P. 520.000 520.000 S0 SO SO SO So SO So 520.000 50
Update - 2002
i4 Upgrades to Existing Facilities 51.005.500 SO SO SO SO SO 50 50 50 50 SO
vi
i
FTOTAL SANRARY 33.013,920 151.368.920 �' 382733 $166,6671 3341 500 {5235.000 :'c `'SO ':519000' l ;Of)IF :S125;f)t10 E343:000..
Notes:
1. Harney Lane lift station costa will be funded b) a Supplemental Fee assessed upon development within the area of benefit. Therefore, costs
of the protects are not shown in the City -Wide Impact Fee Fund column. Forecasted timing of the project construction is in the 1997-2002 period.
2. Kettleman Lane fift station costs will be funded by a Supplemental Fee assessed upon development within the area of benefit. Therefore, costs
of the projects are not shown in the City -Wide Impact Fee Fund column. Forecasted timing of the project construction is in the 1992-1993 period.
3. Ctuff Avenue lift station modification costs will be funded by a Supplemental Fee assessed upon development within the area of benefit. Therefore, costs
of the projects are not shown in the City -Wide Impact Fee Fund column. Forecasted timing of the project construction is in the 2002-2007 period.
PAGE 2 CF 2
G P STUDY AREA
1 I 1 I _ --,—,F.1.- if 13 f t
,..; — _ ��- i`t._
`a" ,,
C cars. 1----T-0.-11-':- ` i -1- '(:. _
�i"?-r----"-- 7%."
yi ", I
:21
N :..--MS.1
LIFT ST�CjION.�.= ... .
,_ _...._.... =005"
SERVICE;
AREA -. . >-
I J 1FF AVFJVUf_
LIF it STATION.
!uy;I CO6
HARNE, LANE
UFT t ION,/
MSSI
FIGURE 4-1
-AREASERVICE
LE_G.EN0
• Future Lift '- c:tir,
Future Pipe
MSSI 005 Sewer System
mprovemerit
Protect Number
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
36
- `SERVICE ?'
AREA
•
Table 4-1, the phasing is divided by year for the first 7 years followed by
two 5 -year increments. Costs for the projects serving the General Plan
development funded on or before July 1, 1990 are shown in the current year
(1990/91). Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to the
January 1, 1990 dollar reference.
Some projects listed in Table 4-1 are not included in the overall development
impact fee program. These include projects related to serving the Cluff
Avenue Lift Station Service Area, the Harney Lane Lift Station Service Area
and the Kettleman Lane Lift Station Service Area. Since lift stations are
unusually large and expensive facilities and, the ser""ice area is specific, a
separate supplemental fee is calculated for each area. A separate calculation
for these sub -zones is presented in the section, BURDEN ANALYSIS FOR SEWER
SUB -ZONES. v
Relationship of Sewer Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between: (1) the fee's use and;
(2) the type of development on which the fee is imposed. To establish such a
relationship, it must be shown that the type of development that is going to
be charged the fee actually uses, is served by, or benefits from the public
facilities that are to be financed by the fee revenue.
Sewer collection facilities are used by residential, commercial, industrial
and quasi -public land uses. Benefit to each land use is based upon peak
wastewater generation rates as set forth in the Sewer Master Plan. Because
each land use mentioned above benefits from the sewer projects in the capital
improvements program, each land use is also a part of the fee program.
Relationship of Sewer Projects to Land Uses
Once the relationship between the facilities to be constructed and the land
uses has been established, the burden of financing is to be distributed to
each land use in proportion to its use of, or benefit from, the improvements.
This is accomplished through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates the relative responsibility to pay for
improvements for each land use category in relation to the single family
detached residential category.
According to the definition of RAE's an acre of low density single family
residential land sue has an RAE factor of 1.0. All other land use categories
have RAE factors that relate their demand for sewerage facilities relative to
one acre of low density single family land use. Based upon wastewater flow
projections presented in the City's Sewer Master Plan for each land use in the
General Plan, an RAE schedule has been developed. The RAE schedule shows a
reasonable relationship between the cost of required Sewer Facilities projects
and the burden placed on each land use. The RAE schedule that has been
developed for the Sewer Facilitir.s is presented in Table 4-2.
37
11P00:1,41
TABLE 4-2
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
SEWER
11 -Apr -91
!Land Use Categories Unit RAE Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $1,080
Medium Density Acre 2.00 $2,160
High Density Acre 3.50 $3,790
East Side Residential Acre 1.00 $1,080
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $1,080
Medium Density Acre 2.00 $2,170
High Density Acre 3.50 $3,790
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial Acre 1.25 $1,350
General Commercial Acre 1.25 $1,350
Downtown Commercial Acre 1.25 $1,350
Office Commercial Acre 1.25 $1,350
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial Acre 0.33 $360
Heavy Industrial Acre 0.33 $360
Industrial Reserve Acre 0.33 $360
Note: Dollar amounts are in January 1. 1991 dollars.
Sources; Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
.8
Recommended Fees
the Sewer Facilities Fees for each land use are summarized in Table 4-2. The
total fee is S1,080 per low density residential acre.
BURDEN ANALYSIS FOR SEWER SUB -ZONES
There are three sewer sub -zones which are not served by the improvements in
the fee program and cannot be funded by the sewer development impact fee.
These areas require lift stations and other improvements that will benefit
only a specific area of undeveloped land. The sub -zones are the Kettleman
Lift Station Area, Harney Lane Lift Station Area, and the Cluff Avenue Lift
Station Area. Each area has only one land use type within its boundaries.
Since the improvements will have to be constructed prior to any development
taking place, development impact fees do not provide a viable means to finance
these projects.
The total cost of lift station facilities equals $639,500. In practice, this
amount would best be obtained by borrowing from another City of Lodi fund. A
special sub -area Impact Fee could then be collected in the three sewer sub -
zones sufficient to repay the borrowing plus an appropriate rate of interest.
The alternative, three sub -area financing districts (Special Assessment
Districts or Mello -Roos Community Facilities Districts) would not be economic.
The cost of processing would be excessive compared to the funds required.
Other alternatives include financing by the "first" development in the area
with establishment of a reimbursement program from future development, or the
installation of temporary facilities plus payment of the fee. Each case
should be evaluated separately as development is proposed.
A series of analyses presenting the burden of financing the improvements in
each of these sub -zones is provided in Table 4-3. The calculations indicate
the approximate amount each acre of land in each sub -zone will need to
contribute in order to finance the needed improvements. It should be noted
that the cost of financing has not been included.
In the case of the Harney Lane lift station service area, existing development
has been included in the sizing of the facilities. At the time of annexation,
it is expected that this area will be required to pay the supplemental fee
and, therefore, it has been included in the supplemental fee calculation.
33
TABLE 4-3
SEWER SUB -ZONE FEE CALCUILATIONS
Kettleman Lift Station Sub -Zone
Total Planned Residential Acres: 100
Total Cost of Improvements: $192,000
Cost Per RAE: S 1,555
Total
Total RAE Total Burden
Description Units Developed Factor RAEs Per Acre
PR - Low Density Acres 87.0 1.0 87 $ 1,555
PR - Medium Density Acres 6.0 2.0 12 S 3,109
PR - High Density Acres 7.0 3.5 24.5 S 5,441
100 123.5
Harney Lane Lift Station Sub -Zone
Total Planned Residential Acres: 257
Total Cost of Improvements: $262,500
Average Cost Per RAE: S 327
Total
Total RAE Total Burden
Description Units Developed Factor RAEs Per Acre
PR - Low Density Acres 187.1 1.0 187 S 827
PR - Medium Density Acres 12.9 2.0 26 S 1,654
PR - High Density Acres 15.1 3.5 53 $ 2,995
215 266
40
Cluff Avenue Lift Station Sub -Zone
Total Industrial Reserve Acres: 158
Total Cost of Improvements: $185,000
Average Cost Per RAE: S 1,171
Total
Total Burden
Description Units Developed Factor BALI Per Acre
Industrial/
Industrial Reserve Acres 158 0.33 52 S 1,171
Note: Dollar amounts are in January 1, 1990 dollars
Source: Nolte and -Associates and Angus McDonald and Associates, 1991.
41
CHAPTER 5
STORM DRAINAGE
OVERVIEW
Storm drainage services are provided by the City of Lodi. Major features of
the storm drainage system include collection system, runoff storage/detention
facilities, and pumping plants. Terminal drainage For the City is provided by
the Mokelumne River and the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) canal.
Characteristics of these facilities are described below.
Collection System
Storm drainage services are provided to an area encompassing approximately
7,700 acres. For facility punning purposes, the drainage area has been
divided into planning areas. Storm drainage facilities for these planning
areas are incorporated into a City wide storm drainage facilities plan.
Approximately 1,340 acres directly discharge to the Mokelumne River via
gravity pipelines. Approximately another 2,290 acres is pumped to the river.
The remaining approximately 4,070 is pumped to the WID canal from two pump
stations.
Discharges to the WID canal are controlled by the flow capacity of the canal
system. By agreement, the Lrty i 'invited to a combined total discharge of 80
cubic feet per second at the two existing pumping stations. Additional
discharge locations are not currently permitted by the agreement. The City
operates a series of interconnected detention basins within this area to store
runoff prior to pumping to the canal. The City utilizes detention basins in
other areas also to store runoff prior to pumping to the Mokelumne River.
Existing facilities for the collection of storm runoff include surface
improvements like alleys, ditches and gutters, and underground pipelines.
Present design standards for storm drainage collection facilities only allow
gutter and underground piping. The use of ditches and alleys for conveyance
of storm runoff is currently substandard and not allowed.
New development in the City is required to construct all storm pipeline
smaller than 30 inches in diameter. Pipelines 30 inches and larger are
considered to be part of the Master Storm Drain Pian improvements and are
currently funded by Storm Drainage Fees collected by the City.
A number of relatively minor deficiencies exist within the collection system.
For the most part, these consist of substandard surface drainage facilities
(for example, ditches and alleys), deteriorated curb and gutter, and
undersized pipelines and catch basins. Many of the system deficiencies can be
found in the older central and eastern parts of the Crt.y.
42
t,,:,: 1
Large scale replacement of deficient facilities, if it occurs, will be part of
major street reconstruction projects. As part of the East Side Residential
Study (1987), a number of Storm Drainage deficiencies were identified.
Estimated total cost to correct the deficiencies was $854,000 in 1987 dollars
and $930,000 in 1990 dollars. Small scale projects have been performed by the
City to repair sections of curb and gutter. Replacement of the alley systems
is not expected due to high cost and grade conditions.
Detention Basins
As mentioned above, the City operates a system of interconnected detention
basins that store runoff prior to pumping to the 'r1ID canal or the Mokelumne
River. These basins also function as park -like areas when not utilized for
storage of storm runoff.
A total of eight basins exist within the City's drainage service area. Basins
in subareas C (Pixley Park), B (Glaves Park), and E (Westgate Park) store
runoff prior to discharge to the Mokelumne River. Basins in subareas A-1
(Kofu Park), A-2 (Beckman Park), B-1 (Vinewood School), D (Salas Park), and G
(along with the future F and I basins) store runoff prior to discharge to the
WID canal from pumping stations located on Cabrillo Circle and at Beckman
Park.
Current design standards for the detention basins require storage capacity for
the 100 -year 48-hour storm. Changes in hydrologic design data over the past
years may have resulted in some earlier basins being undersized. Future
updates of the Master Storm Drainage Plan will address this issue.
Master Storm Drainage Plan
City of Lodi Engineering Division updated the Master Storm Drainage Plan in
1988. This plan forms the principal basis for future expansions of the
drainage service area to serve the General Plan area. Major collection system
improvements and detention basin improvements are identified in the plan that
have been included in this report.
Master Storm Drainage Fee
The City has adopted a capital improvement program and fee-based financing
mechanisms for storm drainage facilities. Recently, this program was revised
to comply with AB 1600 regulations. lhis study updates the program and fee to
serve the General Plan Area. Also, additional fee categories have been
created from the former drainage fee to establish general conformance with the
other fee categories.
PLANNED STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Storm drainage improvements to serve buildout of the General Plan were, for
the most part, identified in the Master Storm Drainage Plan. A summary of
43
those facilities is presented below and summarized in Table 5-1. Project
numbers listed in Table 5-1 are used to identify the location of projects
shown on Figure 5-1.
Collection System
Drainage subareas established during planning for storm drainage improvements
within the existing City limits had already incorporated much of the land in
the expanded General Plan area. Subareas C, D, E, F and G were already
planned for expansion of service to the west, east and south. New subarea I
will be established to provide drainage services to areas west of Lower
Sacramento Road, south of Kettleman Lane.
Major storm drainage trunk pipes are planned to serve the expanded General
Plan area. Locations of these trunk improvements are shown on Figure 5-1.
Detention Basins
Expansion of existing detention basins in subareas C, E, and G are identified
in the Master Pian. New detention basins are planned for subareas F and I.
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
In Table 5-1, a summary of the storm drainage projects and estimated
construction costs is presented. Estimated costs are referenced to the
Engineering News Record 20 Cities Average Construction Cost Index for January
1, 1990 of 4673. In the table, reference is made to Program Cost and Impact
Fee Fund. Program Costs are defined for Storm Drainage Facilities to be the
total probable construction cost for the facilities described. In other
words, the private developer is not expected to pay any portion of the cost to
construct Master Storm Drainage Facilities. Impact Fee Fund costs represent
the portion of Program Costs allocated to serve future growth or otherwise not
funded from other sources. In the case of Storm Drainage, all Master Planned
Facilities are wholly serving future growth and no funding other than
development impact fees is expected. Therefore, the amount in the Program
Cost column generally equals the amount in the Impact Fee Fund column. The
exception is the item labeled "Deficiencies". Storm drainage trunk lines
represent the total estimated cost of construction.
Phasing of the storm drainage improvements presented in Table 5-1 and is based
upon the Forecast of Units Constructed Over the General Plan Period (Appendix
A) provided by the City. Costs for projects serving General Plan development
funded on or before July 1, 1990 are shown in the current year (1990/91).
Actual costs of these project have been adjusted to the base dollar of January
1, 1990.
44
9 4x;'0-8
Ur
storm drain and manholes.
TABLE 5 — 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
04/11/91
'Project Program Impact - _—
Number Cost Fee Fund 1990/91 1991/92 0992/53 1993/94 1994/95 1905f96 199697 1997-2002 2002-2007
14501001 Pixley Park drainage basin. 5693.000 5893.000 30 SO 3177,000 30 30 SO 5222.000 5294,000 50
Expansion and development of
Basin 'C' according to plan
adopted in 1988 (Owg 88E003)
14501003 Turner Road storm drain. 6501t 5213000 5213,000 SO 50 50 SO SO SO 30 30 3213.000
of 60'. BOO If of 54', and
1.05030143' storm drains
in Turner Road and Gold Avenue.
14501004 Pine Street corm dram 342,000 542.000 s0 SO 50 30 30 30 SO 542.000 50
co 0/01109 of 5000 n030'
14501005 Thurman Street storm drain 570000 370,000 50 330.000 30 50 30 SO 30 540000 s0
consielrng of 1.2501136'
storm drain and manholes.
14501007 Basin' C' arorrn drain 5172.000 5172.000 50 SO SO S0 SO 50 SO 30 3172.000
C0110cbon lacrtitiea
consisting 0142' and 30'
ppes. extending south and
eau. Expands service area to
Ko01enoan and Guild.
MS0100S Evergreen Drive storm drain 3123.000 3129,000 SO S0 56 SO 243.000 243,000 543,000 50 50
collodion facilities extending
service area north to Turner
Road. Improvements include
pipes that will carry runoff to
Basin 'E'.
MS0)009 Evergreen Drive storm drain 563.000 963.000 SO SO SO $21,000 220,0o0 520,000 S0 So 50
collection facildtes extending
service stsi h d E-Desin
Improvements include 30' and
35• pipes that will cant'
runolt to Basin • E•.
PAGE 1 OF 3
TABLE 5 — 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
04/11/91
Project Program Impact 4
Number Cost Fee Find 1000191 1991192 1992/93 1993/94 1994195 1995190 1996/97 1997-2002 2002-2007
AISCIO10 Westgate Park expenx100 and 51,334000 51,934.000 SO 50 SO 51.343.000 5157,000 5157.000 5277,000 50 SO
development Park improvement,
are not included
AISOI01 t Development of new Basin 'F.. 53.519 000 53 510.000 30 SO s0 so SO s0 SO 32.532,000 5997,0:0
located north ot Kettlaman tone
and west of Lower Sacramento
Road. Service area includes
land west of Lowe" Sacramento
Road, north of Rettleman. and
south el the WO canal Park
Improvements ere not Included
MSDIOI2 Resin 'F' worm drain $367,000 5367.000 SO SO 50 SO SO SO S0 SO 5367000
collection tacddws extending
north of Basin 'F' including
54'. 49•, and 30' Pipes.
14901013 Stam drain consisting Of 36' 5149000 5149000 30 SO SO SO SO SO 30 1149,000 SO
and 30' pipes extending
easterly from ma existing 54'
trunk line nam of Kettlaman
Lane. Exact location nut set
determined
MS01014 Basin 'F' mitten storm drain
consisting 0130' pipes
extending easterly irons the
basin t0 the exteltn0 54' trunk
line.
MS01O15 Basin 'G' storm dram
co0ection facilities
consisting consisting of 48'
and 30' pipes extending
southerly and easterly from
Basin •G'. Eaacl locanoll not
yet determined
PAGE 20F 3
3194,000 5184.000
30 30 SO SO 5O SO SO 5184.000 SO
3761.000 5291000 SO SO SO SO 80 SO SO 5261,000
SO
Oiod
Number
TABLE 5 — 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
04/11/91
Program Impact
Cost Fee Fund 1900/91 1091/92 1902/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/98 1996/97 1997-2002 2002-2007
19SO1016 Basin' G' correction facilities 394,000 364.000 584.000 (1) SO 99 SO SO 50 SO 30 30
consisting of 36' and 30" pipes
extending westerly and
northerly o/ the existing 38'
trunk in Orchis Way Exec1
location not yet determined.
MSD:O17 Expansion and doveloprnenl of
Basin "G•. Golf course
improvements are not included.
MS010)5 Master PlaMUpdates
1.15131020 Development of Beam '1"
located south of Kenleman Lane
and west of Lowe, Sacramento
Hoed.
M17SIO21 Basin ' 1' collecpon facilities
consisting o130. 36, 42. and
48 inch pipes extended north
of the basin.
MDS1022 Basin •1" dischargeconsrseng
of 42 inch pipe extending north
and east to Basin G.
Upgrades to Existing Facild0es
33.744,000 93.744.000 3108.000 (I)
SO SO SO SO 10 1398,000 53.240.000
SO
550.000 350.000 510.000 (1) 30 30 SO 30 SO 120900 320.000 30
13.619.000 33.619,000 SO 30 10 30 SO 30 SO 50 53,819.000
3225.000 1225.000 90 SO SO SO S3 SO 30 SO 9225.000
1275.000 3275.000 SO 30
31,051.000 30 SO
SO
3O SO 3O SO 30 3O 3275.000
SO
'TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE COST: 916.824,000 !915,773,006'$ 162,000 1530.000 1 $177,000
NOTE
(1) Previously Appropriated from Drainage Fees
PAGE 3 OF 3
30
90
SO
59.364.000 f 5227.000. 5221,000
30
10
50
i
•
J
G P STUDY AREA
G 1`_
F —
I( .
MSD1I013' •
acro 014
•
,0i
MSDi 005
ii
r
,_N Hoot:
G
I -f4 I MSDf O;6
e HSOIlogz
N
7777',/-<1 It..." 1.015DI 015
J•1S01 o o
i
• 2 -..
( LEGEND
r — 1 1-ulure
ru'-re t:,nr?
Storm Lrc..yyJ
4rproverenf
Project "Jumber
Drmnoge ;.rr•a (A)
FIGURE 5-1 STORM DRA;NAGE IMPRGVE!v1ENTS
48
MSG! 001
%ISDM
007
An.• ,t.nOt ....:ic.e
IF 1.01.00.pGIVE PAL PLAN
J
Relationship of Storm Drainage Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between the projects and
improvements funded by the fee and the type of development upon which the fee
is imposed. Essentially, it is incumbent upon the City to show that the
development is served by and/or benefits from the public facilities to be
financed by the fee revenue.
City of Lodi Storm Drainage Master Plan presents a soundly conceived and
comprehensive plan for providing storm drainage services to all areas of the
General Plan. Only those improvement costs benefitting the areas included in
the fee program are included in the fee program.
Relationship of Storm Drainage Projects to Land Uses
Once the relationship between the facilities to be constructed and the land
uses has been established, the burden of financing is to be distributed to
each land use in proportion to its use of, or benefit from, the improvements.
This is accomplished through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates the relative responsibility to pay for .
improvements for each land use category in relation to the single family
detached residential category.
The concept of RAE is based upon defining a base demand that, in this case, is
selected to be an acre of low density single family detached dwelling units.
The base acre has an assigned RAE of 1.0 . All other land use categories have
RAE factors that show their relative demand for Storm Drainage Facilities
compared to the base acre of low density single family housing.
Based upon the cost of facilities to provide comparable levels of service to
residential and commercial/industrial areas, the City has adopted a
commercial/industrial fee that is 1.33 times the residential fee. Following a
review of the methodology employed by the City, it is concluded the
methodology is reasonable and fairly compares the demand for storm drainage
facilities by the various land uses. Therefore, the City adopted (and
defacto) RAE schedule is incorporated into this study.
Recommended Fees
The Storm Drainage Facilities Fee is shown in Table 5-2. The total fee is
$7,170 per low density residential acre.
49
QPOO 20.5
TABLE 5-2
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
STORM DRAINAGE
ILand Use Categories
15 -Apr -91
Unit RAE Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $7,380
Medium Density Acre 1.00 $7,380
High Density Acre 1.00 $7,380
East Side Residential Acre 1.00 $7,380
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $7,380
Medium Density Acre 1.00 $7,380
High Density Acre 1.00 $7,380
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial Acre 1.33 $9,820
General Commercial Acre 1.33 $9,820
Downtown Commercial Acre 1.33 $9,820
Office Commercial Acre 1.33 $9,820
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial Acre 1.33 $9,820
Heavy Industrial Acre 1.33 $9,820
Industrial Reserve Acre 1.33 $9,820
Note: Dollar amounts are in January 1. 1991 dollars.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates_
50
CHAPTER 6
STREETS AND ROADS
OVERVIEW
For as long as the City of Lodi has been in existence, streets and roads have
been the primary system used in intercity travel. With the change in City-
- wide growth, there welcome a need to improve the streets and roads in the
community. The Draft General Plan will expand the City and additional traffic
will be generated within the community. As a result new streets will be
needed and existing streets will need to be improved. The following sections
will describe these improvements, the City obligation for funding, and the
fees calculated to reimburse the City costs.
Existing Traffic Conditions
Existing traffic counts were collected by the City of Lodi Public Works
Department in 1987 at numerous locations throughout the City by the City and
their traffic consultant. The data were used to establish the current Level
of Service (LOS) within the project study area. Currently, roadways and
intersections throughout the City are operating at a LOS of C or better with
the exception of Hutchins Street/Kettleman Lane intersection, which operates
at a LOS D. The City of Lodi considers C to be the standard level of service
with anything less considered to be substandard.
Circulation Plan
In December of 1989, a City-wide circulation study was prepared by the Traffic
Consultant, TJKM, that identified the impacts associated with the envisioned
General Plan. As mentioned earlier, the existing traffic counts were done by
the City's staff. Incorporating this information along with using a computer
based travel demand model, TJKM was able to forecast future traffic conditions
throughout the project study area. Based upon these forecasts, road sections
of future streets and improvements to existing streets were identified.
A listing of general street, intersection, signaiization, and interchange
improvements was submitted to the City along with the circulation study.
Working with City staff and the City improvement standards, cross• -sections
were prepared for future streets and improvements to existing streets. These
are discussed in the following section.
Existing Deficiencies
Existing deficiencies are relatively minor and mainly consist of deteriorated
pavement, and curb and gutter and drainage facilities on some streets.
Project costs to correct existing deficiencies are not funded by development
impact fees unless the correction is incidental to providing higher capacity
51
to serve future growth. For example, Lockeford Street between the Southern
Pacific Railroad and Cherokee Lane needs to be widened to four lanes and this
project is included in the fee program. Incidental to widening Lockeford
Street, curb and gutter will be reconstructed along the widened stretch.
Reconstruction, overlays and other maintenance activities are not included in
the fee program. Funding for these activities is derived from the general
fund, gas taxes, TDA, Preposition 111 gas tax, Measure K sales tax, and other
sources. Typically, general fund allocations are strictly used for operations
and maintenance (0 & M) activities. Funds from other sources are allocated to
0 and M, capital and reconstruction activities.
Based upon the current budget for capital maintenance and reconstruction of
S1.66 million, a forecast was prepared for the program cost for similar work
during the General Plan period. The total is shown in Table 6-1 as
Enhancements to Existing Facilities in the amount of 526.56 million. Funding
for these program costs is anticipated to come primarily from General Fund,
Gas Tax and Transportation Development Act (TDA) sources in proportion to
existing funding levels of 527., 26%e, and 229=, respectively.
PLANNED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
Presently, the City policy toward funding street and road improvements applies
only to limited access expressways such as Lower Sacramento Road and South
Hutchins Street and widenings to existing streets. Based upon current State
law and common practice in other agencies regarding impact fees and
developers' requirements, it is recommended that present poi;cy be changed.
The following section describes the recommended policy and how it is
implemented in this fee program.
Developer Required Improvements
For all projects within the City, the developer is required to build streets
to serve the project. Relative to street improvements, the developer is
required to provide all improvements and dedicate all right-of-way for one
half width street consisting of curb, gutter, sidewalk, one travel lane and a
shoulder or parking lane. Maximum right-of-way dedication is 34 feet and is
dependent upon existing right-of-way at the improvement location.
Improvements required of the developer include 5.5 feet of curb and sidewalk,
2 feet of gutter, and 24 feet of paving that corresponds to those designated
as a major collector. Typical section for a major collector is provided in
Figure 6-1. In the case where development occurs on one side cf a major
collector, the developer typically is required to construct only one-half of
the street. In the case where development occurs along a street having a
greater designated capacity than a major collector, the development impact fee
funds or other funds will be used to construct the more extensive
improvements. Examples of these streets include: Kettleman Lane, Harney
Lane, Century Boulevard, and Lower Sacramento Road.
52
yr
W
TABLE 6--1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
04/)1/81
rPrgecl Maps Planned ---_--^-- _ -Program Impact
Number Facilities Cows Fou Fund 1990/91 1991/82 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995196 1996/97 1997-2002 2002-20071
MTSI001 Restriping of Kenleman Lane $22,000 S22,000 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 322 000 --- SO
(8 - Lanes, DivoOad) Iron, Low,
Sacramento Road to Ham lane
MTS002 Resirping o1 K nleman Lane 322,000 322,000 30 30 $0 SO $0 30 322.000 30 SO
(8 - Lanes, Divided) ho. Han
Lane to Stockton Street.
MTS/003 Rewnptng of Kettle.nan Lane 312.000 $12,000 30 30 30 30 30 SO 312.000 30 $0
(8 - Lanes, Diodes) norm
Stockton Street 10 Charur.na
Lane.
MTSICO4 Design. conwruc0on and 05,106 000 33,575,000 SO 30 30 30 30 SO 3o 30 33, 75.000
engmoerir`g 9ssonated 31111
widening Kenleman Lane (H1gh.vay
12) 33 State Rwle 99 (kleasu•a
•K' Funding:. 3700000)
81TSI005 Widening W Kemaman Lane 5519,000 0516000 30 SO 30 30 3256500 SO 30 30 3256500
(4 - Lanes, Divided) horn
Backman Road to Ga.Id 4•re11oe
1,17SI006 Widening 01 Lower Sacramento 5463.250 3278.000 SO SO 30 i0 SO 830.580 $47.260 3200.160 SO
Road (6- lanes, Div., 'es"; horn
Turner Road to Lodi Avenue
(Measure' K' Funding = 3185.2:0}
MT ;007 Widening of lower Sacramento 3325000 3195,000 30 30 80 30 SO 321 05) 333.150 3140 400 SO
Road (6- La/irk O.wdad) from
E)rr1 Street to Tayke 1Wad.
(Masser° "K' Fv Wrng a 3130,007)
MYSI008 Widonmg M Lt -After Sauamnn'o 5228 000 3137 000 So 3o $0 S0 SO 50 SO 3137 000 S0
Rend (6 - Lanes. DnWed) f cm
Taylor Hose to Kenln,un L ole
(Measure •w' Fun:lutg a 391000)
Page 1 019
TABLE 6-1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
04/11/91
Projaee Major Planned Program Impact
Number Fecilibes Costs Fee Fund 1900/91 (991/92 1992)93 199354 1994/95 199546 1996/97 1997-2002 _ 2002-20071
1.1141009 Widening of Lower Sacr (mento 5235.250 3141.000 SO So 53 --_ 30 00 30 30 9141,000 50
Road (6 - Lanes. Divided) Irom
Kettleman .ane to Orchis 01 NO
(Measure • K' Funding - 094250)
4751010 Widening of Lower Sacramento 0195.000 3117.000 SO S0 30 30 30 30 30 5117000 50
Road (6 - Lanes. Divided) tram
Orchis Orivo (0 Century BIW.
(Measure' K• Funding = 578.000)
MT5/01 t Whaemrrg of LOww Sacramento 3300.250 0760.000 SO 50 SO 30 SO 50 30 50 3180000
Road (6 - Lanes. Divided) Irom
Century Blvd. to Kristen Court
(Measure'1( Funding = 3120.2504
14151012 Widening of Lower Sacramento 5130.000 278.000 SO So 50 50 SO SO 30 30 378,000
Road (6 -lanes. Divined) from
In Kristen Coon to Harney Lane.
(Measura'K' Funding = 552.000)
MTS1013 Widening 0l Harney Lane 5173 OCO 2173 000 SO 30 SO 30 30 SO 30 3173,000 S0
14 - Lanes) born Lower
Sacramento Road East 2.650 Net
14101014 Widening of Harney Lane 3173 000 3173.000 SO SO SO S0 50 30 10 5173.000 30
(4 - Lanes) from W 10.
crossing V/as12.650 feet
1,751015 Widening nl Harney Lane 3720.000 5720000 SO SO SO 30 50 30 30 3120,000 SO
(4 - Lanes) from W.1 0
crossing East 2.250 fret
SATS/018 Wideningol Harney Lane 3120.000 5120.000 30 50 SO S) 50 50 30 5720,000 30
(4 - Lenest Mom Hulch.oa
Street to Sloarton 51reer.
14751017 Widening of Harney Lane
(4 - Lanes) from Stockton
Street to Cherokee Lane
Page 2 of 9
5107,970 0747000
S7 SC 50 SO 30 S) $0 5142,000 3o
TABLE 6-1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
(R
000t Major Planned program Impact
Number Facileies Costs Foe Fund 1990/911991/92 4992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995196 199687 1997-2002
4/701019 Widening or Harney Lane _-'— 3179.000 2179.000 ----- 50 - SO 30 20 50 SO SO SO
(4 - Lanes) horn Lower
Sacramento Road to the
General Plan Boundary.
04111/91
2002-2007/
0179,000
MTO1019 Highway 12 230,000 590,000 SO 290.000 SO 30 SO SO SO SO 30
Project Study Report
MTS3020 Design. construction. and 21,500.000 51.500.000 s0 So SO S0 SO SO 30 SO 51.500.000
engineering associated with
widening of Turner fkrad over
State Route 90
MTS1021 Reunping of Lodi Avenue 313.000 313,000 SO 50 S0 $0 SO SO SO SO 013,000
(4 - Lanes) .horn Cherokee
East 3.000 feet
U MTS1022 Reconstruction of Loci Avenue 533,000 333.000 SO SO SO SO 30 50 SO 333.000 SO
- Lanes) horn Guild
Avenue Wes! 7001.42.
61TSI023 Resrnpurg of Turner Road 211.000 311,000 SO SO SO SO 50 SO SO SO 511.000
(4 - Lanes) from Backman Road
East 2.500 feel
MTSI024 Widening of Turner Rt.'s/ 222 000 022.000 SO SO SO So SO SO SO SO 522.000
(4 - Lances) hom Guild Avenue
West 700 feel.
SLTS1025 Widening of Century Blvd $240,000 0240,000 SO SO SO SO 50 30 5240,000 20 30
(4 - Lanes) horn Lower
Sacramento Road east 4.400
Wet
MTSI000 Wdemng otCenturyBlvd. 531000 S34 000 30 50 $0 531.000 50 50 5o 50 50
(4 - Lanes) hem Stockton
Shoe, to Chickadee Lana,
Page 3 of 9
'ABLE 6-1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
04/11/91
[Project Mara Planned — V Program Impacl
Number Facilities __—Costa Fee Fond 1990/91 1991/92 1992193 1993/94 1994/95 1995)96 1996.97 4997-2002 2002-2007 I
MTS1027 Wrdening of Stocklon Street 081,000 $81,000 SO 540,500 SO 540,500 SO 50 30 SO SO
(4 - Lanes) MOM Xeltleman
Lane to Harney lane.
MTS1028 Widening of Gudd Avenue 5108,000 5168.000 510,080 510.080 $10,080 510,080 510.080 510,080 510.080 348.720 548,720
(4 - lanes) kora Lodi
Avenue to Xetilenwn Lane
MTS/029 Walemng 01 Turner Road 384,000 284,000 SO SO 30 50 SO 342,000 542,000 SO 50
(4 - Lanes) horn Lower
Sacramento Road Mesita to the
Genera! Plan Boundary
MTS1030 Wedenmg of Lodi Avenue 384,000 384,000 SO 53 SO SO 30 SO SO 40 384000
(4- Lanes) from lower
Sacramento Road West to the
Genera: Plan Boundary
MTS1031 Wrdemng of KenOeman Lane 5178000 3178.000 SO SO 00 So 5o 30 30 30 3178,000
(4 - Lanes) from Lower
Sacraments Road West to the
General Plan Boundary
MTS4032 Widening of Lnckelord Street 51.267.000 51,297,000 SO 50 SO SO 30 30 93 00 51,267,000
(4 - tanerl bora Sacramento
Street to Cherokee l ane
MTSi033 W.dening of Yw'hx fld (Hwy 72)
to 4 lanes
4750001 Master Plan 1987
MT50002 Maurer Plan and
GJ P Update - 1997
MTS0003 5 Year Master Plan
and C.1 P Gyfara - 2nC2
Pape 4 of
5342000 5342.000 SO SO SO SO SO 30 SO SO 3342,000
076,187 078.187 S76.187 50 SO 30 SO SO 00 30 30
020.000 020000 SO 50 SO SO SO SO 820.003 SO SO
520,000 $20.000 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO 520,000 SO
TABLE 6—t
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
1111111111
0411191
l Project Major Planned Program Impact
Number Facilities Costs Foe Fund 1990191 1991192 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995190 1996/97 1997-2002 2002-2007
MT500I Installation of traffic 395,000 995.000 SO SO SO 995.000 S0 S0 SO S0 10
signal /Misled at the Int of
Lower Sacramento Road and
Turner Read.
MTS002 Installation of !slat 995,000 595.000 so M SO SO 30 30 So 90 995,000
d nal located al the int. of
Turner Road and the Stale
Rahe 99 Southbound Ramp,
MTS903 Matallalwn oftalhc signal 395,000 94/,500 SO 947.500 50 50 SO SO SO 30 SO
boded of vie int of 15c4Or
Road and Clot! Avenue. (50%)
MTS004 Insta141ionot tradm $95,000 547.500 947.500 SO SO SO SO SO SO S0 90
word located at 159 int. of
L..
Lodi Avenue and Lower
Sacram9nto Road. (50%)
MTS005 lnstallehono4 traffic signal 595,000 547.500 S0 SO SO 30 50 SO 30 947,500 30
located ai the ml. of Lodi
Avenue and Mdla Avenue, 15)%)
MTS006 Installation of traffic 330000 545.000 So 30 50 SO 30 30 SO 545.000 SO
signal located at the mi of
Lower Sacramento Road and Vine
Suer*. (50%)
MTS007 Installatl0u of fran4C 305.000 9.17500 357.500 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO
signal loca)ed al lite Int et
Kattleman Lane and Mies
Avenue. '(50%)
M75006 Installation of hath0 395.000 SO5 000 S0 30 S0 SO SO 595.000 SO SO S(1
signal located ei me int. of
K9nlaman lane and the 31ale
Roca 99 So :thbound Ramp
Page 5 019
...�,e rr.rar,4 r+arae>:i 8.•4.444
1.4.4 wafts tbnaget 10"44
TABLE 6-1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
04(11191
tProjecl Matta Planned Program Impact
IN/umber F200Cogs Fon Fond _ _ _ 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 199596 199697 1907-2002 2002-2000
tAT5009 installation of traffic 295.000 595.000 SO SO S0 SO SO SO 305000 i0 30
signal 10ca1ed at IM fol. 01
!Cattleman Lane and Beckman
Road
MTSOIO Installation of ifa0rc 595.000 595.000 SO SO SO SO SO 395,000 SO SO SO
signal located at the int. of
Lower Sacramento Road and
Harney Lane.
475011 installation: 0I bathe 090.000 290.000 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO 590.000 S0
signal located at aha irit e1
Harney Lane and Mills Avenue
MTS012 hnstallafron 01 frame 000 000 090.000 SO SO SO SO 50 50 SO 50 S00,000
signal located st the int of
r..n Harney Lana and Ham Lana.
00
MTS013 Installation 0/1/2190 390.000 245.000 SO SO 2.15 000 SO SO SO SO 30 30
signal located at the m1. o1
Harney Lane and Stnr.alrm
51ree1 155 44)
1.40S014 Inatanetlo0 of traffic 590,000 305 000 345 000 SO SO 50 SO 50 30 SO 30
signal /mated al itla rill of
Elm Street and Lower Sacramento
Road (50%)
MTSOIS 109 911950n of teamc 590 000 S45.000 50 SO S0 SO 345.000 S0 So S0 SO
argnal located at the 1111 of
LoCIalord S1:eo1 andock*nn
slaw (50%1
).TS0 to Installationol tralhc 550.000 5.10,000 SO 545.000 SO 50 SO 30 30 S0 SO
92081 ;mated at the Int. of
Turner Road and Snehlon
Street. (5041)
Page 6 ot9
t0
TABLE 6-2
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
04111/91
✓4oject Manor Planned Program Impact yf
Number Facilities Costs Fee Fund 1900/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993194 1994195 1995/96 1996197 1097.2002 2002-2007 I
MTS017 Installation of traffic signal 590.300 545.000 50 SO SO 545.000 SO SO S0 SO SO
located at the int o1 Pine SI
and Stockton Snell. (50%)
MTS018 Installation of traffic ah7nal 590.000 545.000 S0 SO SO 50 S0 345.000 SO SO SO
located al ine mt of Turner
Road and Malt Avenue. 150%)
MTSOt9 10081161,00 W traffic tagnel 390.000 $45,000 SO 5O 50 20 50 SO 545.000 SO 50
located at the rnt. rd Turner
Road and Edgewood (5004)
M15020 N.slattatr0n of trattrc 590.000 545.000 SO 50 50 50 50 S0 $45000 50 So
sr0na11ocated al IM int 01
Kettleman Lane and Cenral
Avenue, 1504A)
0475021 Installation of traffic 390.000 345.000 SO SO 30 50 50 SO 545.000 SO 50
signl located at the int. of
Ern Street and Mills Avenue (50%)
0/75022 1110tell3u0n tit tredve 019114! 5105,000 552,500 50 $0 50 50 50 30 30 30.2.500 So
located at the int 01 Cherokee
Lane and Vine Street. (5050
0475023 10s141101,un of traftrc 6.904) 595.000 547,500 SO $0 50 50 30 50 50 $47 500 50
located el the rm. of Ram Lane
and Century Blvd. (50%)
0475024 Inelalfal,On M If elere signal 5.05.000 552.500 5O 50 52 50 $0 5O 50 352.500 50
at?d at the int. e) Cheru\6e
Lane and Elm SI, eel ($014)
MIIC001 Widening or WOOD Etna Culvert 5296.000 5296000 30 50 50 SO SO 50 3290,000 50 50
awn(' Lower Sacramento Road
a1,1,.ea. 1.360 feet Smell 01
Lair Avenue.
Page 7of9
TABLE 6-1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Warms --
04/11/91
'Boleti Major Planned Program impact
Number FecBdiee Costs Fee fund 7990/91 1991/92 1992/93 199394 1994195 1995/98 _ *89IW7 1907-2002 2002-2007
MBC002 Widening of WO Boo Culvert 3150.000 375.000 30 30 SO 50 SO SO 70 575.000 SO
.*cog Turner Road approx.
2.4001401 West of Lower
Sacramento Road (5355 3.1 Co )
UBC003 Widening of WlO Boo Colvell 0141.000 3141000 SO 30 30 SO SO 3O 10 ;141,000 30
along /.441s Avenue vomit
100 feet South o1 Royal
Crest Drive.
MBC004 Widening of WID Box Culvert 3216.000 3216 000 30 SO SO SO SO 30 SO 32)6000 SO
Wong Harney Lane approx
3.300 reel West M Hurchms
Street.
MRRX001 Widening 01 0.5 railroad S202 000 310 .000 30 SO 30 50 SO W 5O 3101.000 SO
T
O crossing on Laver sacramemo
Road 1.400 ft North M Turner
Road. (5046 o.1 Co )
MRRX004 Widening a d upgraded 0202 300 3202 000 50 SO SO SO SO SO SO 30 5202.000
prouacnon device. of 734
railroad cross»g et tete int
of Loclel0rd Street and GW1d
Avenue.
51RRX005 Widening of Central Cahkenea S222 O00 5222000 SO SO SO 50 SO SO W 30 5222.000
Traction Co. crossing on Moot
lid. N1wY 12) 1.350 h East of
Guild Avenue,
!ARMCO() Widening and upgrade of 5227.000 3227000 50 50 SO SO 00 SO W 3227.000
proteetron dewtec of me
tadraad c*Os.ing at the mlef/ecn0n
of Beckman Road and 0.06,
Avenue
SO
MRRX007 Constrla,a0n Or radioed 3.15 ,00 $215000 SO SO SO 30 f0 50 So 5215 000 SO
crossing At u:t 07 Lade
Avenue and Gorki Ave
Page 8 ot9
TABLE 6-1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Saris a...at 91..11►
04/11191
ject
Impact
Valor Planned --- _...—. Program Fee
Foo
Number Facihttga Costa Foe Fund 19381973/ 14)Il92 1992193 198379/ 69684195 1805198 /99697 1997-2002 2002-2007
MRRX008 Construction of railroad 5189.000 5169.000 50 SO 50 Yl SO 30 SO 3199.000 SO
crossing at int of Clult
Avenue and Thermion Street
MRRXOOG Widening and upgrade 01 3215.000 6215.000 SO 50 SO SO SO SO SO SO 0215.000
protection daincea of Cantral
Cart Traction. Co 8-in0 on
KMtleman tn. 1.350 8 East of
Guild Ave (50% S J CO )
MRRX010 Widoning of 5P railroad clearing
00 Harney in 1.380 11 East of
Hutchins Street
3252000 1202.000 SO 50 50 SO 30 SO SO 3202.000
Upgrades to E061100 F.10491309 929.560.000
New Development Snare 0t 6asnr.g Facilities
a. Hutchins St Wldening-
Tokay to 10dr (93%) 341.826
8. I•h1lc5ins Sa Widening-
RimOy to Vine (5894) 3151 458
c Lockelord Sl. w4sn i9-
Pleeaare to SPRR (8094) 559.838
d. Cherokee/Century Mier -
000)40n Widening 110055) 546 373
e. Century1N.D Bo. Culvert 186941 3109551
! Stockton 3 Widenilp-
KelllemanloVine (i00`rt) 2463.597
g. Stockton 51 Widmung-
Vine 10 Tokay (10094) S02.215
h. Turner/Clot intersection
Widening(/ 0094) 1138 835
SO
SO 50 10 SO 50 SO S0 90 50 30
Total: 51.094.000 51094.000 SO $88.375 568.375 $68 375 568.375 568.375 568.375 3341_875
1STREETS AND ROADWAY COST
Page 9 of 9
576,194.4501 15,290.687 .L $226,2671 $301.455 15123,455 .5289,955
5341.875
5382,9551 5407,485. J$1,020,86591 S3,635.156 i $8.903.095
1.5:1 Mex. _
slope to ex.
- ground— . 1 1
—`i 2.5' } --C&S
RIght-Of-Way IR/WI 68'
Face of Curb to Face of Curb tF-F) 52'
*(Symmetrical►
2.5% _ ' 2.5
FCSS1 2.5' 1*---
Vorticet C.G&S. Vertical C.G&S.
MAJOR COLLECTOR
TWO LANE
MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION BY DEVELOPER
FIGURE 6-1 TYPICAL STREET SECTION
Signal lights, bridge crossings, and freeway interchanges are not privately
constructed facilities and are complet:ly funded by the City through
development impact fees and other funding sources such as Federal, State,
County and Measure K.
Street and Road Improvements
A listing of the street and road improvement projects included in the
development impact fee program is provided in Table 6-1. Location of these
projects is shown on Figure 6-2. For -the most part, the improvement projects
consist of new construction and modification of routes.
For the purpose of identifying the portion of each major route that will be
funded by the City, the typical sections described above have been assumed.
The developer obligation, as described in the previous section, is limited to
right-of-way and improvements to construct a major collector (68 feet).
In the circulation study prepared for the City, the need for new traffic
signals was identified. Costs of these signals have been included in the
development impact fee program. At locations where minimum CalTrans signal
warrants have already been rnet, 50 percent of the improvement cost has been
allocated to the Impact Fee Fund.
Freeway Improvements
As recommended by TJKM, interchange improvements for Kettleman Lane/State
Route 99 and Turner Road/State Route 99 will be necessary to maintain a LOS C
or better. Proposed interchange improvements at Kettleman Lane/State Route 99
call for the realignment of Beckman Road. Currently, Beckman Road is located
about 225 feet east of the northbound ramp onto State Route 99, a distance
that is considered too close for two signalized intersections. Realignment of
Beckman is proposed in the environmental impact report for Kettleman
Properties located at the northeast corner of Kettleman Lane and Beckman Road.
The proposed design constitutes a realignment of both Beckman Road and the
northbound offramp, but is still subject to review by Caltrans and approval by
the California Transportation Commission. As part of the Kettleman
interchange work, a route study will be prepared that will address traffic and
circulation at the interchange.
Measure K identified the SR 99/]2 interchange as a funded project in the
amount of $700,000. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that 30
percent of the interchange costs will be derived from sources outside this fee
program. A portion of the 30 percent will be Measure K funds and the other
could be State funds or possibly additional growth in Lodi not covered by this
study.
63
91711_011
;f it
• it
2-9 3anou I
=0111,111.111
umnsa:tus.
lip IF
MIN eV
1111 "mow
Am so am Mujr:41=
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
In Table 6-1, a summary of the street projects and development impact fee
funding is presented. Estimated costs are referenced to the Engineering News
Record 20 Cities Construction Cost Index for ,;anuary 1, 1990 of 4673. Roadway
improvement costs reflect orly the City's funding responsibility per the
proposed City Reimbursement Policy and do not reflect the total estimated
construction cost.
In preparing the estimates of construction cost, the developer obligation,
City obligation and development impact fee funding for the projects, the
following factors were considered. The City obligation for funding of
projects includes everything not required of the developer including special
medians, landscaping, and right-of-way.
Phasing of the improvements is based upon the Forecast of Units Constructed
Over the General Plan Period (Appendix A) provided by the City. In Table
6-1, the phasing is divided by year for the first seven years followed by two
five-year increments. Costs for the projects serving the General Plan
development funded on or before July 1, 1990 are shown in the current year
(1990/91). Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to the
January 1, 1990 dollar reference.
Lower Sacramento Road is also included in the list of prcjects funded, in
part, by Measure K. Based upon discussion with the City, tr,.: funding of Lower
Sacramento Road improvements are divided amongst the City, developer and
Measure K. Obligations of the developer have been discussed. For the
purposes of this study, it is assumed that Measure K funds will only pay for
the addition of 2 lanes (one each direction) above and beyond the City's
planned 4 lane road. Therefore, obligation of the City is limited to 2 lanes
and the landscape center median.
Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between the fees use and the
type of development on which the fee is imposed. In order to `stablish this
relationship, we must first demonstrate that the type of development upon
which the fee is to be charged will, in fact, use, be served by, or benefit
from the public facilities' to be financed.
Each and every land use will benefit from the streets and road facilities
within the community. Residents use the streets to get to and from work,
shopping, and entertainment. Commerce and industry use the streets for
deliveries, customers, and employees. Each and every land use in the Proposed
General Plan will benefit from the facilities constructed as part of the
capital 4mprovements program and, therefore, is appropriately part of the fee
program.
65
01 "0.0 20 n
Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to Land Uses
Once the relationship between the facilities to be constructed and the land
uses has been established, the burden of financing is to be distributed to
each land use in proportion to its use of, or benefit from, the improvements
This is accomplished through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates the relative responsibility to pay for
improvements for each land use categt y in relation to the single family
detached residential category.
Trip generation factors developed and used in the Circulation Study form the
basis for calculating an RAE schedule for streets and road facilities. Based
upon recommendation of the City Transportation Consultant, trip generation
factors for commercial categories were reduced by 30 percent to compensate for
pass -by trips. As a result, net trip generation factors were calculated for
each land use and compared to the base RAE factor of 1.0 for single family
detached residential. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship
between the cost of streets and rnads projects and the financing burden placed
on each land use as based upon their relative generation and demand for
streets and road facilities. RAE schedule for streets and roads is shown in
Table 6-2.
Recommended Fees
The Streets and Road Facilities Fee is shown in Table 6-2. The total fee is
55,380 per low density residential acre.
Regional Facilities
The fee program presented in this report does not include funding for
improvements to roads outside the City of Lodi General Plan boundaries. The
cent sales tax override for transportation (Measure K) recently approved by
San Joaquin County voters, includes a provision for Regional Traffic
Mitigation fees to be adopted by January 1, 1993. This fee program will need
to be modified in coordination with San Joaquin County and the Council of
Governments (the local transportation authority) to include a regional
element.
66
4
TABLE 6-2
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
STREETS AND ROADS
1Land Use Categories
11 -Apr-91
Unit RAE Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $5,380
Medium Density Acre 1.96 $10,550
High Density Acre 3.05 $16,420
East Side Residential Acre 1.00 $5.380
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $5,380
Medium Density Acre 1.96 $10,550
High Density Acre 3.05 $16,420
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial Acre 1.90 $10,230
General Commercial Acre 3.82 $20,570
Downtown Commercial Acre 1.90 $10,230
Office Commercial Acre 3.27 $17,610
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial Acre 2.00 $10,770
Heavy Industrial Acre 1.27 $6,840
Industrial Reserve Acre 2.00 $10,770
Nole: Dollar amounts are in January 1, 1991 dollars.
Sources: Nolte & Ass crates and Angus McOcnard & Associates_
67
CHAPTER 7
POLICE
OVERVIEW
Level of Service
Target for emergency response time is 3 minutes anywhere in the City.
Currently, emergency response tires are under this goal. There were a total
of 65 sworn personnel and 33 non -sworn personnel authorized in 1988/89. These
figures reveal a service standard of 0.95 sworn personnel and 0.47 non -sworn
personnel per 1,000 persons served. Currently, the department is understaffed
relative to the standard described above by 11 sworn and 5 non -sworn
personnel.
The service level that is typically espoused for Police is so -many officers
per 1,000 residents. This service standard does not account for employees,
shoppers, tourists and other persons present in the service area during the
day who may use or require assistance from the Police Department. Developing
a standard in terms of "Persons Served" considers all persons who may use
these services so that the service standard also captures the burden these
other participants will place on the facilities. This is done through
estimating the demand or use of the facilities by persons associated with each
land use type.
Instead of determining the use from each unit of land developed, as is the
procedure with RAEs, the use of each land use is converted into a use per
person. In the case of residential land uses this takes the form of use per
resident, and in the case of non-residential uses is a use per employee.
These use per "person served' figures are then normalized around the Single
Family land use to produce "Persons Served" factors which are applied to a
forecast of the total number of residents and employees from each land use to
compute the total persons served from new development.
Existing Police Facilities
The Lodi Police Department provides police protection services to all areas
within the city limits. The Police Department serves a 9.4 square mile area
with an estimated population of 50,300 in 1990. The Police Department,
located at 230 W. Elm Street, has an estimated 21,571 square feet of building
space. The current employee standard based 98 total employees is 1.3
employees per 1,000 persons served. The current space standard is 220 square
feet of building space per employee.
68
Existing Deficiencies
Existing deficiencies are calculated based on what is currently provided in
the way of staff and facilities and what staff and facilities are planned to
be provided at the end of the planning period. Further, the existing
deficiency calculation is prepared to identify the portion of the facilities,
if any, which should be serving existing development based upon a current
staffing or facility deficiency relative to the future standard for police
staffing and space.
Table 7-1 presents the calculation of the existing deficiency for the Police
Station Expansion. Based upon forecasts provided by the City for building
space and police staffing in the future, the space standard and the staffing
standard increase slightly. This produces only a very minor existing
deficiency such that 7.3% of the Police Station Expansion is not funded from
the development impact fees.
PLANNED POLICE FACILITIES
Police facilities to serve at buildout of the Proposed General Plan were
identified by City staff and the Police Department. A summary of the
facilities is presented in Table 7-2. With the exception of the Police
Station expansion and the jail expansion, the major facilities are self
explanatory.
Currently, alternatives for police and jail facilities are being considered by
the City and the Police Department. Specific locations for the facilities
have not been identified. Alternatives being considered include renovation
and expansion of the existing Police Station.
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
In Table 7-2, a summary of the Police facility and estimated costs to serve
the future City of Lodi is presented. Estimated costs are referenced to the
Engineering News Record 20 Cities Construction Cost Index for January 1, 1990
of 4673. Phasing of the improvements is based upon forecasts of facility
needs by the City over the planning period.
For the purposes of fee study, the police station expansion costs are not
wholly attributable to the development provided for under the Proposed General
Plan. A portion of the building expansion (7.3%) will serve existing
development. The cost in Table 7-2 reflects the reduced estimated cost. The
jail expansion and the other facility costs listed in Table 7-2 are not
subject to the existing deficiency reduction.
69
R1,0 :041
TABLE 7-1
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
POLICE
Description of Item
GENERAL GOV. PERSONS SERVED
SERVICE CAPACITY
Police Employees
Police Facilites (Sq. Ft.)
05 -Apr -91
Existing
Service Future Future
Population Additions Total
80,207 33,571 113,778
98.0
21,571
SERVICE STANDARD
Current Service Standard:
Police Employees Per 1.22
1,000 Persons Served
Building Sq. Ft. Per Employee 220.1
Target Service Standard
Police Employees Per
1,000 Persons Served
Building Sq. Ft. Per Employee
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRED
Additional Employees 1.6
43.0 141.0
10,000 31,571
1.24
223.9
41.6 43.2
Additional Building Area (Sq. Ft.)
For Existing Employees 372 372
For New Employees 359 9,321 9,680
Total 731 9,321 10,052
Burden on New and Existing Development
1
;Cost of New Facilities
Note: Dollar amounts are in constant January 1, t991 dollars.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates
70
7.3% 92.7% 100.00%
$146,000 $1,854,000 $2,000,000
TABLE 7 - 2
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
POLICE
04105/91
Reject Program Impact
Numbec Cost Fee 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997-2002 2002-2007
1,0001 Police Station expansion 32,000,000 $1.854,000 30 50 50 jo SO 30 $02,900 $1,761,100 SO
M add /0,000 square feet
of space.
LPOC32 Jail expansion to add S275.000 3275.000 50 $0 SD 50 SO SO 327,500 3247,500 SO
10 new cells
LP0003 Misceilaneoue safely 544,000 544,000 50 53.000 53.000 33.000 33,000 53.000 33,000 513,000 313,000
equipment for 29 officers.
LP0004 Animal control truck 523.000 523.000 50 50 30 50 SO SO 30 SO 323,000
-....) and equipment
,—.•
LPD005 2 pickup trucks equiphed 336,000 536.000 SO 50 SO 30 30 50 SO 536,000 30
with radios and other
equipment.
LP0006 Eighl patrol cars S144,000 3144,000 50 518.000 30 518.000 SO 518,000 30 336,000 554,000
and equipment.
LP0007 Ten portable radios. 326,000 326,000 50 SO 53,000 50 $3,000 30 $3.000 59.000 $8,000
LPD008 Five work stations 320,000 520.000 SO 50 54 .000 50 30 34.000 SO 34.000 38,000
LP0009 Five computer terminals. 58.000 58.000 50 50 51.500 $0 51.500 30 30 32.500 32.500
1.' ' :., : 1 . ', i :: . ii•:• ,
!TOTAL POLICE DEPARTMENT 32,576,0001 S2,430,000 1 501 321.0001 311,500 1 s21,000 s.;•,isod. 1 ---, S25,000j $126.400 $2.100.100 k ' 1
PAGE 1 OF 1
DEVELOPMENT IHPACT FEE
Relationship of Police Projects to New Development
The relationship between existing deficiencies, improved service standards and
capacity for new development was summarized in Table 7-1. Only the portion of
the police facilities whose demand was generated by new development was
included in the Development Impact Fee program.
Relationship of Police Projects to Land Uses
The RAE schedule for police facilities that is shown in Table 7-2 was
developed from data supplied by the Lodi Police Department. The schedule is
based on the relative number of calls for service from each land use category.
Recommended Fees
The Police Facilities fee is shown in Table 7-3. The tJtal fee is S1,130 per
low density residential acre.
72
TABLE 7-3
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
POLICE
'Land Use Categories
11 -Apr -91
Unit RAE Fee I
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $1,130
Medium Density Acre 1.77 $2,010
High Density Acre 4.72 $5,350
East Side Residential Acre 1.09 $1,230
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $1,130
Medium Density Acre 1.77 $2,010
High Density Acre 4.72 $5,350
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial Acre 4.28 $4,860
General Commercial Acre 2.59 $2,940
Downtown Commercial Acre 4.28 $4,860
Office Commercial Acre 3.72 $4,220
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial Acre 0.30 $340
Heavy Industrial Acre 0.19 $210
Industrial Reserve Acre 0.30 $340
Note: Dollar amounts are in constant January 1, 1991 dottars.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
73
CHAPTER 8
FIRE
OV ERV I EW
Level of Service
The level of service that guides the requirement for and placement of a new
fire station is to provide a maximum of a three minute driving time to all
areas within the City limits and the Limit of Utilities Planning.
Existing Fire Facilities
The City of Lodi Fire Department currently serves the City from three fire
stations. Station #1 is located at 210 W. Elm Street, Station #2 is located
at 705 E. Lodi Avenue and Station #3 is located at 2141 South Ham Lane. When
these stations were constructed, they provided the desire service levels to
the City and additional service capacity to the east, south and southwest
areas. With new development occurring West of the existing City, additional
fire protection capacity is required.
Existing Deficiencies
Currently, no major deficiencies exist in the Fire Facilities relative to the
level and service standard for the City. Response times to some areas in the
northwest are below the City standard. In a strict sense, correcting the
existing deficiency in the northwest area should not be a cost allocated to
the fee program. However, in the west side area, excess fire service capacity
exists that will be used to serve future growth. Future growth should be
required to purchase from the City excess capacity in the existing facilities.
Considering that the existing deficiency is relatively minor compared to the
excess capacity, and since the City has traditionally treated fire service on
a city-wide basis, it is recommended that the fee be based solely on new
capital expenditures. This serves to simplify the fee program and eliminates
the need for zone fees and minor deficiency adjustments.
PLANNED FIRE FACILITIES
Fire Facilities to serve buildout of the Proposed General Plan were identified
in the Fire Station Location Master Plan and by City and staff during
preparation of this report. Major facilities projects are listed in Table 8-
1. The new Fire Station (#4) will be located on Lower Sacramento Road near
Park West Drive. Other facilities listed in Table 8-1 will equip Station #4
and expand capabilities at the other stations.
During the preparation of the fee study, a number of fire facility capital
improvement projects were identified by the City. The nature of these
74
RrOO2O.B
GENERAL CITY PROJECT PHASING
Project Cleacsiption
Number
LF13001 New wide station construction
fir4). furnishings and equipment
LF0002 New 100' ladder Otact, and
equipment
1F0003 Two sedans
LF13004 Two mini -vans
1F000€ Ewe computers
LED000 Fee lightmg Safety year
lot 23 employees
LF0007 12 sett—contained breathing
&pow aqi
LECOOS Station 01, Construct:on/remodel
Equipment Reglacernent
1TOTAL FIRE
page 1 ot 1
TABLE 8 — 1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
FIRE
04195191
Estimated
Coosa suction Impact
Coss Fee 1990/91 1991/92 1992/03 1993104 1994/05 1095/1111 1906/97 1907-2002 2002-2007
5475,000 5475.000 SO SO
5475.000 5475.000 SO SO
520.000 320,000 SO 50
330.000 330 000
316.000 516.000
513 000 S13.000
518.000
so 50
so SO
SO SO
518 000 SO
554,000 518.000
S1090.000
52.155,000 51.065.01)0
SO
so 50
SO
SO SO SO 545,000 5430.000 SO SO
SO SO SO SO 3475,000 10 SO
SO 30 30 SO 30 sio.000 110.000
So 30 So SO 515.000 So S15,000
So so so so S3.000 $13.000 S7,000
SO SO SO $0 $13,000 SO SO
SO SO SO SO 518.000 SO so
so 50 so SO SO 516.000 so
50 so so 30
sol SO I
so
projects can be characterized as upgrading of existing facilities and purchase
of equipment. As a result, only those costs directly related to extending the
existing level of service to new development are included in the fee program.
These costs (such as radios, fire engines and equipment replacement) are
estimated to be $1,065,000.
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
A summary of the Fire Facility projects and estimated costs and phasing is
presented in Table_8-1. Estimated costs are based upon the Engineering News
Record 20 Cities Construction Cost Index for January 1990 of +673.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Fire Projects to New Development
As noted previously, existing deficiencies were not included in the
Development Impact Fee program. Only those projects, or portions of projects,
that serve new development were financed from Development Impact Fees.
Relationship of Fire Projects to Land Uses
The RAE schedule for fire facilities that is shown in Table 8-2 was developed
from data supplied by the Lodi Fire Department. The RAE schedule considers
relative number of fire calls and Emergency Medial Service (EMS) calls
generated by each land use category. Calls involving automobile accidents and
fires were spread back to the land use categories based on the streets and
roads RAE factors.
Recommended Fees
The summary Fire Facilities fee is shown in Table 8-2. The total fee is $510
per low density residential acre.
76
lt4X V
TABLE 8-2
SUMMARY CF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FIRE
ILand Use Categories
1 1-Aor-91
Unit RAE Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $510
Medium Density Acre 1.96 $1,000
High Density Acre 4.32 $2,210
East Side Residential Are 1.10 $560
PLANNED REgIDF_NTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $510
Medium Density Acre 1.76 $1,000
High Density Acre 4.32 $2,210
COMMERCIAL
Neightorhood Commercial Acre 2.77 $1,420
General Commercial Acre 1.93 $990
Downtown Commercial Acre 2.77 $1,420
Office Commercial Acre 2.46 $1,260
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial Acre 0.64 S330
Heavy Industrial Acre 0.61 $310
Industrial Reserve Acre 0.64 $330
Note: Dollar amounts are in January 1, 1991 dollars.
Sources: Noite & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
CHAPTER 9
PARKS AND RECREATION
OVERVIEW
This chapter of the report presents the cost estimates and the proposed
phasing for each Park and Recreation improvements that are to be financed from
development impact fee revenues. Government Code §66000 specifies certain
findings are necessary for a valid development impact fee. This chapter
presents the required findings and presents the calculation of the Parks and
Recreation fee.
Level of Service
The current level service for standard parks (not including school parks or
drainage basins) is 3.4 acres per 1,000 Park and Recreation Persons Served and
the current level'of service for community center building space is
approximately 7.70.'square feet per 1,000 Park and Recreation Persons Served.
These standards were used as the basis for calculating the percentage of new
parks and additional community center building space that could be
appropriately financed from new development.
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
Table 9-1 provides a summary of the existing park acreage in the City of Lodi.
In the table, the most important number is the 177.8 acres of Standard Park
area. It is this acreage that is used to compute the existing standard for
park acreage. Based upon an estimated current usage of 52,680 park and
recreation persons served, the existing standard for parks and recreation
acreage is 3.4 acres per 1,000 persons served. Based upon an estimated current
building space inventory of 94,800 square feet in community center buildings,
the existing space standard is 1,800 square feet per 1,000 persons served. A
summary of existing park facilities provided by the City and is presented in
Table 9-2.
The level of Parks and Recreation services is often expressed in terms of
acres per 1,000 population. This service standard must be interpreted
carefully. Employees, shoppers, tourists and other persons present during the
day may use the park and recreation facilities in addition to residents of
Lodi. The concept "Persons Served" considers all persons who may use these
facilities so that the service standard also captures the burden these other
participants will place on the facilities. A weighting factor is estimated
that accounts for various categories of persons served in accordance with the
relative frequency with which they are expected to use park and recreation
facilities.
78
TABLE 9-1
INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARK AND RECREATION ACREAGE
Existing Park Facilities Future Parks
Total Standard Total
1 Description Acres Park Basin School Acres
1. Armcry
2. Beckman
3. Blakely
4. Kandy Kane
5. Century (1)
6. Emerson
7. English Oaks Commons
8. G -Basin
9. Henry 6laves
10. Grape Bowl
11. Hale
12. Hutchins Street Square
13. Kofu
14. Lawrence/Zupo Hardball
15. Legion
16. Lodi Lake
17. Maple Square
18. Pixley Park (C-1 Basin)
19. Salas Park
20. Softball Complex
21. Van Buskirk
22. Vinewood
23. Westgate
24. Washington School
25. Lakewood School
26. Reese School
27. Nichols School
28. Heritage School
29. '.,rodbridge School
30. Sr. Elementary
31. Lodi High School
32. Tokay High School
33. Needham School
16.6 0.8 15.8
9.0 9.0
0.2 0.2
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
3.7 3.7
0.0
12.6 3.0 9.6
15.0 15.0
2.6 2.6
10.0 10.0
10.0 10.0
18.0 10.0
5.6 5.6
101.0 101.0
1.0 1.0
17.0 17.0
21.0 1.0 20.0
7.6 7.6
1.0 1.0
14.0 0.8 11.2
6.0 0.3 5.7
5.1
5.0
6.0
5.8
2.0
5.0
12.0
25.0
21.0
2.0
8.0
2.0
5.1
5.0
6.0
5.8
2.0
5.0
12.0
25.0
21.0
2.0
Westgate Expansion 0.6
6 -Basin
F -Basin
1 -Basin
C -Basin Expansion
Park Area 11
Park Area f3
Park Area 06
Park Area I4
Park Area 15
Park Area /7
Eastside Park
East Side Softball Complex
Lodi Lake - Expansion
Total Acreage 368.5
Total Acreage for Standard (1)
Source: City of Lodi.
180.3 89.3
177 8
1.0
1.0
I.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
8.0
10.0
2.0
19.4
13.0
98.3 83.0
(1) Century Park is a temporary park and is not included in standards.
79
Existing Deficiencies
Calculation of existing deficiencies is based upon the current standard
relative to the future standard for parks and recreation acreage and
community building space. In Table 9-3, results of the existing deficiency
analysis are presented.
The findings indicate the following. First, the added park acreage in the
Proposed Fee Program matches the acreage standard from 3.4/1,000 persons
served . As a result the added park acreage can be allocated to new
development. Second, the added_cornmunity building space will match the
existing space standard of 1,800/1,000 person served.
Existing deficiencies are not funded through the development impact fee
program. In this fee study, alternative funding sources are not
specifically identified that would cover parks and recreation existing
facilities deficiencies.
TABLE 9-2
INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
PARK FACILITY EXISTING STANDARD
Park Acreage 3.4/1,000 persons served
Community Building Area 1,800 sq ft/1,000
persons served
Restrooms 1/park over 3.0 acres
Lighted Baseball Diamonds 11 Total
Tot lot I/park
Lighted Tennis Courts 11 Total
Swimming Pools 4 Total
Source: Nolte and Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates
PLANNED PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
A summary of the Parks and Recreation Facility Projects is presented in Table
9-4. Estimated costs are referenced to the Engineering News Record 20 Cities
Construction Cost Index for January 1990 of 4673. Project descriptions played
an important role in preparing the project estimates and were developed in
concert with City staff. Project numbers listed in Table 9-4 are used to
identify project locations in Figure 9-1. The Parks and Recreation Master
Plan is scheduled early in the program to refine details and costs of the new
parks.
80
TABLE 9-3
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
PARKS AND RECREATION
Description of Item
04111)91
Existing Future Future
Conditions Additions Total
PARK PERSONS SERVED 52,680 24,509 77,188
SERVICE CAPACITY
Park Acreage
Community Center Buildings (Sq. Ft.)
SERVICE STANDARD
Current Service Standard:
Park Acres Per 1,000 Persons Served
Community Center Sq. Ft. Per 1,000 Persons Serve
Target Service Standard
Park Acres Per 1,000 Persons Served
Community Center Sq. Ft. Per 1,000 Persons Served
177.8 83.0 260.8
94,800 44,100 138,900
3.4
1,800
3.4
1,799
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRED
Additional Park Acres 0.2 82.8 83.0
Additional Community Center SqFt (4) 44,104 44,104
BURDEN ON NEW AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Additional Park Acres 0.0%
Additional Community Center SqFt 0.0%
Note: Dollar amounts are in January 1, 1991 dollars.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
81
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
I 1 Yo 11 Illb llll ri I li
TABLE 9-4
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS AND RECREATfON
04/05/91
Project Description Program Impact
Number Cost Fee 1990791 1991,92 1992/93 1993/94 1991695 1965/96 1990797 1997-2002 2002-2007
41PR001 Parke and Recreation 550.000 550.000 30 550.000 S0 SO SO SO 30 •.0 SO
Master Plan
MPROO2 Administrationb99dlog 52.864.000 51.289.000 50 50 SO 50 SO 51.289.000 SO SO 30
expansion at corporation yard
MP14O03 Underground tank replacement 537.000 50 SO SO SO 5O 50 SO 50 SO 50
MPROO4 Lodi Lake Central Park 5366.000 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO So SO SC
improvements
UP14005 Lodi lake peninsula 5375.000 S0 50 SO SO 90 SO 90 SO S0 SO
improvements
Co MPRO06 Lodi Lake expansion to 13 acre 51 818 000 51.816,000 30 S0 50 80 80 58 SO 3/816000 SO
r.1 westside siva
MPR007 1000 Lake sal removal 3250.000 SO 30 50 50 SO 50 30 30 50 30
WHOM 1001 lake Turner Road 5156.000 50 3O 30 SO SO SO 30 SO 30 SO
Retaining Web.
MPR009 Lodi Lake Utarty Extension 5033.200 SO SO SO SO 50 $0 SO 50 SO 30
(Water).
MPR010 Softball complex Concession 379.000 50 50 30 30 50 SO SO SO S0 22
MPKA11 Softball Comoros replacement 01 5107.000 50 SO SO SO SO 90 70 S0 SO 50
concession stand
MPROt2 Softball Complex shade 512.000 SO S0 SO 50 SO 30 SO SO 50 SO
Wit/Clam
MPRO13 SohbaH Complex paving 300.000 50 50 30 SO 50 30 50 30 30 50
MPR014 Softball Complex upgrade 561.000 SO 50 50 50 SO 50 SO 50 S0 SO
spurts Egh8ng
Page 1 of 4
CO
w
TABLE 9-4
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS AND RECREATION
04/05/91
Project Dsscrgtian Program impact
Number Cos n» --- 1990/e1 1391!32 1992/93 1993094 1994/95 1895096 1996197 1997-2002 2002-2007
1.4PRO15 Stadium Electrical d Sports 5122,000 30 30 SO 30 30 S0 SO 20 30 30
Lighting.
14PROt3 Stadium Press Box 344.000 30 30 SO SO 30 3O 30 30 30 30
111141017 Stadium Puking Lot Landscape S81.000 3O SO SO SO SO 30 3O 30 30 30
& Lighting
MPROta Stadium Maud & Drainage 5139.000 30 SO SO S0 S0 SO SO 30 SO 30
Improvements
MPRO19 Stadium Additional Seating 382.000 30 00 10 30 30 SO SO SO 00 30
MP14020 Kolu Park Enlarge Bleacher Nee 325.000 SO SO SO SO 30 30 30 S0 30 30
L$PR021 Koh. Park New Playground 325.000 10 30 30 30 SO SO So SO SO 30
Equipment
MPRO22 K01u Patk Permanent Backstop 39000 SO 10 30 00 30 SO SO 30 30 SO
MPR023 Kohl Park Group Picnic 57.000 3O 30 50 50 SO 30 S0 S0 SO SC
Facilities
MPR024 Kola Park Entrance Improvements S13,0W SO 30 SO 30 S0 SO 30 30 30 30
IAPR025 Armory Park Prolong Lot 3128.000 SO S.' So 30 30 SO 30 30 3O SO
5IPR026 Armory ParkPress Box d B!e4che1 227.000 SO S0 30 So i0 30 SO SO SO 3o
Wall
14111027 Armory Park Upgrade Electrical 320,000 SO 30 S0 30 SO SO SO S0 SO 30
114PR028 Zupo Field Replacement of w«d 326.000 30 SO SO So So So so 30 30 SO
seats.
MPR029 Zupo ReldUpgrade Electrical S
Sport. Lighting
Page 2 of 4
381,000 SO 10 SO SO SO 30 SO 30 SO S0
02
iI,nhrct De.rlpl..,
�Nannp4t r
MMPS 03) Hate Park General improvements
MP51033 Com.nunny Moldings (Cily-W:de)
MPRO04 Blakely Perk Upgrade Lrgnting
114PF4035 Sates Park Protective Shade
Structures
MPRO36 Sales ParkFence Diamond Ares•
UUP51037 Emerson Park Restroom
Reieacemsot
1.1PR015 Pikely Park IC - Basin)
General ImpovemenIs
161P17O39 Westgate Park Improvements
1.4P11040 Pam el Path (lac )
111111041 r44a 03 Parke PRol (3ac )
MPRO42 area 04 Park
MPI4043 Arsa *6 Park Improvements
114P11044 Area 45 PAPS Improvements
MPF1045 Ares 4.7 Park Improvements
MPi1046 Ewalt/14e Park Genera! Park
Improvements
MPRO46 East Side 0055.11 Complex
MP91047 0-Aaarn imnrnvements Perk
P00r1 3 o14
1 MILE 9-4
DEVELOPMENT RELATE(' CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS ANI) RECREATION
Ph004ee Impact
Gast fee 19110701 1997672 (902799
la 90,000
54;110 000
522.000
161.000
51711.000
1005 000
3353,000
5450.000
5712.000
51,402.000
S1,377.000
11.140,000
61,600.000
$301000
32.002.000
$120 999
56 so 50 CO SO 5o 50 sot SO 70
$9.410,000 So $275,025 5275,625 3275625 3275,025 5275,625 $275.026 S1.375,125 I0.ve,IPS
SO so 50 50 50 SO SII 50 :0 !e
S0
so so *0 50 50 M 40
5465,000
SO 30 sot Sot So 70 5o M
so so *0 $a sot So s0 so
50
$353,000 50 SO SO SO 3o SO
5459.000 S0 SO SO l0 SO SO
5712,000 50 SO SO S0 SO SO
51,462,000 SO SO SO SD S0 50
59,377.000 SO SO 50 SO So SO
31,140,600 SO SO SO SO SO SO
51.060.000 So SO SO SO 51,060,000 SO
5:07,000 *0 51 SO Sd SO 5153,500
52602,000 SO SO SO 30 SO SO
50 fa SO SO SO M
5120.000
5353,000
30
30
S0
*0
3153,500
SO
3O
sot 46
5450000 Oa
SO *712400
SO
44,447 oaa
5550.500 *6091.9100
61,146,000 30
S0 16
$0 SO
$0 44, 4 600
SO 5/70,9140
'Project Desc.t.ran
Number
TABLE ¶i-4
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS AND RECREATION
04/05191
Program Impact
Cosi Fee 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 190394 1994/95 1995/99 196,697 1997-2002 2002-2007
MPR048 I-Sas:n improvements Park 5120.000 5120.000 SO SO SO 50 So So 50 50 5120.000
MP11052 G -Basin Park Improvements 5350.000 5300.000 50 SO SO S0 50 50 SO $I:i0.000 5150.000
MP11O53 Hutchins Square Catering 535.000 So So SO So So So So SO SO SO
IOlchou
MP11054 Hutchins Square Mu0i-purpose 5750.000 50 SO SO SO SO s0 So SO SO SO
MPRO55 Hutchins Square Chile Care 5568.000 39 So 5o S0 So 50 SO s0 50 30
Center
11PRo56 4u1ehins Square Connectors/ S1.000.000 SO So So So 50 50 50 30 50 50
Wdlways
MPR057 Mulch.ns Square Auditorium54.000.000 SO 00 30 5o S4 50 39 SO SO SO
Remodel
!TOTAL PARKS AND REC. 330,114,000 318.740.0001 50 I., 5325,625 ! 3275.6251 3275,625 1 31.935,625 11,718,125 1 1782.125 1 15.639.625 1 17.787.625 1
Pape 4 of 4
GP STUDY AREA
•1 •
' - .•
•
• • ;
AREA 3
. -
AREA 6
AREA 4 ARtil 5
FO1
• :
•
c
LEGEND
AR 7[55
7
AS75i OE AK
! I
i I 9 1
EASTsioc SOFT Su.
conAriso.
FIGURE 9 -1 PARKS ANC RECRE:,.TION IMPROVEMENTS
8b
0•4 74,
4o,
1 .. 00 Lap. Nat. v..
eb
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
Improvement and land acquisition costs for parks and recreation facilities are
.,ased upon information provided by City staff and the City Capital Improvement
:flan. Land costs were assumed to be $100,000 per acre. In cases where land
or parks expansion is already owned by the City, the proposed fee program
r" .oes not pay or reimburse the City for land costs.
A number of the projects identified by the City are not attributable to new
development and more accurately fall into the category of maintenance and
repair. These projects are easily identified because no cost has been
allocated to the impact fee fund.
In Table 9-4, the phasing of construction costs is presented only for those
Parks projects to be funded through the fee program. Phasing of the projects
is based upon forecasts provided by the City. The Parks and Recreation Master
,., Plan is scheduled early in the program to refine details and cost of the
program.
Analysis of the existing and planned facilities for the corporation yard
identified that only -a portion of the facilities will serve future growth.
Based upon building footage, 45 percent of the planned corporation yard
improvements costs are allocated to future growth.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to New Development
The additional park acres to be added throughout the program serve only new
development. The existing deficiency analysis presented in Table 9-3 also
shows that the added community center space is serving only new development.
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to Land Uses
The RAE schedule for parks and recreation that is shown in Table 9-5
recognized explicitly that, while demand is primarily generated by the
residential population, parks and recreation facilities also serve employees.
Examples of non-residential demand include lunchtime use, company picnics and
company team participation in sports leagues.
The RAE schedule was based on the relative amount of time available to
residents and to employees to make use of park and recreational facilities.
Recommended Fees
The summary Parks and Recreation fee is shown in Table 9-5. The total fee is
511,810 per low density residential acre.
87
TABLE 9-5
11 -Ary -a1
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
PARKS AND RECREATION
;Land Use Categories Unit RAE Fees I
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $11,810
Medium Density Acre 1.43 $16,880
Hich Density Acre 2.80 $33.040
East Side Residential Acre 1.10 S12,970
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 S11,810
Medium Density Acre 1.43 $16,880
High Density Acre 2.80 533,040
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial A ,re 0.32 53.750
General Commercial Acre 0.32 53,750
Downtown Commercial Acre 0.32 $3,750
Office Commercial Acre 0.54 S6.430
INDUSTRIAL
light Industrial Acre 0.23 52,680
Heavy Industrial Acre 0.33 53,890
Industrial Reserve Acre 0.23 52.680
Note: Dollar amounts are in January 1, 1991 dollars.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
88
CHAPTER 10
GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
OVERVIEW
Level of Service
The current staffing level of service provided by the City of Lodi for general
city services (e.g. City manager, finance department) is 1.25 Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs) per 1,000 persons served. The current space standard is
229 square feet per FTE. These standards were used as the basis for
calculating the percentage of additions to City Hall that would be
appropriately charged to either new or existing development.
While there is not a stated level of service for general city facilities there
is an implied standard based on the current level of city employees and
building space per city employee. The service standard used to examine the
existing deficiencies for General City Facilities includes demands for general
city services generated by business as well as demand by residents.
A "Persons Served" standard is calculated by estimating the demand or use of
general city services by persons associated with each land use type. Instead
of determining the use by each unit of land developed, as is the procedure
with RAE factors, the use for each land use is converted into a use per
person. In the case of residential land uses this takes the form of use per
resident, and in the case of non-residential uses is a use per employee.
These use per 'per person served" figures are then normalized around the
Single Family land use to produce "Persons Served" factors which are applied
to a forecast of the total number of residents and employees from each land
use to compute the total persons served from new developments.
Existing Deficiencies
Table 10-1 presents the results of the existing deficiency analysis. In the
case of the City Hall addition, both the staffing standard and the space
standard are increased over the planning period. As a result, a portion
(27.8%) of the addition can not be funded from development impact fees.
PLANNED GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
In Table 10-2, a listing of General City Facilities Projects is provided.
Included in the listing are those capital improvements and expenditures
identified by City Department heads in their budget forecasts for 2006/7.
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
A summary of the phasing of projects funded by the fee program is provided in
Table 10-2. Phasing of the projects is based upon the forecast of units
constructed over the General Plan period.
89
Personnel
Administration
Finance(w/o Purchasing)
Purchasing (FT)
Purchasing (PT)
Data Processing
Building (CDD)
Planning (CDO)
Public Works
jTotals:
TABLE 10-1
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
CITY HALL FACILITIES
04/05/91
Change End
Current 1989/90- State
Units 1989/90 2007/08 2007/08
Persons 13 8 21
Persons 28 14 42
Persons 5 3 8
Persons 1 -1 0
Persons 5 13 18
Persons 6 5 11
Persons 5 4 9
Persons 19 9 28
82 55 137 j
IFTE
ConversionChange End
Current 1989190 State
jPersonnel Units(1) Factor 1989/90 2007/08 2007/08
Administration FTE 100% 13.0 8.0 21.0
Finance(w/o Purchasing) FTE 100% 28.0 14.0 42.0
Purchasing (FT) FTE 100% 5.0 3.0 8.0
Purchasing (PT) FTE 50% 0.5 -0.5 0.0
Data Processing FTE 100% 5.0 13.0 18.0
Building (CDD) FTE - 100% 6.0 5.0 11.0
Planning (CDD) FTE 100% 5.0 4.0 9.0
Public Works FTE 100% 19.0 9.0 28.0
Total Units
Building Area Square Feet
Total Persons Served
Staffing Standard:
FTE's per 1,000 Person's Served
Space Standard:
Area Per Employee (FTE)
Source: Nolte & Aetoc+®le• and Anpue McDonald & Associates
90
81.5 55.5 137.0
18657.0 14448.0 33105.0
63676.0 29320.0 92996.0
1.28 0.19 1.47
228.92 12.72 241.64
TABLE 10-1
(Cont.)
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
CITY HALL FACILITIES
04/05/91
Existing Future Future
;Description of Item Population Additions Total
GENERAL GOVERNMENT PERSONS SERVED, 63,676 29,320 92,996
SERVICE CAPACITY
General Government Employees (Full 81.5 55.5 137.0
Time Equivalent (FTEs))
General Government Buildings (Sq. Ft.) 18,657 14,448 33,105
SERVICE STANDARD
Current Service Standard:
General Government Employees Per 1.3
1,000 Persons Served
Building Sq. Ft. Per Employee 228.9
Target Service Standard
General Government Employees Per 1.5
1,000 Persons Served
Building Sq. Ft. Per Employee 241.6
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRED
Additional Employees (Ful! Time 12.3 43.2 55.5
Equivalent (FTE))
Additional Building Area (Sq. Ft.)
For Existing Employees 1,037 1,037
For New Employees 2,974 10,437 13,411
Notal 4,011 10,437 14,448 1
j Burden on New and Existing Development 27.8% 72.2% 100.0%1
!Cost of New Facilities $1171.770. $3,043,230 $4,215,000 I
Source: Notto & Associates and Angus McDonald d Associates
91
TABLE 10 - 2
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
04/05!91
Rojecl Localan Pro rare impact ^ .
Number Coals Fee 1904191 199192 1902/93 1993/94 1991/95 1995/90 199697 1997-2002 2002-2007
GCF1001 City Han tiiwnodel ane Addea:n 34.215.000 23.043.230 SO 3700.000 3700.000 S0 30 i0 30 32,843.230 00
GCF1002 CMc Center Parking 101 Expansion 3141.000 3141.000 SO SO 50 30 SO 50 3141000 30 30
13 N. Church
1
GCF1006 Property acgwwtion. 3213.000 5213.000 SO 20 30 SO 50 30 SO S0 $213,000
217 E. Lookolord,
GCF1009 Parking La Improvement., 370,000 370,000 SO SO 50 SO SO 00 50 SO 370000
NE corner of Lockoked and
Stockton.
N G=F1018 Library Expansion 22 930.000 22.900.000 30 50 50 50 30 50 30 52,900.000 03
GCF1011 Public Works -Trucks 2750,500 3750.000 344.100 244.100 344,100 144.100 044.500 344,100 244,100 3220000 3220,/00
GCF1012 Public Works- Pickups and Sedans 5715.000 2715000 542,100 542100 $42,100 142.200 142.100 242.500 $42,100 3210,300 3210.000
GCF1013 P bl,c Works- An Compressors 500.350 390000 55.300 35.300 35.300 25,300 35.300 35,300 35,300 128.500 326,400
GCF1014 Public Works - MIK OOice Egapment 265.500 365.500 33 900 33.900 23.800 53.900 33.900 $3.900 33.900 319.300 316,900
GCF10/5 Finance - torso. Office Equipment 5161.700 5185,700 350.700 310.700 550./00 510,700 350.700 310,700 350,700 353.400 353,400
GCF1016 Finance Computer (AS400 Upgradol 572.000 572,030 54.200 24200 3120 34.250 34.250 34.200 34,200 $21200 521.400
GCF1037 Fee Program U0040on9 33010000 32.560,000 30 3160.000 3160,500 2160.000 3160.000 5160.000 2160.000 3800.000 3800.000
COOV001 General Plan Update 1987 3247019 1267.019 2267,019 50 30 50 30 50 50 30 S0
COOV002 General Plan Update 1997 5250 300 2250,000 30 SO SO 30 30 30 3250,000 50 50
CODV003 General Plan Update 2002 2250.000 3250,000 SO SO SO SO 50 30 30 { 2250,000 50
TOTAL CITY FACILITIES $13,190,219 ? $11,568,449 15371.31915970.300 1 $970,300 15270.300 15270.300 [ $270,300 ./.'.4,''''661;300 1. $6;144.5301' 51;633,800
Pepe 1 of 1
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of General City Projects to New Development
The relationship between existing deficiencies, changing service standards and
demand created by new development was presented in Table 10-1. This exhibit
was used to allocate responsibility for financing between Development Impact
Fees and other sources of financing.
Relationship of General City Projects to Land Uses
The RAE schedule that has been developed for general City facilities is shown
in Table 10-3. This schedule is based on an estimate of relative population
and employment (measured in persons per household and in employees per
thousand square feet, respectively) and an the judgment that employees place a
relative burden on general City administrative facilities that is 50 percent
of that imposed by residents.
Recommended Fees
The summary General City Facilities fee is shown in Table 10-3. The total fee
is $6,370 per low density residential acre.
93
TABLE 10-3 11 -Apr -.91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
ILand Use Categories Unit RAE Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 S6,370
Medium Density Acre 1.43 S9,100
High Density Acre 2.80 S17,810
East Side Residential Acre 1.10 S6,990
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 S6,370
Medium Density Acre 1.43 $9,100
High Density Acre 2.80 S17,810
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial Acre 0.89 55,700
C-eneral Commercial Acre 0.89 S5,700
Downtown Commercial Acre 0.89 S5,700
Office Commercial Acre 1.53 S9,760
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial Acre 0.64 S4,070
Heavy Industrial Acre 0.93 55,890
Industrial Reserve Acre 0.64 $4,070
Note: Dollar amounts are in January 1, 1991 dollars.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
94
APPENDIX A
FORECAST OF MAPPED ACREAGE FOR
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
95
1.110.4.04
TARLE A -I
GENERAL PLAN ACREAGE GROWTH FORECAST
CITY OF LOOI PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
Existing Existing
As Of As Of 1997/98- 2002/03- Total Total
Land Use Categories Units 1987/88 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 2001/02 2006/07 Forecast 2006/07
RESIDENTIAL
Low tensity Acres 2.055 2.231 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 2.244
Medium Density Acres 159 193 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 194
High Density Acres 162 157 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 171 -
East Side Residential Acres 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
PR - Low Density Acres 0 0 96 72 51 52 52 52 52 289 325 1042 1042
PR - Medium Density Acres 0 0 0 5 3 3 3 3 3 19 21 67 67
PR - High Density Acres 0 0 8 6 4 4 4 4 4 23 26 83 83
Total Residential 2.406 2,595 123 87 6) 69 10 60 60 342 395 1.257 3.852
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Acres 149 155 13 11 3 3 3 3 3 21 21 83 238
General Acres 189 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 197
Downtown Acres 19 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 22
Office Acres 65 86 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 9 95
Total Commercial 422 459 13 1> 4 4 4 5 23 23 93 552
INDUSTRIAL
Light Ind•+strial Acres 221 263 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 26 32 85 348
Heavy Industrial Acres 333 492 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 20 ?5 66 558
Industrial Reserve Acres D 0 21 26 13 17 21 21 21 .128 158 426 426
Total Industrial 554 755 29 35 17 23 29 29 29 174 214 579 1.333
Source: City of Looi Public Works Department.
96
«P5020 a
.1
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department
TO: City Council
City Manager
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: June 20, 1991
SUBJECT: Development Impact Fees - Public Hearing Questions and Responses
Following are responses to questions raised at the May 28 Development
Impact Fee public hearing. The questions are paraphrased from the tape of
the meeting. Some additional discussion is provided at the end of the
memo.
1. What is the "Value" of existing Parks and Recreation Department in
$/Acre for the existing City compared to the new fees? (Terry Piazza) -
Since the "existing standard" as defined is the same as that used for
calculating the fee, the "value" would be the same if replacement
value of existing facilities was used. The estimate for future park
facilities took into account the existing inventory shown in Table
9-2 on Page 80 of the study. Thus, the new park facilities are
comparable to existing facilities. Explicitly answering the question
would require a more detailed inventory and additional estimates;
both requiring significant staff time and consultant expense.
2. Sewer RAE schedule appears inconsistent with Design Standards and
Water RAE (Steve Pechin) -
The Design Standards, while based on the various Master Plans, were
written to cover the design of facilities within a development
pro,;c't. The impact fee study relied on city-wide flow data taken
directly from the engineering consultants who worked on the General
Plan. The unit flow factors are not necessarily the same and are
more conservative in the Design Standards; thus, comparing the RAE
schedule to the Design Standards will not provide consistent
results.
However, in reviewing this issue, the consultant found discrepancies
in both the Water and Sewer RAE schedules. The schedules have been
recalculated as follows:
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
t
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 2
Category Water RAE Sewer RAE
Residential
Low Density 1.00 1.00
Medium Density 1.96* 1.96*
High Density 3.49* 3.49*
East Side 1.00 1.00
PR -LD 1.00 1.00
PR -MD 1.96* 1.96*
PR -HD 3.49* 3.49*
Commercial
Neighborhood 0.64 0.94 (was 1.25)
General 0.64 0.94 (was 1.25)
Downtown 0.64 0.94 (was 1.25)
Office 0.64 0.94 (was 1.25)
Industrial
Light 0.26 (was 0.92) 0.42 (was 0.33)
Heavy 0.26 (was 0.92 0.42 (was 0.33)
*Original figure was rounded to nearest 0.1; used nearest 0.01 to
be consistent with other categories
3. Storm Drain RAE schedule appears inconsistent with Design Standards
and Water and Sewer RAE's (Steve Pechin) -
The storm drain relative factors are the same as those presently in
effect. They were determined by the City in 1988 as part of the
update of the Master Storm Drain System Master Plan and Fee Program.
P.n analysis was done on the total cost of providing trunk lines,
basins and pumping facilities for residential versus commercial
development. The Design Standards only address runoff calculations.
While it could be argued that a more refined breakdown is possible
(for example, commercial versus industrial), the cost difference
would be less the difference implied by the Design Standards which is
only 13%.
Incidentally, the storm drain fees need to be recalculated due to
land use changes in the adopted General Plan and the omission of two
existing storm drain reimbursement agreements that are to be paid out
of the impact fee fund.
4. How does additional water system revenue from metering affect the fee
program? (Steve Pechin) -
Presumably, water rates will be set to cover maintenance,
replacements and contributions to general fund and no new capital
facilities. Of course, actual water rates are set by the City
Council. To the extent water conservation from metering reduces the
need for additional wells, future updates of the General Plan and
Water Master Plan would reduce the number of new wells needed. Then
the fee could go down.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 3
5. What is the effect of removing Lodi Lake from the calculation on
existing park standard? (Steve Pechin) -
The lake itself accounts for 35 acres of the 101 acres of Lodi Lake
Park included in the existing standard. Eliminating acreage from the
existing standard and reducing the new park acreage to match the
existing standard will reduce the fee. The exact reduction amount
will depend on the results of the cash flow analysis. Based on the
average cost of new parks, Table 1 presents the approximate effect of
reducing the acreages as shown.
6. Question using $100,000 per acre as value for land acquisition (Steve
Pechin, Dennis Bennett, Jeff Kirst, Council) -
Based on comments from other developers, staff feels the $100,000
figure is reasonable considering the City will have to have
appraisals done and pay prevailing market rates at the time of
purchase. This action will occur nearer to development time, thus
land will be more expensive than land purchased years ago on
speculation.
7. In computing the area of existing community buildings, were leased
facilities included and how does it affect the program; is there a
list of the existing facilities? (Steve Pechin, Jeff Kirst) -
The facilities used in determining the existing standard are:
Hutchins Street Square Cafeteria 6,400 SF
Camp Hutchins Room 6,000 SF
Hutchins Street Square North Complex 19,600 SF
Hutchins Street Square Pool Area 5,400 SF
Hutchins Street Square Fine Arts Building 8,700 SF
Recreation Annex, North Stockton Street 3,500 SF leased
Kofu Park Building 1,800 SF
Lee Jones Building (@ Legion Park) 900 SF
Grape Festival Pavilion 32,000 SF leased*
Grape Festival Chablis Hall 9,600 SF leased
Recreation Office Meeting Room 900 SF
94,800 SF Total
(use of indoor school facilities not included)
*Pavilion only available 51 months/year
This square footage was used in determining the amount and cost of
new community buildings (44,100 SF @ 5100/SF = S4,410,000). Reducing
this square footage has a similar effect on the fee as reducing park
acreage, although the amounts are smaller. See Table 1 for some
approximate alternatives.
8. Were revenues from renting/leasing community buildings included in
the program? (Steve Pechin) -
No, City policy in setting rental rates is to attempt to recover
operating expenses only.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 4
9. Police RAE's the land use is not as important a factor as the area of
town (Steve Pechin) -
Possibly, but this is not accounted for in the methodology and it
would probably not be legal to do so.
10. Residential impact fee comparison - Tracy is going down, Galt's
figure is only for certain parts of town and include Mello -Roos
figures, also the comparisons are distorted, misleading and
inaccurate (Dennis Bennett) -
Tracy's storm drain fee has been reduced from $5,204 to $4,564,
however, many of the other categories have gone up. The total of
$23,116 shown in the comparison is now $23,661. We have also been
informed that a suit is being filed over Tracy's fees.
Based on correspondence from Bennett and Compton, the City's
comparison is accurate except in two categories:
Water - Depending on the area being developed, the fee is $950
instead of $1,800.
NE Area - These fees were established to reduce the Mello -Roos
bond payments. They are used for capital facilities including
the types of facilities in Lodi's proposed program, and in our
mind fit the definition of an impact fee.
Their letter provided the following fee examples:
1,331 SF home in NE area: $12,623.64
1,250 SF home not in NE area: $ 8,763.20
The City comparison showed $12,677 for a 2,000 SF home. Given the
wide variation in fee programs and situations, we feel the comparison
is sufficiently accurate for the purpose intended.
The fee comparisons were not intended to be precise. Doing so would
require a specific project design in a specific area for each city.
The proposed City of Lodi fees are based on providing the facilities
listed for the General Plan service area. The City Council may, as a
matter of policy, reduce the fees in order to be "competitive".
However, this will transfer to burden to the General Fund and/or
Utility Funds. As discussed at the public hearing, arbitrarily
adjusting the fees opens the City to legal challenge. Reducing the
fees can be done by:
1) Lowering the service standard and eliminating projects - This
would uniformly reduce the fee in each land use category for the
reduced standard fee category (i.e., Police, Fire, etc.).
2) Reduce the fee per RAE in any or all of the fee categories - This
would require subsidies from other City funds in order to
maintain the service standard or would mean deferring or
eliminating projects, in effect reducing the level of service.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 5
3) Directly subsidize land use categories (such as low income
housing) by paying all or a portion of the fee out of the General
Fund or other City funds.
11. Fee collection at Final Map versus Building Permit stage (Dennis
Bennett) -
Later collection will increa,e fees and create much more
administrative burden, i.e., billing and tracking every parcel versus
one map. Changing to collecting all fees at building permit would
mean recalculating to a square footage basis for
commercial/industrial ano presumably per dwelling unit for
residential. We could split with some categories at map and others
at building permit. We already collect storm drain fees at map stage.
12. Parks standard distorted especially considering Lodi Lake and School
acreage, need more analysis (Dennis Bennett) -
The standard is a policy decision; the data is there for Council to
decide. The first Parks project is a new Parks Master Plan which
will more precisely define the nature of the new parks, improvements
to be included, etc. Staff suggests that is the time to do more
analysis and fine-tune the fee program.
School acreage was not included in the existing standard nor included
in future additions since the City has no control over either
situation.
13. Need more analysis on General City Facilities Fees (Dennis Bennett) -
Again, this is a policy decision on the Council's part as to what
projects should be paid out of fees versus the general fund or simply
deleted. All the City Facilities included are needed to accommodate
growth.
14. Effect on house price of borrowing money to pay fees at Final Map
stage (Dennis Bennett) -
The impact fees for a single-family subdivision at 5 lots per acre
total $7,634 per lot. At 15% interest for 18 months, the additional
cost to be passed on the home buyer is approximately $1,700 plus
whatever the developer and builder mark up their costs. These
numbers are comparable to a realtor's fee on a $150,000 sale ($9,000
@ 6%).
This is over-estimated however, since it includes the time spent
building the house. In collecting at building permit stage, there is
still 6 months' or so interest while the house is being built. In
collecting at the later stage, the fee will have to be approximately
4% higher to account for the loss of interest revenue in the fee
program. These two factors would reduce the additional amount to
approximately $800 plus markup. We also would assume that with the
growth management program, we will not see excessive numbers of lots
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 6
mapped so there should be a shorter time between map filing and home
construction.
15. Lodi's proposed Park standard is 3.4 acres per 1,000 persons served.
What is the parks standard for other aoencies (Council) -
Stockton - 3 acres per 1,000 residents (considering
commercial/industrial impact)
Davis - standard is area/distance based
Tracy - 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents
Manteca - 5 acres per 1,000 residents
Woodland (draft) - 3.2 acres per 1,000 persons served plus additional
standards for facilities and regional parks
16. i:c'.ationship/methodology between Commercial land use and Police, Fire
and General City Facilities and sales tax revenue (William Mitchell) -
No credit was offered for potential sales tax revenue. These sources
don't even pay for Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation operations,
let alone new capital facilities.
17. Difference/relationship between commercial fees (especially streets)
based on per acre basis versus per 1,000 SF of building area (William
Mitchell) -
The basic decisions to use General Plan land use categories to keep
the fee program simple and to collect at map stage means that acreage
must be used since specific project plans are not available then.
This also evens out small differences in land use and is much simpler
to administer (fewer arguments over trip rates for specific types of
land use nor worrying about minor changes in land use). Given this,
there will always be at least 50% of the projects who feel they are
below the average and should get a fee reduction. That could be
done, but only if we charge the other 50% a higher fee.
18. Why have parallel water mains on certain streets? (Council) -
This is done on major streets and provides better service to what are
usually large parcels needing many fire services. It reduces the
need to cross the major street repeatedly which is expensive since
such crossings are usually bored rather than open cut.
19. Police "existing persons served" is 80,207 per Table 7-1. This seems
high. (Council) -
The number includes an accounting of residents and employees based on
the various General Plan documents. It is consistently used in the
existing land use and project land use, although it is recalculated
separately for each fee category.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
r-.
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 7
20. The additional number cf firefighters appears to be more than that
needed for the new station. Is it "top heavy"? (Council) -
The projects/equipment shown on Table 8-1 are per the Fire Long Range
Plan which includes:
o A 4 -person "quint" (combined truck/engine) at the new Station 4,
which includes 1 captain (mid -management)
o Adding a firefighter to the east side truck company
o Adding 2 fire inspectors
o Adding 1 public education specialist
o Adding 1 hazardous materials specialist
All are firefighting personnel. This is a total of 23 positions for
which equipment costs only are included.
21. We are collecting fees for a fire station that will not be built for
a few years (Council) -
The collection of fees for future projects is in compliance with
State law given that we have a long-range Capital Improvement Program.
22. Parks and Recreation, Page 78, Paragraph 2 says 770 SF is the
existing building standard (Council) -
That is a typographical error; the correct figure is 1,800 SF.
23. If a service club or private donation builds a park improvement, what
happens to the fee? (Council) -
When a project included in the fee program is funded from another
source, the cost estimate would be changed at the next fee program
update along with any other changes and/or cost increases; thus the
total fee would be adjusted accordingly.
24. Why don't we reimburse the City for the cost of land already
purchased? (Council) -
That could be done. However, then the land could not be counted as
part of the existing standard. For example, the semi -developed
portion of Pixley Park (C -Basin) was counted in the existing
standard. It could be removed from the standard and included in new
parks. In some specific cases (such as the rest of C -Basin), the
undeveloped land was purchased with impact fee (Master Storm Drain)
funds so it would not be appropriate to "buy" it again. In other
cases, such as the 13 -acre Lodi Lake Park expansion, the land was
acquired many years ago (more than 10) and it would be difficult to
determine the purchase terms and conditions. In the case of streets
where we included recent widening projects, the cost of land
(Right -of -Way acquisition) was included. We would include some
allowance for park land already owned if Council so desires and City
provides specific direction. This would of course increase the fee.
An example is shown in Table 1.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 8
25. Why is the level of service standard for City Hall being increased
per Page 91, Table 10-1? (Council) -
The analysis for City Hall reflects that fact that the existing
building is overcrowded, thus the total cost of the project cannot be
placed on new development. The term "level of service standard" in
this case is misleading since it is a statement of existing
conditions, not a desired level of space allocation. The future
total is based on the present plans for the expansion of the building
and matches the projections of City Hall personnel increases
throughout the life of the General Plan.
Additional Discussion
Although there were no specific questions, the issue of "affordable
housing" was discussed. This issue involves much more than just impact
fees and includes land prices, construction costs, interest charges,
profit margins and "the Market". However, the following discussion just
addresses impact fees.
Certainly anything that increases expenses to developers and builders has
the potential of increasing the final sale price. The issue of "who
ultimately pays" is not clear and depends on many local factors.
According to the latest information staff received at a recent seminar on
impact fees, there have been very few rigorous studies that attempt to
answer this question. These few indicate that while there is an increase,
it is "trivial" when compared against increases due to other factors.
This seminar included some discussion on the "impact" of impact fees. Ten
suggestions on offsetting their impact are attached as Exhibit A. Given
the City's 2% Growth Management Plan, some of these suggestions are not
possible. Note that No. 7 suggests fees be charged as early as possible
in the approval process. Numbers 9 and 10 and similar alternatives would
require a much more active role by the City in the area of housing
programs. Such programs could be handled by other public agencies on a
contract basis, by a consultant, or. by new City staff.
Recommendation/Action
At this point, staff needs Council direction on how to proceed with the
Development Impact Fee Program in order to complete the enabling ordinance
and implementing resolution. The draft fees as presented need to be
recalculated anyway because cf the changes in the final adopted General
Plan and the Water and Sewer RAE factor changes. Also, the calculations
started with revenue and expenses in fiscal year 1990/91. Obviously, the
program will not start then. We do wish to proceed as quickly as
possible; the City cannot collect any of its county -wide 1/2t sales tax
(Measure K) allocations until we have a traffic fee in place.
Council decisions are needed on the following issues that have been raised
which will also affect the fee calculation:
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 9
1. RAE Schedules - In addition to the water and sewer changes, if the
Council has questions/concerns on other schedules (such as Parks and
Recreation and commercial/industrial land use), these should be
resolved.
2. Projects/Standards - A decision should be made on the project list
and standards used, especially in Parks and Recreation where the most
questions were raised; also the land value figure should be agreed
upon.
3. Fee Collection - The issue of collectins at Final Map versus Building
Permit is critical. In changing to building permit, staff would
recommend changing the residential acre equivalent factors (RAE'S) to
a dwelling u and 1,000 SF commercial/industrial basis.
Jack L Ronsko
P lic orks Director
JLR/RCP/mt
cc: Concerned Citizens
Nolte and Associates
McDonald and Associates
Assistant City Engineer
Department Heads
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
Table 1
APPROXIMATE PARKS AAD RECREATION IMPACT FEE REVISIONS
"Existing" Future Cost of
Standard Additions Future
Additions
Fee Diff.
per RAE
Parks
With Lodi Lake 177.8 Ac 83.0 Ac $12,991,000' $11,810 --
Deduct Lake 35 Acres 142.8 Ac 66.7 Ac $10,440,000 (approx.) $10,210 -$1,600
Deduct 50% of Lake 35 Acres 160.3 Ac 74.8 Ac $11,710,000 (approx.) $11,000 -$ 810
Camunity Buildings
With All Facilities 94,800 SF 44,100 SF $ 4,410,000 $11,810 --
Ceduct All Leased Facilities 49,700 SF 23,120 SF $ 2,312,000 (approx.) $10,490 -$1,320
Prorate Pavilion SF 77,470 SF 36,040 SF $ 3,604,000 (approx.) 511,310 -$ 500
Land Reinbursanent
Lodi Lake 13 Acre Expansion -- $ 1,300,000 (approx.) $12,630 +$ 820
*Master Plan, Camunity Buildings, and miscellaneous projects subtotal $5,749,000 for $18,740,000 total program
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
[Exit A
Offsetting the Impacts of Impact Feel
Connerly (1988) argues that impact fees are simply bad policy because of their
tendency to force higher prices and thereby displace lower- and middle-income house-
holds. Huffman, Nelson. Smith, and Stegman (1988) warn that impact fees may displace
development to areas that may be less able cope with that development. They also warn
of fiscal effects. The problem is that public officials have not generally come to grips with
these or other effects of impact fees. Where impact fees are relatively small, however as
they seem to be at the present time in most communities assessing them -- any impact of
impact fees will be practically meaningless.
Nevertheless, where communities are concerned about prospective adverse impacts
of impact fees, they may pursue any of several mitigating policies (Weitz, 1984). The aim
of such policies is to shift as much of the burden back to owners of vacant land as
possible, soften the magnitude of impact fee effects on housing prices by encouraging
greater land use intensity, and distribute the remaining burden among tenants of new
development and developers so that no party is burdened with the whole impact. What
exactly are those policies? Ten are suggested here.
1. Assure that long-range community plans adequately foresee future development
demand by providing enough land for that development. That land must be
provided with suitable infrastructure. These efforts will keep the land market from
internalizing supply shortages attributable solely to unserviced land.
2. Give adequate advance notice to developers of impending impact fees. This may
be done through public hearings and delayed effective dates. The objective is to
give developers enough time to negotiate more favorable land purchase prices.
3. Tailor impact fees to the effects that specific developments will have on com-
munities. Fixed fees fail to account for projects have relatively higher impacts
because of their location in more congested areas. Setting fees by service area of
facilities is one workable solution.
4. Attempt to provide a competitive market. In a tight market where demand for
developable land exceeds supply in the short term, public officials might allow
greater development density (where facilities can accommodate it), or allow
annexations.
5. Assure consistent land use practices. When landowners perceive that zoning or
planning changes are easily acquired, they will force developers to pay prices
reflecting those expectations. Communities should hold firm to land use designa-
tions.
6. Many communities under -assess vacant land or extend it certain open space tax
preferences. Such practices subsidize speculative behavior, allow landowners to
hold land for longer periods, and enable landowners to demand higher prices than
the market would otherwise justify. They should be reconsidered.
80
C
7. Assess impact fees at the stage in the development process that can have the least
impact on prices. Consideration might be given to assessing the fees upon approval
of a project. This has the effect of forcing developers to internalize the fee as a
cost before selling land to builders. It should encourage developers to negotiate
lower land prices.
As a practical matter, the farther along in the development process the fee is
assessed, the more likely it will passed along to buyers. Assessing the fee at the building
permit stage has the advantage of raising revenue approximately when the impact is felt
while keeping the fee relatively far away from buyers. Assessing fees upon completion or
explicitly shifting fees to buyers will not put downward pressure on sellers of vacant,
buildable land and will instead guarantee forward linkage of the fee.
8. Communities should consider more flexible use of local improvement districts. If
communities can extend to new development lower borrowing rates and allow
repayment of the fee over a long period of time, the potentially adverse effects of
impact fees may be greatly reduced.
9. Communities should aggressively pursue subsidized housing programs offered by
the federal and state governments. Connerly (1988), for example, calculates that
the impact fee burden on lower-income households can be nearly completely
eliminated by use of federal low income housing tax credits.
10. Some communities pay the impact fee for lower- and middle-income housing from
the general fund or other sources. This has many attractive features. First, there
is little adverse impact on the construction of affordable housing. Second, the
impact fee revenues are in fact raised and put into necessary, earmarked accounts
for use by specific facilities. Third, it is the community at -large that subsidizes such
housing with payment of the fees. Loveland, Colorado, and Broward County,
Florida, are among communities that do this.
Communities should consider an impact fee mitigation policy package comprised of the
combination of those policies that together show the greatest promise for offsetting the
impacts of impact fees.
Source: "A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees" by
James C. Nicholas, Arthur C. Nelson, Julian Juergensmeyer
Course notebook from 1991 seminar on Development Impact Fees
81
CITY OF LODI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
;:
Development bnpact..Mitigatiorr
RAE = Residential Acre Equivalent
1991 Fee and
Service Charge Schedule
Revised Draft -
6/20/91
1
r
Land Use Category Total Fee Water Sewer Storm Drainage Streets
per Acre RAE Fee/Acre RAE Fee/Acre RAE Fee/Acrel RAE Fee/Acre
Residential
Low Density 339,160
Medium Density 359,820
High Density 3105,200
East Side Residential 541,130
Planned Low Density 839,160
Planned Med. Density 359,820
Planned High Density 3105,200
Commercial
Neighborhood 340,280
General 348.270
Downtown 340,280
Office $53,530
Industrial
Light 529,930
Heavy 328,870
Residential
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
East Side Residential
Planned Low Density
Planned Med. Density
Planned High Density
Commercial
Neighborhood
General
Downtown
Office
Industrial
Light
Heavy
See Note 4.
1.00 35.500 1.00 31,080 1.00 37,380 1.00 35,380
1.96 310,/bv 1.96 32,120 1.00 37,380 1.96 510,540
3.49 319,200 3.49 53,770 1.00 37,380 3.05 316,410
1.00 35,500 1.00 $1,080 1.00 37,380 1.00 35,380
1.00 35.500 1.00 31,080 1.00 37,380 1.00 35,380
1.96 310,780 1.96 32,120 1.00 37,380 1.98 310,540
3.49 519,200 3.49 33,770 1.00 37,380 3.05 416,410
0.64 33,520 0.S4 31,020 1.33 39,820 1.90 $10,220
0.64 33,520 0.94 81,020 1.33 39,820 3.82 320,550
0.64 33,520 0.94 31,020 1.33 39,820 1.90 310,220
0.64 33,520 0.94 31,020 1.33 39,820 3.27 317,590
0.26 31,430 0.42
0.26 31,430 0.42
3450 1.33 39,820 2.00 510,760
5460 1.33 39,820 1.27 36,830
Police Fire Perks & Recreation General City
RAE Fee/Acre RAE Fee/Acre RAE Fee/Acre RAE Fee/Acre
1.00 31,130 1.00 $510 1.00 311,810 1.00 36,370
1.77 32,000 1.96 31,000 1.43 316,890 1.43 39,110
4.72 35,330 4.32 32,200 2.80 333,070 2.80 317,840
1.09 31,230 1.10 3560 1.10 312,990 1.10 37,010
1.00 31,130 1.00 5510 1.00 311,810 1.00 56,370
1.77 32.000 1.96 31.000 1.43 316.890 1.43 39,110
4.72 35,330 4.32 52,200 2.80 333,070 2.80 317,840
4.28 54,840 2.77 51,410 0.32 43,780 0.29 $5,670
2.59 52.930 1.93 5980 0.32 53,780 0.89 35,670
4.28 34,840 2.77 31,410 0.32 33.780 0.89 35,670
3.72 84,200 2.46 31,250 0.54 36,380 1.53 39,750
0.30 3340 0.64 3330 0.23 32,720 0.84 54,080
0.19 5210 0.61 3310 0.33 33,900 0.93 86.920
Reference: LMC 815.64.:ooc & Resolution 91-voc
:No ,...... .
1. Thea schedule ie a summary only; refer to the reference cited for details of applicability end interpretations.
2 LMC - Lodi Municipal Code; PWD = Public Works Department
3. Fees must be paid before work is scheduled or applicable Map/Permit issued.
4. Special area assessments or charges required by reimbursement agreements are not included in this summary.
Approved: Jack L. Ronsko, Public Works Director
Data
Page 4 of 4 May 1991 P1NDFEE4.XLS
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department
TO:
City Manager
City Council
Planning Commission
City Department Heads
Interested Parties
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: April 16, 1991
SUBJECT: Development impact Fee Study
As part of the General Plan update, the City retained the firms of Nolte and Associates and
Angus McDonald and Associates to prepare a comprehensive study of costs and financing
mechanisms for the major capital improvements needed to support the growth shown in the
General Plan. The goal is to provide needed capital improvements meeting City service
standards in a timely fashion.
The long-awaited public draft of this study is attached for your review and comment. The study
recommends eight categories (Water, Sewer, Storm Drainage, Streets, Police, Fire, Parks/
Recreation, and General City Facilities) of infrastructure fees based on the General Plan land use
designations. Table 2-2 summarizes these acreage fees.
An informal public meeting has been set for Tuesday, April 30, at 1:30 p.m., in the Carnegie
Forum, 305 West Pine Street, to review and discuss the draft study. The consultants and City
staff will make a short presentation and be available for questions. Subsequent work sessions
and public hearings will be held with the City Council. Should you have any questions or
comments in the meantime or not be able to attend the meeting, you are welcome to contact
Richard Prima or me at City Hall at 333-6706.
GI, „„„L
Jack . Ronsko
{ ^ blic Works Director
JLR/RCP/mt
Attachment
cc: Nolte and Associates
McDonald and Associates