HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 21, 1991 PH (4)CITY OF LODI
AGENDA TITLE: Consider Introduction of a Proposed Development Impact Fee Ordinance
MEETING DATE: August 21, 1991
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council:
1) review the draft development impact mitigation fee
ordinance and take the appropriate action
2) continue the Public Hearing to the September 4, 1991 City
Council meeting
3) appropriate $10,000 from the Master Storm Drain Fund (123.1) for an appraisal of
the propirty needed for the E -Basin ('Westgate Park) expansion
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
2)
3l
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
With the direction provided by the City Council at its
special meeting of June 21, staff has prepared the attached
draft fee ordinance. The draft includes:
1) the necessary findings
definitions
establishment of separate, interest-bearing funds
payment of fees at final subdivision map (or building/grading permit if there
is no final map) as directed by the Council
adoption "f the impact fee study and capital improvement program as directed by
the Council (the actual fees are to be adopted by separate resolution).
fee calculation procedure
Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE) factors for the various land use types
credit and reimbursement procedures
reference to other authority the City has with regard to development
findings regarding use and refund of fees
exemptions including City and impact fee projects and additions to
single-family dwellings
fee adjustment and waiver procedure
appeal procedure
a severability clause
miscellaneous charges to other code sections to comply with this new
ordinance
an effective date of sixty days as provided by law with a cut off for building
permits based on completed applications
standard publication requirements
One issue that was left somewhat unresolved was the acquisition cost of land for
basins, parks and other purposes. The value used in the fee study was $190,000 per
acre. Some members of the development community maintained this value was excessive
and the Council requested additicnal information. Unfortunately, accurate
APPROVED: j_ x
THOMAS A. PETERSON
Consider Introduction of a Proposed Development Impact Fee Ordinance
August 21', 1991
Page 2
information is not available. With various "options", partnership arrangements and
other purchase agreements, a true market value is not easily obtainable.
To answer this question, staff recommends that the Council authorize the hiring of
an MAI appraiser for the acquisition of the additional acreage needed for the
expansion of E -Basin (Westgate Park). With an appraised value, we can quickly
adjust the fee accordingly during the coming year.
Another item of significant discussion was the timing of payment. Staff
recommended, and the Council approved, that the fees be collected at final
subdivision map, or, if no map, at building permit. City staff met with members of
the development community on Tuesday, August 13, at their request to discuss this
issue again. They again requested that the fees, or a portion, be paid at building
permit. Since the Council has already directed otherwise, we could not accommodate
their request. However, staff did suggest an alternative that would maintain the
integrity of the fee program and provide some help to the developers, although there
are some drawbacks.
The alternative was to collect the fee at acceptance of the subdivision
improvements, subject to the following:
1) that the payment amount be guaranteed (bond, instrument of credit, etc.).
This could be included in the normal subdivision improvement guaranty.
2) that interest be paid.
The recommended rate to use would be same as the latest quarterly rate earned on
City investments in the Local Agency Investment Fund.
3) that if credits for improvements made by the developer are provided, then that
amount of fees could not be deferred.
The program and ordinance recognizes that the developer may construct
improvements that are the responsibility of the fee program, thus credits toward
fees would be provided for this work. If a credit was provided and the fees
deferred, then the City might not have the funds in the program to pay the
credit.
4) that an administrative charge be made.
A charge for the additional paperwork, including administrative overhead, should
be made since such a deferral arrangement will require more work. A flat charge
would be reasonable since the amount of work is the same for the various size
projects we envision. A relatively high charge covering all pertinent costs
will also discourage deferrals on small mounts.
5) that appropriate wording covering the above be included in the subdivision
agreement
In addition to the above, the ordinance should provide the ability to deny a
deferral if the funds are needed for an impact fee project that is to be built by
the City within the time frame of the subdivision improvements.
The drawback to this, aside from the additional staff time involved, is that the
City would be in the money lending business, a position which we have always avoided
in the past. Council should consider the implications of this decision.
CCDEVIMP/TXTW.OIL (CO. COM) August 14, 1991
Consider Introduction of a Proposed Development Impact Fee Ordinance
August 21, 1991
Page 3
Finatly, the development impact mitigation fee ordinance is ready to introduce
unless Council wishes to incorporate the changes described above or any other
changes. The attached draft is the same as the one distributed at the Council
meeting on August 7 meeting with the following minor changes:
° references to state law were added to the Findings and Purpose section
° a provision for the fees to be updated more frequently than annually was added to
Section 15.64.050
The ordinance could then be adopted at the September 4 Council meeting along with
the fee resolution which actually sets the fees. Since the final impact fee study
and the actual amount of the fees was not available fourteen days prior to the
Public Hearing scheduled for August 21 (as required by law), the hearing should be
continued until September 4. Staff is expecting to receive the final report the
week of August 21 and will distribute copies as soon as it is received.
FUNDING: Not applicable.
Jack L. Ronsko V
Public Wojks Director
Prepared by Richard C. Prima, Assistant City Engineer
JLR/RCP/lm
Attachment
cc: Finance Director
City Attorney
Nolte
McDonald
Mailing 1 i s t
CCDEVIMP/TXTW.OZL (CO.COM) August 14, 1991
ORDINANCE NO. 1518
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL ADDING CHAPTER 15.64 TO TITLE 15,
"BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION", OF THE LODI MUNICIPAL CODE, TO ESTABLISH
CITY-WIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION FEES; REPEALING SECTION 13.12.225,
"STORM DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE"; AND AMENDING SECTION 15.44.090, "FEES"
BE IT ORDAINED 8Y THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 15.64 is added to Title 15, "Buildings and Constructicn", of the
Lodi n cipal Code to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 15.64
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION FEES
Section
15.64.010
Findings and Purpose.
Section
15.64.020
Definitions.
Section
15.64.030
Development Impact Funds.
Section
15.64.040
Payment of Fees.
Section
15.64.050
Adoption of Study, Capital Improvement Program and Fees.
Section
15.64.060
Calculation of Fees.
Section
15.64.070
Residential Acre Equivalent Factor.
Section
15.64.080
Credit and Reimbursement for Construction of Facilities.
Section
15.64.090
Other Authority.
Section
15.64.100
Findings Regarding Use of Fees.
Section
15.64.110
Fee Exemptions.
Section
15.64.120
Fee Adjustment cr Waiver.
Section
15.64.130
Appeal Procedure.
Section
15.64.140
Severability
15.64.010 Findings and Purpose.
The Council hereby finds and declares as follows:
A. In order to implement the goals of the City of Lodi's General Plan and to
mitigate the impacts caused by new development in the City of Lodi, certain
public improvements must be or had to be constructed. The City Council hereby
determines that Development Impact Mitigation Fees are needed to finance these
public improvements and to pay for new developments' fair share of the
construction costs of these improvements. In establishing the fees described in
this chapter, the City Council finds the fees to be consistent with its General
Plan and, pursuznt to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered the
effects of the fees with respect to the City's housing needs as established in
the Housing Element of the General Plan.
6. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the General Plan requirements set
forth in subdivisions A and B of this section and to impose mitigation fees to
fund the cost of certain fscilities and services, the demand for which is
directly or indirectly generated by the type of new development proposed in the
City of Lodi General Plan, under the authority of:
° the police power of the City granted under Article XI, Section 7, of the
California Constitution;
0RD0EV/TXTW,02M
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code, Section 21000 et. seq. which in general requires that all developments
mitigate environmental impacts.
the provisions of the California Government Code regarding General Plans at
Section 65300 et. seq. including but not limited to the provisions of
Government Code Section 65400.
C. It is the further purpose of this chapter to require that adequate provisions
are made for developer -financed facilities and services within the City of Lodi
city limits as a condition to the approval of new development.
D. Development Impact Mitigation Fees are hereby established on development in the .
City of Lodi. Development Impact Mitigation Fees shall consist of separate fees
as described in Section 15.64.030 of this Code. The City Council shall, by
resolution, set forth the specific amount of the fees; describe the benefit and
impact area on which the fee is imposed; refer to the specific improvements to
be financed, their estimated cost and reasonable relationship between this fee
and the various types of new developments; and set forth time for payment.
Adoption of such fee resolutions shall be done in compliance with Governmen
Code Sections 66016 et. seq..
E. The specific improvements to be financed by the fee are described in City of
Lodi Development impact Fee Study prepared for the City of Lodi by Nolte and
Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates, dated August, 1991, a copy of which
is on file with the City Clerk. The calculation of the fee is based upon the
findings in the referenced Study.
F. New development will generate new demand for facilities which must be
accommodated by construction of new or expanded facilities. The amount of
demand generated and, therefore, the benefit gained, varies according to kind of
use. Therefore, a "residential acre equivalent" (RAE) factor was developed to
convert the service demand for each General Plan land use into a ratio of the
particular use's rate to the rate associated with a low-density, single-family
dwelling gross acre. The Council finds that the fee per unit of development is
directly proportional to the RAE associated with each particular use.
15.64.020 Definitions.
A. "Acreage" means the gross acreage for fee calculation purposes of any property
within the City of Lodi General Plan area not including the acreage of dedicated
street right-of-way existing prior to development, except that the area of new
dedicated street right-of-way in excess of 34 feet on one side of a street shall
not be included in the gross acreage.
B. "Building Permit" means the permit issued or required for the construction,
improvement or remodeling of any structure pursuant to and as defined by the
City of Lodi Building Ccde,
C. "Costs" means amounts spent, or authorized to be spent, in connection with the
planning, financing, acquisition and development of a facility or service
including, without limitation, the costs of land, construction, engineering,
administration, and consulting fees.
D. "Development" means any of the following:
1. For water, sewer and storm drainage impact fees: any new connection to the
City system or increase in service demand.
OROOEV/TX TW.02M
2. For streets impact fees: any project that increases traffic.
3. For police, fire, parks and recreation and general City facilities impact
fees: any project generating new or increased service demand.
E. "Facilities" means those public facilities designated in the City of Lodi
Development Impact Fee Study and as subsequently designated by the City Council.
F. "Land Use" means the planned use as shown on the General Plan Land Use Map
defined by the following categories based on the designations in the Lodi
General Plan:
1. Low -Density Residential - Single-family detached and attached homes,
secondary residential units, and similar uses not exceeding 7.0 units per gross
acre.
2. Medium -Density Residential - Single Family and Multi -family residential
units and similar uses between 7.1 and 20.0 units per gross acre.
3. High -Density Residential - Multi -family residential units, group quarters,
and similar uses between 20.1 and 30.0 units per gross acre.
4. East Side Residential - This designation reflects the Lodi City Council's
adoption of Ordinance No. 1409. This designation provides for single-family
detached and attached homes, secondary residential units, and similar uses not
exceeding 7.0 units per gross acre.
5. Planned Residential - Single-family detached and attached homes, secondary
residential units, multi -family residential units, and similar uses and is
applied to largely undeveloped areas in the unincorporated area of the General
Plan. All development under this designation shall be approved pursuant to a
specific development plan. As specific development plans are approved, the
planned residential designation shall be replaced with a low, medium, or high
density residential designation, or a public/quasi-public designation based on
its approved use and density.
6. Neighborhood Commercial - Neighborhood and locally -oriented retail and
service uses, public and quasi -public uses, and similar uses with a floor/area
ratio not exceeding 0.40.
7. General Commercial - Land -intensive retail and wholesale commercial uses,
public and quasi -public uses, and similar uses with a floor/area ratio not
exceeding 0.40.
8. Downtown Commercial - Restaurants, retail, service, professional and
administrative offices, hotel and motel uses, and similar uses in the downtown
area of Lodi. For purposes of this chapter, development standards and demands
are comparable to Neighborhood Commercial land use.
9. Office - Professional and administrative offices, medical and dental
clinics, laboratories, financial institutions, and similar uses with a
floor/area ratio not exceeding 0.50.
10. tight Industrial - Industrial parks, warehouses, distribution centers, light
manufacturing, and similar uses with a floor/area ratio not exceeding 0.50.
ORODEV/1'XT'/1.02M
11. Heavy Industrial - Manufacturing, processing, assembling, research,
wholesale and storage uses, trucking terminals, railroad facilities, and similar
uses with a floor/area ratio not exceeding 0.50.
12. Public/Quasi - Public - Government-owned facilities, public and private
schools, and quasi -public uses such as hospitals and churches with a floor/area
ratio not exceeding 0.50. The appropriate Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE)
factor for these uses shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Public
Works Director.
G. "Program Fee Per Residential Acre Equivalent" means the total program costs, for
a particular category of facility divided by the total number of residential
acre equivalents and adjusted for price changes up to the year of construction
and for the cost of financing, as identified in the City of Lodi Development
Impact Fee Study or subsequent update for that particular category.
H. "Residential Acre Equivalent Factor" (RAE) is a conversion factor used to
reflect the service demand for each land use, with respect to the same
characteristics for a low-density, single-family detached dwelling unit zoned in
a residential zoning category ("R -LO" low-density) based on the City of Lodi
General Plan.
15.64.030 Development Impact Funds.
The City Finance Director shall create in the City treasury the following special
interest-bearing trust funds into which all amounts collected under this chapter
shall be deposited.
A. Water Facilities
B. Sewer Facilities
1. General Sewer Facilities
2. Kettleman Lane Lift Station
3. Harney Lane Lift Station
4. Ciuff Avenue Lift Station
C. Storm Drainage Facilities
D. Street Improvements
E. Police Facilities
F. Fire Facilities
G. Parks and Recreation Facilities
H. General City Facilities and Program Administration
The fees shall be expended solely to pay the costs of facilities (including interest
on interfund loans) or to reimburse developers entitled to reimbursement under this
chapter. The funds for the categories listed above shall be kept separate. For
ORDDEV/TXTW.02M
purposes of this chapter, they are referred to in aggregate as the "Development
Impact Fee Fund".
The City Manager shall have the authority to make loans among the Development Impact
Fee Funds to assure adequate cash flow. Interest charged on each loan shall be the
same as the rate earned on other City funds.
15.64.040 Payment of Fees.
A. The property owner shall pay all Development Impact Mitigation Fees imposed
under this chapter in an amount calculated under Section 15.64.060 and
established by City Council resolution. The fees shall be paid before the
approval of a final subdivision map, building permit or grading permit,
whichever occurs first.
B. M final subdivision map, building permit or grading permit shall be approved
for property within the City of Lodi unless the Development Impact Mitigation
Fees for that property are paid as required by this chapter.
C. If a final subdivision map has been issued before the effective date of this
Ordinance, then the fees shall be paid before the issuance of a building permit
or grading permit, whichever comes first.
15.64.050 Adoption of Study, Capital Improvement Program and Fees.
A. The City Council hereby adopts the City of Lodi Development Impact Fee Study
dated August, 1991 and establishes a future Capital Improvement Program
consisting of the projects shown in said study. The City Council shall review
that Study annually, or more often if it deems it appropriate, and may amend it
by resolution at its discretion.
B. The City Council shall include in the City's annual Capital Improvement Program
appropriations from the Development Impact Fee Funds for appropriate projects.
C. Except for facilities approved by the Public Works Director for construction by
a prooerty owner under Section i5.64.080 or as shown in the annual Capital
Improvement Program, a?l facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the
schedule established in the Development Impact Fee Study.
D. The Program Fee per Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE) shall be adopted by
resolution and shall be updated annually, or more frequently if directed by the
City Council, by resolution after a noticed public hearing. The annual update
shall be based on a report by the Public Works Director including the estimated
cost of the public improvements, the continued need for those improvements, and
the reasonable relationship between such need and the impacts of the various
types of development pending or anticipated and for which this fee is charged.
In the absence of substantial changes in the projects or unit prices, the change
in project cost shall be estimated by the change in the Engineering News Record
20 Cities Construction Cost Index.
15.64.060 Calculation of Fees.
The Development Impact Mitigation Fees required under Section 15.64.040 are
calculated as follows:
F = P x RAE
0RDDEV/TXTW.02M
T = A x F
where
A = acreage, computed to the nearest 0.01 acre;
F = fee per acre per land use category as shown on the General Plan Land Use
Map, rounded to the nearest $10;
P = program fee per residential acre equivalent; and
RAE = the residential acre equivalent (RAE) factor for the appropriate land use
category (see Section 15.64.070);
T = the total mitigation fee for each category of public facility.
The calculated fees are subject to adjustment per section 15.64.120 of this Code.
15.64.070 Residential Acre Equivalent Factor.
A. The residential acre equivalent factor is based on the Development Impact Fee
Study.
B. The residential acre equivalent (RAE) factors are as follows:
15.64.080 Credit and Reimbursement for Construction of Facilities
A. Construction of facilities in Program Year
0R00E`1/TXTW.02M
Storm
Paries &
i'fneral C i ty
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Streets
Police
Fire
Recr�+ticn
Facilities
Land Use categories
RAE
RAE
RAE
RAE
RAE
RAE
RAE
RAE
RESIDENTIAL
ty
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Mediun Density
195
1.96
1.00
1 _ %3.77
1.96
1.43
1.43
High [Density '
3.49
3.49
1.00
3.05
4.72
432
280
280
East Sicb Ras i denti al
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.09
1.10
1.10
1.10
RAM RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Mediun Density
1.96
1%
1.00
L96
1.77
1.96
1.43
1.43
High Density
3.49
3.39
1.00
3.05
4.72
4.32
2.80
280
CCNNEKIAL
Nei rtKW C=rercial
064
0.94
1.33
190
428
2.77
0.32
0.89
Geral Courertial
0.64
094
1.33
3.82
259
1.93
0.32
089
Downtown Camiercial
0.64
0.94
1.33
1.90
428
2.77
0.32
089
Office Connercial
0.64
094
133
327
3.72
246
0.54
1.53
INDJSTRIAL
Li t ndustrial
026
0.42
1.33
200
0.30
0.64
023
0.64
Heavy Industrial
026
0.42
1.33
127
0.19
0.61
0.33
0.93
15.64.080 Credit and Reimbursement for Construction of Facilities
A. Construction of facilities in Program Year
0R00E`1/TXTW.02M
1. The Public Works Director may direct or authorize the owner to construct
certain facilities specified in the Development Impact Fee Study, or portions
thereof, at the time and as designated in the Study, in lieu of all, or a
portion of, the fee required by this chapter. The owner is entitled to a credit
if the owner: (1) constructs the improvements, (2) finances an improvement by
cash or other means approved by the Council, or (3) a combination of the above.
The credit to be provided to the property owner shall be determined by the
Public Works Director based on prevailing construction costs plus 10%for
engineering and administration and shall be approved by the Council. The
construction of a facility authorized by this section must consist of a usable
facility or segment and be approved by the City and constructed in accordance
with the City of Lodi's Public Improvement Design Standards. The property owner
must post a bond or other security in a form acceptable to the Director for the
complete performance of the construction before credit is given.
2. If the amount of the credit is less than the amount of the otherwise
applicable fee, the property owner shall pay the amount which, what added to the
credit received for the construction of facilities, equals the fee obligation.
3. If the amount of the credit is greater than the amount of the otherwise
applicable mitigation fee, the property owner shall be paid the difference only
from the appropriate Development Impact Fee Fund, after the project is accepted
by the City, and at the end of the year in which the project is planned to be
completed under the Study.
R Construction of Facilities Prior to Program Year
1. If the construction described in subsection A occurs before the fiscal year
for which construction is scheduled under the Study, the property owner shall
receive no immediate credit against the applicable fee. The property owner
shall be reimbursed from the appropriate Development Impact Fee fund at the end
of the year in which the project is planned under the Study Program Year. The
reimbursable amount shall be the estimated cost of the facility as determined in
sub -section A.I. With specific approval of the Council, reimbursement rrxy occur
after the year in which the project is planned, if in the opinion of the Public
Works Director, the delay is necessary to assure the orderly implementation of
the City Capital Improvement Program,
2. To implement this subsection 8.1, the property owner and the City shall
first enter into a reimbursement agreement. In addition to its other terms, the
agreement shall provide that:
(a) the general fund of the City is not liable for payment of any
obligations arising from the agreement;
(b) the credit or taxing power of the City is not pledged for the payment of
any obligations arising from the agreement;
(c) the land owner shall not compel the exercise of the City taxing
power or the forfeiture of any of its property to satisfy any
obligations arising from the agreement;
(d) the obligation arising from the agreement is not a debt of the City, nor
a legal or equitable pledge, charge, lien, or encumbrance, upon any of
its property, or upon any of its income, receipts, or revenues, and is
payable only from the fees deposited in the appropriate City of Lodi
Development Impact Fee Fund;
(e) the reimbursable amount shall be increased annually to include an amount
attributable to interest. This amount shall be based on the change in
the Engineering News Record 20 Cities Construction Cost Index from the
ORODEV/TXTW.02M
January 1 index of the year of construction to the January 1 index of
the year of reimbursement.
15.64.090 -Other Authority.
A. This chapter is intended to establish a supplemental method for funding the cost
of certain facilities and services, the demand for which will be generated by
the level and type of development proposed in the Lodi General Plan. The
provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to limit the power of the City
Council to impose any other fees or exactions or to continue to impose existing .
ones on development within the City of Lodi, but shall be in addition to any
other requirements which the City Council i s authorized to impose, or has
previously imposed, as a condition of approving a plan, rezoning or other
entitlement within the City of Lodi. In particular, individual property owners
shall remain obligated to fund, construct, and/or dedicate the improvements,
public facilities and other exactions required by, but not limited to, the City
of Lodi Municipal Code, Public Improvement Design Standards and other applicable
documents. Any credits or reimbursements under Section 15.64.080 shall not
include the funding, construction, or dedications described in this subsection.
15.64.100 Findings Regarding Use of Fees.
A. As required under Government Code Section 66001(d) , the City shall make findings
once each fiscal year with respect to any portion of the fee remaining
unexpended or uncommitted in its account five or more years after deposit of the
fee, to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put and demonstrate a
reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged,
B. As required under Government Code Section 66001(e), the City shall refund to the
current record owner on a prorated basis the unexpended or uncommitted portion
of the fee, and any interest accrued thereon, for which need cannot be
established.
15.64.110 Fee Exemptions.
The following developments are exempt from payment of fees described in this chapter:
A. City of todi projects;
B. Projects constructed or financed under this chapter;
C. Reconstruction of, or residential additions to single-family dwellings, but not
including additional dwelling units;
D. Property which has paid a Master Storm Drain fee pursuant to Resolution 3618 or
Ordinance 1440 is exempt from payment of the Storm Drainage Impact Fee except
for changes in land use as described in the Fee resolution.
15.64.120 Fee Adjustment or Waiver.
A. The owner of a project subject to a fee under this chapter may apply to the
Public Works Director for an adjustment to or waiver of that fee. The waiver of
this fee shall be based upon the absence of any reasonable relationship between
the impact on public facilities of that development and either the amount of fee
charged or the type of facilities to be financed.
0RDDEV/TXTW.02M
B. The application for adjustment or waiver shall be made in writing and filed with
the City Clerk no later than ten days after formal notification of the fee to be
charged. The application shall state in detail the factual basis and legal
theory for the claim of adjustment or waiver.
C. It is the intent of this chapter that:
1. The land use categories are based on General Plan designations which are an
average of a wide range of specific land uses; thus substantial variation
must be shown in order to justify a fee adjustment,
2. The Public Works Director may calculate a fee and/or require additional
improvements where the service denrnd of a particular land use exceeds the
standards shown in the definitions or used in (+,,',:rmining the improvements
needed under the fee program,
3. The fee categories shall be considered individually; thus it may occur that
a fee adjustment or waiver is made in one category and not another, and
4. Where improvements providing capacity fur the subject parcel have already
been constructed, a downward adjustment of the fee is not appropriate.
D. The Public Weis Director shall consider the application at an informal hearing
held within 60 days after the filing of the fee adjustment or waiver
application. The decision of the Public Warks Director is appealable pursuant
to Section 15.64.130.
E. The applicant bears the burden of proof in presenting substantial evidence to
support the application. The Public Works Director shall consider the following
factors in its determination whether or not to approve a fee adjustinent or
waiver:
1. The factors identified in Government Code Section 66001:
The purpose and proposed uses of the fee;
° The type of development;
° The relationship between the, fee's use and type of development;
° The need for the improvements and the type of development; and
° The amount of the fee and the portion of it attributable to the
development; and
2. The substance and nature of the evidence including the Development Impact
Fee Study and the applicant's technical data supporting its request. The
applicant must present comparable technical information to show that the fee
is inappropriate for the particular development.
15.64.130 Appeal Procedure.
A. The Public Warks Director is responsible for administering, collecting,
crediting, adjusting, and refunding development fees. A decision by the Public
Works Director regarding a fee imposed under this chapter is appealable in
accordance with this section. A person seeking judicial review shall first seek
an appeal hearing under this section.
DRDDEV/TXTW.02M
B. A person appealing a decision under this chapter shall file a request with the
Public Works Director Wu is responsible for processing the appeal. The appeal
shall be in writing, stating the factual and legal grounds, and shall be filed
within ten calendar days following the decision of the Public Works Director
being appealed.
C. The Public Wcd<s Director shall notify the City Manager of the appeal. The City
Manager shall set the matter for hearing before the City Council and notify the
person appealing in writing of the time and place.
D. The City Council shall conduct the hearing, prepare written findings of fact and
a written decision on the matter, and shall preserve the complete administrative'
record of the proceeding. The Council shall consider all relevant evidence
presented by the appellant, the Public Works Director or other interested party.
E. The decision of the City Council is final; it is reviewable by a court under
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.
F. The City of Lodi hereby adopts Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 for the
purposes of judicial review under this section. A petition seeking review of a
decision under this Chapter shall be filed not later than the 90th day following
the date on which the decision of the hearing officer becomes final."
15.64.140
If any provision or clause of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any
person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or to be otherwise invalid by
any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other
Ordinance provisions or clauses or applications thereof which can be implemented
without the invalid provision or clause or application, and to this end the
provisions and clauses of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.
SBCTION 2. Repeal. Section 13.12.225 "Storm Drainage Impact Fee" is repealed.
SBCHON Amendniat. Section 15.44.090 "Fees" is amended to read:
"The then -current applicable development fees must be paid prior to the issuance of
a building permit, or allowing the development to proceed, including:
A. Development Impact Mitigation Fees
B. Wastewater Connection Fee
C. Engineering Fee
D. Other established development fees and fees for service."
SECTION 4. Effective Date, This ordinance takes effect 60 days after its
adoption. For purposes of this Chapter, building permit applications accepted and
deemed complete prior to the effective date shall not he subject to the Ordinance.
SBCHON Publication. The City Clerk shall either: (a) have this ordinance
published once within 15 days after adoption in a newspaper of general circulation,
or (b) have a suemrjay of this ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general
circulation, once 5 days before its adoption and again within 15 days after its
adoption.
ORODEV/TXTW.02M
Theforegoing ordinance was introduced a t a meeting of the City Council of the City
of Lodi held on , 1991, and was adopted and ordered published at a
meeting of the City Council held on , 1991, by the following vote:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
ORDDEV/TXTW.02M
...,.. ......... ;........................ . ----- ..............
CITY ®F L®1J August I N` ^� CE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date' 21, 1991
c4�is P CARNEGIE FORUM
305 !Fest Pine Street, Lodi Time: 7:30 p.m.
For information regarding this Public Hearing
Ptease Contact:
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
Telephone: 333-6702
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
August 21, 1991
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a
public hearing to consider the following matter:
a) Introduction of a proposed Development Impact Fee Ordinance
entitled, "An Ordinance of the Lodi City Council Adding Chapter
15.64 to Title 15, 'Buildings and Construction', of the Lodi
Municipal Code, to Establish City -Wide Development Impact
Mitigation Fees; Repealing Section 13.12.225, 'Storm Drainage
Impact Fee'; and Amending Section 15.44.090, 'Fees"'.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the
Community Development Director at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California.
All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this
matter. Written state ments 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 corraspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West
Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing.
By Order Of the Lodi City Council:
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
Dated: August 7, 1991
Approved as to form:
Bob6. Jatt
City Attorney
CITY COUNCIL
DAVID M.-NINCHMAN_ Mayor
JAMES W. PINKERTON. Jr,
Mayor Pro Tempore
PHILLIPA. FENNINO
JACK A. SIECLOCK
JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI. CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
(209) 334-5634
FAX Q09) 333.6795
August 15, 1991
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Manager
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
BOB McNATT
City Attorney
SUBJECT Consider Introduction of a Proposed Development Impact
Fee Ordinance
Dear Property Owner/Resident:
Enclosed is a copy of background information on an item that will be
discussed at the City Councii meeting on Wednesday, August 21, 1991, at
7:30 p.m. The meeting will be held i n the City Council Chamber, Carnegie
Forum, 305 West Pine Street. Yca are welcome to attend.
If you wish to communicate with the City Council, please contact
Alice Reimche, City Clerk, a t (209) 333-6702.
If you have any questions about the item, please call Tile at
(209),333-6706.
r
Assistant City Engineer
RCP/1m
!0EVIMP/TXTW.02M
g
3 FINAL REPORT
CITY OF LODI
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
AUGUST 1991
3
PREPARED BY:
t
3 NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES'
ANGUS MCDONALD AND ASSOCIATES
D R A F T (8/21/91)
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION FEES
FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF LODI
WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 1518, creating and
establishing the authority for imposing and charging Development Impact Mitigation
Fees in the City of Lodi; and
WHEREAS, studies have been made and data gathered on the impact of contemplated
future development on existing public facilities in the City of Lodi, along with an
analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by new
development; and
WHEREAS, the relationship between new development, the needed facilities, and the
estimated cost(s) of these improvements is included in the study entitled
"Development Impact Fee Study" prepared by Nolte and Associates and Angus McDonald &
Associates dated August 1991; and
WHEREAS, such information was available for public inspection and review 14 days
prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that:
1. The purpose of these fees is to finance Water, Sewer, Storm Drainage, Streets,
Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and General City facilities and to reduce
the facility service impacts and related problems caused by new development
within the City of Lodi;
2. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance only the
public facilities described or identified in said study;
3. After considering available information and data, and the testimony received at
the public hearing, the Council approves said study and incorporates such study
herein, and further finds that new development within the City of Lodi will
generate additional impacts within the General Plan area and will contribute to
the degradation of the existing facilities and the overall quality of life in
that area;
4. There is a demand in this described impact area for such facilities which have
not been constructed or have been constructed, but new development has not
contributed its fair share toward these facility costs and said facilities have
been called for in or are consistent with the City of Lodi's General Plan, and
or appropriate Master Plans.
5. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable
relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the
impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged,
RESDEV/TXTW.02M
8
and, also there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type
of development for which the fee is charged, as these reasonable relationships
or nexus are in more detail described in the studies and data referenced above;
6. It is appropriate to establish the fees on a city-wide basis in order to
construct facilities in a timely and cost-effective manner and reduce the demand
for replacement of existing facilities in order to accommodate r�ew development;
except for those sewer lift stations needed to serve a specific area;
7. The cost estimates set forth in the Study are reasonable cost estimates for
constructing these facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by new
development w i 11 not exceed the total of such costs plus a finance charge where
interfund borrowing is necessary to fund improvements in a timely manner;
8. The City has appropriated funds and established a Capital Improvement Program
which includes the projects shown in the Study;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Lodi City Council that:
1. DEFINITIONS.
The definitions containe-' in Ordinance 1518, Lodi Municipal Code
Section 15.64. 020 , are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.
2. FEES.
The City Council hereby repeals Resolution 88-165 "Storm Drainage Fee", adopted
December 21, 1988, and Resolution 89-186 "Amending Storm Drainage Fees", adopted
December 20, 1989, and herein provides for a fee structure for public facilities
as follows:
C i ty Wi de Fees
FEE CATEGORY FEE PER RE91DENML ACRE B3 LWAIENf (RAE
1.
Water
$
5,710.00
2.
Sewer
$
1,090.00
3.
Storm Drainage
$
7,910.00
4.
Streets
$
5,470.00
5.
Police
$
1,110.00
6.
Fire
$
520.00
7.
Parks and Recreation
$11,980.00
8.
General City Facilities
$
6,380.00
Supplemental Specific Area Fees
A. Kettleman Lane Lift Station $ 1,610.00
B. Harney Lane Lift Station $ 830.00
C. Cluff Avenue Lift Station $ 1,170.00
The Kettleman Lane Lift Station area consists of approximately 102 acres bounded on
the south by the north right -of way of Kettleman lane (State Highway 12); on the
east by the west line of the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal right-of-way; on
the north by the south line of the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal right-of-way
RESDEV/TXTW.02M
and the quarter -quarter Section Line north of Kettleman Lane and on the west by the
property line located approximately 1185 feet east of the centerline of Lower
Sacramento Road, plus the area of Tract No. 2378, Sunwest Unit No. 12 as filed for
record in Book 30, Maps and Plats at page 52, San Joaquin County records, all as
shown on Exhibit A.
The Harney Lane Lift Station area consists of approximately 292 acres bounded on the
south by the north right-of-way of Harney Lane; on the east by the west line of the
Woodbridge Irrigation District; on the north, east of Lower Sacramento Road by the
quarter -quarter Section Line north of Harney Lane, and west of Lower Sacramento Road
by the property line located approximately 2300 feet north of the center line of
Harney Lane; and on the west by the General Plan Boundary, approximately 1/2 mile
west of Lower Sacramento Road as shown cn Exhibit B.
The Cluff Avenue Lift Station area consists of approximately 158 acres bounded on
the south by the right-of-way of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPT)
tracks along Victor Road (State Highway 12); on the east by the right-of-way of the
Central California Traction Cly (CCT); on the north by the Mokelumne River and
on the west by the property lines approximately one-eighth mile west of the
centerline of Guild Avenue; plus the 7.7 acre parcel located east of the CCT and
north of the SPT shown as Parcel A per the Parcel Map filed for record in Eook 11 of
Parcel Maps at page 73 San Joaquin County Records.
3. CALCL AIEN OF FEE.
Development Impact Mitigation Fees shall be calculated by the Publ is Works
Director in accordance with Chapter 15.64 of the Lodi Municipal Code and this
resolution.
The project acreage shall exclude portions of property left vacant and not to be
used for storage, parking, or other uses related to the project. Where the
project adds to or incorporates existing buildings or improvements, the acreage
shall be adjusted by the Public Works Director to account for this existing
use. For purposes of this section, "existing" shall mean any building or
improvement which is in existence or for which a permit has been obtained upon
the effective date of this resolution.
Where projects include a change in land use categories, the appropriate
difference in RAE factors shall be computed by the Public Works Director.
Where theproject results in a less intensive land use involving a lower RAE
factor, a fee credit in lieu of a refund shall be made. Record of the previous
higher RAE factor shall be maintained by the Public Works Director for that
parcel for a period of time not to exceed ten years and shall, during that time,
be applied toward future improvements on that parcel.
4. EFFECTIVE DATE
The Development Impact Fees adopted in this Resolution shall take effect
immediately upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 1518. For projects
in which an agreement and menrorand rn of understanding for public improvement
fees has been executed and a final map or building permit has been approved,
such fees shall be due and payable thirty days after the above effective date or
thirty days after billing by the City, whichever is later.
RESDEV/TXTW.02M
I hereby certify that Resolution N. 91- was passed and adopted byte Ci
Council of the City of Lodi in a regulaf —meeting held the
following vote:
Ayes Council embers
Noes: Councilmembers
Absent: Councilmembers
.Al ice M. Reimche
City Clerk
CITY OF •
PUBLIC WORES DEPARTMENT
SERVICE AREA s = —
Approx. 102 Acres
00 —14
KETTLEMAN LANE
LIFT STATION
SERVICE AREA
K�
O
zz
LOWER SACRAMENTO.ROAD
a
D,.J/H bo. Dttt Rtrioon A00►•
chDo E }
"8/9t
DISTRICT CANAL
F
APPS7X.
230 d
MMIK7
GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY*
N.T. 5 -
Or 7j On
Revigion Appr.
ch.
Dole g1j1
Z 9/-,/
SERVICE AREA - m a
Approx. 292 Acres
EXHIBIT B
`109 O [ kO
lr O OF •
DI
n , P
WORKSPUBLIC
V f R, • • • NOTE: FLOOD PLAIN NOTINCLUDED 1N ARFA TOIAL
v
i
U
lu
U .
a
i
i.
r
z
SERVICE AREAS *�
A
3
Approx. 158 Acres
a
TURNER RD.
ci
�/B Ali/C
�lppiaX.
f
's .
I
7.7 AC.
?,
S. P. T.
x
II
_
VICTOR ROAD
(STATE HWY. NO. 12)
F
Manteca
August 20, 1991
2529-88-00
t�
M Jack Ronsko
Director of Public Works
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
i Lodi, CA 95240
r
SUBJECT: DEY11OPMENT MALT FEE SIUDY FINAL REQCXtT
i
Dear 114 Ronsko:
This report has been prepared for the City of Lodi to evaluate the capital
E improvements required to serve expanding areas of the City identified in the
General Plan. The primary objectives of the study were to identify capital
improvements, prepare estimates of probable construction cost, forecast the
timing of capital improvements, and develop a financing plan to fund the
construction of the capital improvements.
The principal results of the study are summarized in Chapter 2, Methodology
and Results. All comments received from the City and others on the draft
report have been incorporated into this final version.
W appreciate the assistance and cooperation ve received from City staff
during the course of the study. Richard Prima deserves special recognition
for his tireless efforts on the project.
It has been our pleasure to serve the City of Lodi on this important project
and vie look forward to again serving the City on future projects.
Very truly yours,
NOLTE ANDA OCIATES
Q.cn,aoefc... �t0� ESs//off
F. Wal y Sandel in-;�
Group Manager
FWS/ler (CL1223-B) C 39895 f'r
B.P.
11
Enclosure Jq lV►�. '�,.
NOLTE and ASSOCIATES
Engineers/ Planners/ Surveyors
S
rmII
123 North Sycamore Avenue, Suite 101, Manteca. CA 95336 Tel: (209)239-9080
.:. �. t'.....,'.. .war ........... ............. _, a..,r.. .n .. ... .,'n ',,. .,. ..... ....'. .. .. .. ......... ..r1. r �. .. -. ... ..... ., � .. ..+..., ..-.
FINAL 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
(41S) 548-5831
August 1991
=i
>$
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F�
Sectio
Page No.
z
,,.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
2
F.�
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
1
Streets and Raads
7
Parks and Recreation
8
Police, Fire and General Facilities
8
Identifying Projects Curing Existing Deficiencies
8
Interfund Borrowing
8
Detailed Methodology
9
Summary of Fees
10
Changes In Land Use Entitlements
10
t
CHAPTER 3 WATER SERVICE
14
OVERVIEW
14
Supply
14
Distribution System
14
Water Master Plan
15
Water Reimbursement Pol icy
15
Existing Deficiencies
16
PLANNED WATER FACILITIES
16
Supply
27
Distribution System
27
Treatment
27
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
28
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
28
Relationship of Water Projects to New Development
28
~`
Relationship of Water Projects to Land Uses
29
i
ar 033AS
s
TABLE OF CONTENTS
!01
Section
Page No.
Recommended Fees
29
CHAPTER 4 SEWER SERVICE
31
OVERVIEW
31
Collection System
31
Treatment and Disposal
31
Master Sewerage Plan
31
Sewer Reimbursement Policy
Existing Deficiencies
32
32
PLANNED SEWERAGE FACILITIES
33
CollectionSb stem
Treatment � 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
Detention Basins
42
43
Master Storm Drainage Plan
43
Master Storm Drainage Fee
43
PLANNED SFOPJq DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
43
Collection System
44
Detention Basins
44
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
44'
Relationship of Storm Drainage
Projects to New Development
49
Relationship of Storm Drainage
Projects to Land Uses
49
Recommended Fees
49
CHAPTER 6 STREETS AND ROADS
51
how
OVERVIEW
51
Existing Traffic Conditions
51
Circulation Plan
51
Existing Deficiencies
51
eM
Itmoll"
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page No.
PLANNED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
52
Developer Required Improvements
52
Street and Road Improvements
62
Freeway Improvements
62
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
65
Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to New Development
65
Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to Land Uses
66
Recommended Fees
66
Regional Facilities
66
CHAPTER.? POLICE
68
OVERVIEW.
68
Level. of .:Service
68
Existing Police Facilities
68
Existin4..Deficiencies:.
69
PLANNEO.POLICE-FACILITIES-
69
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
69
DEVELOPMENT .IMPACT FEE ...�. .
72
Relationship of Police Pto,jects to New Development
72
e 0 .0
'Relationship f Police Projects to Land Uses
72
Recommended Fees
72
•
CHAPTER:- 8: IRE.
74
..OVERVIEW'.
74
Level.ofService.
74
Existing Fire.Facilities
74
Existing Deficiencies.
74
PLANNEDIIRE FACILITIES
74'
..ESTIMATED COSTAND-PHASING
76
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
76
Relationship of Fire Projects to New Development
76
Relationship of Fire Projects to Land Uses
76
Recommended Fees
76
KP0033"
w
TABLE OF CONTENTS
:E
Section
CHAPTER 9 PARKS AND RECREATION
OVERVIEW
Level of Service
It Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
Existing Deficiencies
PLANNED PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
j .
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
a.
'3
iv
J
S�
J
TO
f
Page No.
78
78
78
78
80
80
87
87
87-
87
87
89
89
89
89
89
89
93
93
93
93
RP003W
Paqe No.
26
36
48
63
64-
86
RPM33AS
4 !;
f
LIST OF FIGURES
Fiqure Number
F
Ti 1
3-1
Water System Improvements
4-1
Sanitary Sewer System Improvements
5-1
Storm Drainage Improvements
6-1
Typical "Street Section
6-2
Street Improvements
9-1
Parks and Recreation Improvements
Paqe No.
26
36
48
63
64-
86
RPM33AS
►
LIST OF TABLES
on
Table Nunber
Title Pa4e No.
ti
2-1
Summary of Estimated Major Capital Improvement
5
t
Program Costs and Funding Services
r
2-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - All Fees
11
3-1
Development Rel ated Capital Costs and
- Water
17
Phasing
3-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Water
30
4-1
Development Related Capital Costs and
34
Phasing - Sewer
38-
8"4-3
6i
4-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Sewer
4-3
Sewer Sub -Zone Fee Calculations
40
5-1
Development Related Capital Costs
45
and Phasing - Storm Drainage
50
5-2
-
Summary of Development Impact Fees Storm Drainage
6-1
Development Related Capital Costs and
-
53
Phasing Streets and Roads
6-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Streets
and Roads
67
7-1
Existing Deficiencies Analysis - Pol ice
70
..�
7-2
Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - Police
71
7-3
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Pol ice
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
81
9-3
Existing Deficiencies Analysis - Parks and Recreation
82
9-4
Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - Parks
83
and Recreatians
1
...r
yr
RP0033AS
h
F
Table Number
mit]
Pane No.
9-5
Sminny of Development Impact Fees - Parks and
88
Recreation
14
10-1
Existing Deficiencies Analysis - City Hall
90
Facilities
10-2
Development Rel ated Capital Costs and Phas ng - General City
Facilities
93
a
10-3
Stimrrxy of Development Impact Fees - General City
94
Facilities
APPENDIX A
96
P"
Y
I
s
enM
d
f
..r
Vi i
RP0033AB
f
3
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
14
INTRODUCTION
The enactment of AB 1600 (Government Code §66000 et. seq.) has generated
14 formal and stringent requirements for documenting the basis for valid
development impact fees. In response to the changing legal climate, as well
00 as the desire to have a comprehensive financing plan for the various public
and numerous new facilities in Lodi, the current fees must be updated and new
numerous fees need to be implemented.
The goal of the Development I act Fee Study 1s to prepare development impact
fees which will provicre 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
Thepurpose 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 f4nance 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, thelanninveriod
was broken down into fiscal year increments: 1991/92, 1992/&3, 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) , Stcrm Drainage, Streets and Roads, Police, Fire, and General City
facilities. Capital costs included in the General City facilities category
are, for example, city hall expansion, library expansion, fee program
monitoring, parking lot construction, and miscellaneous projects not falling
RP0033-8
V�
e
W
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 supMiers. Estimates of cost are based upon
January 1, 1990 dollars throughout this report. The Engineering News Record
20 -Cities Average Construction Cost Index for January 1990 was, at that time,
4673. The cash flow model inflates the actual expenditures for public
improvements (for both land and construction costs using the above index) to
the midpoint of each fiscal year.
Background - Development Forecast
The first step in calculating a valid development impact fee is to prepare a
forecast of the timing and rate at which the City will develop. This forecast
must be consistent with Lodi's General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance.
The development forecast serves two purposes:
• The development forecast provides the basis for determining when the
required infrastructure 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 planning
period determines the amount of the fee and the development in any
particular year determines the total dollars that are available to fund
improvement projects.
The forecast of final mapping was prepared per gross acre by the City of Lodi
and is presented in Appendix A. Because the City will collect development
impact fees at the time of the final subdivision 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 on 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 supply or roadway improvements) relative to the use
2 RP00318
't
!! or burden placed on those improvements by an acre of single family dwellings
�i in the low-density residential category.
As one simple example, the water service RAE factors reflect relative water
consumption. Since the Low Density residential category is selected as the
`4 use from which all other land uses are measured, this land use cate or has a
RAE factor for all services equal 1.0 RAE per acre. All other RAE fac ors for
the category of public services being considered are scaled relative to this
�! "base" RAE factor for the Low Density Residential land use category.
tri
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 density as shown below.
Land Use Population Unit Density
m. .
Lour 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 demanc per acre can be calculated as follows:
Low Density' Demand = 2.75 x 5 x 285 = 3,919 gal/day/acre
Medium Density: Demand = 2.25 x 12 x 285 = 7,695 gal/day/acre
Rv this mPthnd the rpsults'inrficaie that the demand of medium density
residential land exerts a 2 times (7695/3919 = 1.96) greater demand upon water
supply and transmission facilities than does low density residential.
Therefore, a RAE factor of 1.96 is assigned to medium density residential for
water remembering, of.course, that low density residential is the baseline
hav:. ng a. P14E x of : ".
t
3
RP0033-8
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES
Capital improvement projects to support the Proposed General Plan and other
City improvements are to be funded through a number of sources. In the course
of identifying Proposed General Plan capital improvements, a number of
existing deficiencies were identified in each of the service areas that are
not to be funded by development impact fees. City staff has projected, where
possible, the sources of funds to finance those projects and/or portions of
projects that are not development related as summarized in Table 2-1.
During the course of assembling the information included in this report and
summarized in Table 2-1, a number of capital improvement plans, old and new,
were reviewed. Information has been taken from these capital improvement
plans and has been included in the table. Because the planning horizon for
the capital improvement plans provided by the City are not synchronized with
the General Plan period, the totals for capital improvements in Table 2-1 are
not comparable to past City plans.
Phasing of Improvements for Maximum Efficiency
The matching of required public improvement projects to revenues from the
development impact fee program was an iterative process that included close
coordination with the Growth Management Plan. Two objectives were served:
The location and timing of new public improvements in Lodi were planned to
help assure an orderly and cost-efficient pattern of development.
• Public improvements were timed to assure that Level of Service (LOS)
targets for each service were reasonably maintained.
Insofar as practical, the growth rates that are part of the Growth Management
Plan can be accommodated throuohout the City. Development can occur
simultaneously in several areas of the City, rather than be concentrated in
one area at a time. A temporary quasi -monopoly on supply of developable land
is avoided.
The following paragraphs describe some of the basic assumptions and concepts
that were used in arriving at project phasing. Additional information
concerning specific facilities is included at the end.
Assumptions/Concepts
The following assumptions and concepts guided the process of preparing the
development forecast and staging of public improvements to meet LOS targets.
4
RPW33•B
—,�, ,---�- tr, pr+.r rr..t fs1a9 A !�M f�e1t till$ til tt;rYl1 OIiM � tfi� �
TABLE 2-1 21 -An
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES
STORM SAN
STATE AND GASTAX
DEVELOPMEi
PROGRAM GENERAL
I
WATER SEWER DRAIN JOAQUIN
FEDERAL FUNDS
MEASUREW
IMPACTFEE
.
r1F_4(_RIPTI0N COSTS(11 FUND
FUND FUND FUND COUNTY
FUND TDA
FUNDS
OTHER
FUND (2)
.
' t Water Service 210,931,525 to
$1.828.000 to so to
to to
$0
to
.: 59.303.52;
2 8~SerAm(3) $3,013,920 to
to $1.005.500 so to
to to
30
$830.800 (4)
. =1.888.92:
3. Storm Drainpe $17,285.707 3930,000
to to $121.000 to
to to
to
to
$18,234.70:
Strealsand Roeds $45,100,937 $13.800.000
to $0 $0 5178.000
$831.000 $13.552.500
$1.450.750
to
$15.290.88'
6. pofte $2.578.000 $74.000
to to 5o $0
to to
to
$0
$2.502.00:
Fke $2.155.000 $1.090.000
to to to t0
$D t0
$0
SD
51,065,OCt
.7. PmMmuiRmea00n 530.191.000 $5.531.555tp
SO m t0
m t0
$0
$8.353.000 (S)
$18.300.44'
IL GenwalCIIIFaei9ties $12.884.309 $1.159.125
t0 t0 to to
to 50
t0
t0
$11,726.181
TOTAL $124,138,398
SY1.584.680 _
........ ,......' ... .S :5 .. ... a .
.... 0- Y
Si.0110 ..
�> ..,..;.. .
48£
NOTES:
1, CoStSdo not Include Streets and utilities within development projectstypicallyconstructed by the developer
as normal improvements
2 ' Development Impact Fee Fund' Will consistof eight separate funds, one for each category of facility.
3 Sewer service does not includethe wastewaterplant expansion which is funded by the existingwastewater connectionfee.
4. UR station area of benefit fees.
5 Hutchins Street Square Fund
& Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111902
: -.-Pape
1 oft - -
- -
-
-
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).
4_
• 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 weia identified based on available storm
drain basins, utility trunk lines, major streets, General Plan limits, and
natural boundaries.
"1 The acreages were matched with the sub -areas and broken into three phases:
one 6 year block followed by two 5 year blocks.
The above two steps were repeated until the acreage provided in each phase
matched the number of units in the first step.
The majority of the projects were then placed in the appropriate phase
1 coinciding with development of the adjacent area. This would include projects
-- in which the impact fee fund would be used in conjunction with frontage
improvements by a developer such as for oversized lines and major street
"? crossings. As noted in the assumptions, there should be few cases in which a
utility must be extended outside the development. (Exceptions and
clarifications are noted below.)
�i
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
.J
6 RP0033.8
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
f final inspection or the date a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Delaying
residential fees to the time of occupancy would assure that completion of
public improvements would considerably lag the residential development that is
creating a significant percentage of the demand for the improvements. To
avoid this situation, the City's fee ordinances will provide that development
impact fees are due at the time that a final subdivision map is filed. Public
capital improvements can then be constructed in parallel with the process of
`= readying parcels for development and constructing residences. The service
capacity provided by the public improvements can be in place at the time that
increased demand actually occurs.
It is possible that developed parcels within the existing General Plan will
undergo redevelopment or a change in the land use resulting in assessment of
additional fees. In such instances, fees would be collected upon issuance of
the building permit. In addition, parcels that are permitted to develop
without a final subdivision map (which happens often for commercial and
industrial development) will also pay the fees at building permit.
The present document constitutes a "...proposed construction schedule or
flan.. ." for seventeen years. The various fee ordinances will ensure that
..an account has been established and funds appropriated..." Accordingly,
the quoted requirements of Government Code Section 66007 have been met. Lodi
can collect residential impact fees in advance of final inspection or
occupancy.
Comments on Specific Projects and Services
.r 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.
-~0 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.
7
Parks and Recreation
• The Master Plan Study was placed early since it will take some time to do
and the results will affect the scope and cost of subsequent projects.
• Parks would be completed by the end of the phase in which adjacent
development occurred.
Police, Fire and General Facilities
Projects were phased based on discussions with the Pol ce 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 anytype 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
my 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,
Poo once completed, provide capacity beyond the year of construction - and beyond
l the time in which the funds are required to construct the project. One
approach to deal with cash flow deficits is through interfund borrowing.
Interfund borrowing is predicated on the creation of a "Pooled Many 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
a1 balances earn interest revenue and negative fund balances accrue interest to
be paid. Under this approach the development impact fee has two parts.
1. Portion Cf The Fee From Construction Cf Improvements: This
part of the fee is equivalent to the average cost of the
r
programmed improvements per RAE.
r.
8 RP003"
1>.4
4.
4_.
;r
a
q
rir
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. The inter -
fee -fund borrowing mechanism is such that funds borrowingmoney pay interest,
2nd funds lending money receive interest. As a result, he fee in a fund
which lends money to other fee funds 1s not any higher than it otherwise would
be to fund the public improvements.
Alternatives to this approach include borrowing from other City funds, which
would also entail repayment with interest, and "borrowing" from developments
early in the program. This would entail charging a higher fee to the initial
developmentprojects 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, all capital costs were inflated to
January 1991 dollars and the fees' then calculated.
RPM33.8
The amount of the finance charge i s manipulated until:
• All projects have been constructed at their then actual year
cost;
• Only a nominal surplus remains in the Development Impact Fee
account at the end of the planning period.
Summary of Fees
A summary of the development impact fees is presented by major land use
category in Table 2-2. This surnlw presents the summation of the impact fee
imposed for each of the relevant facility categories in the development impact
fee plan. The fee for each particular category of public improvement is
presented in the applicable chapter (e..g. Streets and Roads - Chapter 6).
Each fee, except portions of the sewer impact fee is imposed citywide
throughout the entire planning period.
Each fee will be fine-tuned annually to reflect inflation and other minor
adjustments. Annual updates of the fee should be based upon the increase in
construction costs for the year as determined by comparing the ENR 20 Cities
Average Construction Cost Index for the beginning and end of the year. The
first two annual fee updates (1989-90 to 1990-91 and 1990-91 to 1991-92) is
reflected throughout the report. Fee calculations for this report were done
to the nearest $1.00 and have been rounded to the nearest $10.00.
Changes In Land Use Entitlements
Parcels may undergo redevelopment or a change to a more intensive land use.
The development impact fees that will be due reflect the difference between
the fee appropriate to the more intense use and the feet at�have been
appropriate to the previous use. In concept, the various classes of
infrastructure had the capacity to meet the detnaxl 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 cemat-id
upon infrastructure than planned, it mBy 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, c��d deviation above
and below the average is assumed. Defining the numun permitted derv"
deviation before assessing a special fee should be up to the Public Wo&
Director.
PIM 0iiiiiiiiiiii oil" p" 0110" jill" iiii" Jim
TABLE 2-2 21-Au"I
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTIMPACT FEES
ALL SERVICES
Land Use Categories
Total
Fees
Water
RAW) Fee
RAE(t) Fee
Storm Drainage
RAE(1) Fee
Streets & Roads
RAE(1) Fee
Police
Fire
11AE1Fee1
Parrs and
Recreation
RAEO) Fee
General City
Facilities
RAE(t) Fee
RESOENTIAI
LOW
$40,170
1.00
$5,710
1.00 $1,090
1.00 $7,911
1.00 $6,470
1.00
$1,110
1.00 $520
1.00 $11,980
1.00
$8,380
Medium De
Medium Density
$81,190
1.98
$11,190
1.98 $2.140
1.00 $7,910
1.90 $10,720
1.77
$1,960
1.96 $1.020
1.43 $17,130
1.43
$9,120
High Density :
$107,210
3.49
$19,930
3.49 $3.800
1.00 57.910
3.05 $18,880
4.72
$5,240
4.32 $2.250
2.80 $33,540
2"
$17,880
East Side f1esW0n6a1
$42,160
1.00
$5.710
1.00 $1,090
1.00 $7,910
1.00 $5,470
1.09
$12t0
1.10 $570
1.10 $13,180
1.10
$7.020
PLANNED RESMENT1AL
Low Density .
$40.170
1.00
$5,710
1.00 $1,090
1.00 $7.910
1.00 $5A70
1.00
$1.1101
1.00 $520
1.00 $11,980
1.00
$8,380
Medium Density
$61,190
1.96
$11,190
1.98 $2.140
1.00 $7,910
1.98 $10.720
1.77
$1,960
1.98 $1.020
1A3 $17,130
1A3
$9.120
High Density
$107,210
3.49
$19,930
3.49 $3,800
1.00 $7,910
3.05 $18,680
4,72
$5240
4,32 $2,250
2.80 $33,540
2.80
$17.880
COMMEMAL
Neighborhood C mawcfa
$41,280
0.64
$3,650
0.04 $1.020
1.33 $10,520
1.80 $10.390
4.28
$4.750
2.77 $1.440
0.32 $3,830
0.89
$5.680
General Commercial
$49.470
0.84
$3.650
0.94 $1.020 i
1.33 $10,520
3.82 $20.900
2.59
$2.870
1.93 $1.000
0.32 $3.830
0.89
35.880
Downtown commomw
$41,280
0.84
$3.650
0.04 $1,020
1.33 $10,520
1.80 $10.390
428
$4.750
2.77 $1A40
0.32 $3.830
0.89
$5.880
011100Commerola1
$54.720
0.64
$3,650
0.94 $1,020
1.33 $10.520
3.27 $17.890
3.72
$4.130
2.40 $1.280
0S4 $6.470
163
39.780
INDUSTRIAL. .
L19M Industrial
$30.900
0.26
$1.480
0.42 $480
1.33 $10.520
2.00 $10.940
0.30
$330
0.84 5330
0.23 $2.700
0.84
$4.080
Heavy Industrial
$29.820
0.26
51.480
0.42 $480
1.33 510,520
1.27 $0,950
0.19
$210
0.61 $320
0.33 $3.950
0.93
$5.930
Source: Noke & Associates and Ann..s
u,n-1A t A......;-
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 hcur trips is assumed for Neighborhood Commercial but
the City Circulation Plan assumes 30 peak hour trips for shoppingg 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 ofprojects 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 development forecast on which the fees were based includes new development
and an estimate of redevelopment. 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 16 year, $124,000,000 Capital Improvements Program.
is a major undertaking. It will require a very serious effort at program
management and monitoring of actual performance as compared to plan.
1
The Capital Improvements Program contains specific line items to provide the
cost of staff or consultant services for Program Management for the fee
program. A budget is also provided for a major General Plan Update/Capital
Improvements Program and Development Impact Fee Update every fifth year.
The program management function should include the responsibility of
monitoring actual performance compared to that planned. This monitoring
function can be combined with any environmental impact monitoring program as
12
RPM)"
ri
is recommended either in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which are a part
of revisions to the City's update of the General Plan or in the EIR's for
major projects or Capitol Improvement Projects.
The City is required to make findings each fiscal year regarding any fees ff
unexpended or uncommitted in its account five or more years after deposit. I
the findings indicate that there is not a reasonable relationship between the
fee and the purpose for which it was charged it must be refunded to the then
current property owners. Additionally, the City must, each year, prepare an
accounting of each fee account. This is to include the beginning and ending
balances, interest and other income, and expenditures and refunds made from
the account. The annual accounting o eacki 5 tp }�a prepar dd
i,ne account. The annugloNc®f each SH yy 'anA mast g madee available to
within 50 days of -the close of each isca Year an must maa
the public.
y
13
i CHAPTER 3
WATER SERVICE
4
OVERVIEW
�t
Water service to Lodi residents is provided by the City. Major components of
the water system include wells, distribution piping and a single elevated
storage tank. The following sections will describe the City's existing supply
and distribution facilities, current planning for expansion of the system,
policy relating to cost sharing for major facilities, and existing water
service deficiencies.
E 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 (DHS) standards for
dibromochloropropane (DBCP) will impact the City because the DBCP
concentration at 11 well sites exceeds the new State standard. Presently, the
City is preparing to conduct pilot studies"of granular activated carbon
filtration units to remove the DBCP from the water. With respect to DBCP, the
better wells are located in the northeast sector of the General Plan area -
Groundwater levels within the basin have steadily dropped over the last years.
Concerns for salt water intrusion is a regional concern but may not be a
threat to Lodi due to influence of the Mokelumne River as a major contributor
to replenishment of the groundwater basin.
Well yields in Lodi are good. Individual wells produce an average of 1,600
gallons per minute. Pumping levels vary across the well field by
approximately 80 feet, with the shallowest water in the northeast area and the
deepest water in the southwest area. The City operates a Supervisory Control
and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to assist 1n 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 RP007318
a
re
I
substandard. Smaller pipe was primarily used in the older portions of town
and it has, in many cases, been constructed in backyards and alleys.
Backbone of the City distribution system consists of a network of 10 and 14
inch pipe laid on an intersecting grid. Grid intersections are typically
separated by a distance of 1/4 to 1/2 mile.
Pressures within the distribution system are maintained using an elevated tank
and with assistance from the SCAOA 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 than 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.
FIN
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 '
For oversize mains, the reimbursement policy applies to water mains larger
than 8 inches in diameter. Major crossings covered by this policy are
Woodbridge Irrigation District canals, Southern Pacific Transportation
15 R"03"
ps
ON
i
Company, Central California Traction Company, Highway 99, Highway 12 west of
Highway 99, Lower Sacramento Road, and Hutchins Street south of Kettleman
Lane. For major crossings, the City will reimburse one half the cost of
construction.
City water reimbursement policy is reasonable for the facilities to which it
applies. In developing the fee program for water service, the existing policy
has been applied to oversizing of water mains and construction of major
crossings. For the purposes of this report, reimbursable construction costs
are assumed to include materials, construction, administrative, engineering
and inspection. Administrative and engineering reimbursement is limited to
. 10% by City ordinance.
Existing Deficiencies
The Water Master Plan identified a number of existing deficiencies in the
water distribution system. These deficiencies generally include replacement
of older pipe and construction of additional mains to reinforce the
distribution network in older areas of the City. The work on main replacement
will continue to be an ongoing program throughout the City. Funds to provide
capacity (wells) for existing City development(s) have previously been
appropriated. Significant water quality (DBCP) deficiencies exist at 12 of
the 20 producing wells. Estimated cost to correct the pipeline and water
quality deficiencies is $8.2 million. Pipeline reconstruction will be funded
through the City water fund. DBCP facilities for existing wells will be
constructed using borrowed State funds that will be repaid with water service
rates.
Specific listings of the projects earmarked to correct existing deficiencies
are not included in this report. Estimates of probable construction cost have
been developed for the existing deficiency projects identified by the City.
Total estimated cost to construct these projects is $1,628,000. Funds to
construct these projects will come primarily from the Water Fund.
PLANNED MATER 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
i� 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 roject locations
on Figure 3-1. Minor projects, (mainly water main extensions are shown
separately for administrative purposes; they are subtotaled as one "project"
under Lhe fee pr -gram. This will allow greater flexibility in providing
vei
16 Rrool)-9
k•.xj
TABLE 3 - I 21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
Number
Cost
Fee Fund
1981192
loom
198.3794
199N96
1005186
1996797
1907-2002
2002-2007
WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS
MWS100/ Turner Rd. transmission main
$16.000
$16,000
30
30
30
30
30
30
$2,613
$13,367
- consisting of 2.060 It 10 -inch
ware main west from the
Central CARL traction Co.
-
(oversized main)
MWSX010 Turner Road transmission main
$20,000
50,000
30
t0
30
30
$0
30
(MW6M1) Includes eonsuuction
30
$20,000
- of the main under the Central Calif.
Traction Co. (cosi shaft) .
MWSI002. Lodi Avenue transmission main
$9.000
$9.000
30
30
30
30
30
30
consisting of 1,200 it 10 -Inch
51,470
$7.530
water main easterly from Guild
Ave. to Central Cailt. Traction
- - Company ftymsim main)
MWSIM 1,350M10 -inch water main
-
t11.000
$11,000
$5,500
30
t0
to
$5.500
30
southerly from Lodi Avenue.
30
30
(oversized main) (Ctufl Ave
extension)
MWS1004 Guild Avenue transmission
- $36.000
$38.000
t0
30
30
30
30
30 -
$38,000
$0 .
main consisting of 6,60011
-
10 -Inch water main siong
. .
future Guild Avenue between
Pine and Kettleman. (oversized main)
- MWSX011 Guild Avenue Main (MSWI004) also
$20.000
$20.000
t0
30
30
$0
t0
30
$20.000
Includes construction of the main
$o.
under the Central Calif. Traction
_ Co, RR Tracks. (cost sharing)
PAGE 1 OF 9
a—" p-- pm— ser.w 0000$7 neat mom own !91 an" ma MW
TABLE 3 —1 21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTSAND PHASING
WATER
PAGE20FO
Project Dsacr<Dr
Program
impact
Number
- Cwt
Fee Fund
1991192
1992193
1993184
1994M
199MG
1998187
1977-,2002
2002-2007
UW81005 TI-smisdon main parallel to and
$51.000
$51.000
so
so
so
s0
s0
s0
s0
$51.000
adjacent to Central M I . Traction
Co. RAtracks. consisting of approx.
0.000 Hbf 10-inchwater tine
between Pine and Kettleman.
(oversized main)
�'. UWSXD12 Transml086MLaln(FfSWI006)also
00 00 $20.000.
$20.000
$0
$0
so
, s0
s0
SO
m
$20.000
Includes construction of the malt
under the Central Calif. Traction
Co: RR Trabka. (cost sharing)
�. YWSt000 Industrial Way transmisionmaln
$7.000
$7.000
$7.000
$0
so
so
so
$0
so
so
consiallp of 00611.10 -Itch
water main to the west of Cult
Avenue. (oversized maim already
construcled) 00 00
MWSI007 Industrial Way transmission mai
$7.000
$9.000
$o
so
SO
$9.000
so
so
SO
so
condetig of 1.180 It 104Meh
water main to the east of Guff
Avenue extending MW81008.
(oversized malt)
`UWSW8 Beckman Road transmission mai
$10.000
$10.000
$0
$10.000
SO
W
so
W
SO
lip
eondefing of 1,3001t 10 -inch
water main to the north of
KaClemann Lane. (oversized mai)
MWS1009 Cluff Avenue transmission mai
$20.000
$20.000
s0
$0
SO
SO
$20.000
g0
SO
SO
eonddingof2.8001f10-Inch
water mai akxv Inure street
between. Kettleman and Vine.
(oversized mai)
PAGE20FO
TABLE 3 -1 21 -Aug -01
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITALCOSTSAND PHASING
WATER
project Dondpilm
Program
Impact
.
Number
trot%
Fee Fund
i8eyo
1992193
1903M
1894185
19ydw
1989/97
1887-2002
2002-2007
- MWS1010 KetWman Lana transmission mein
$57,000
$57,000
to
SO
to
m
$17,000
SO
SO
$40.090
consisting of 3,8801t 12 -Inch
water mein easterly from Beckman
tined. (oversize main)
WWSI011 Tums Road transmission main
$20.000
$20.000
58.714
$3.007
$3.085
53,130
$1.084
$0
to
SO
- consisting of 2.800 if 10 -inch
'.
wow main from Lower Sacramento
fload. (oversized main)
11AWS1012 ApplewoodDrive transmission main
$10,000
$10.M
$4,857
$1,503
51,532
$1585
$542
t0
to
SO
- consisting o11.Wo N 10 -inch water
main consisting of 1.300 it 10 -Inch
' water main southerly from Tumor Road
to the sharing main. (ovosize main)
WWS1013 -Lower Sacramento Road transmission
$4.000
a4.000
W.000
to
5.0
SO
so
to
SO
to
main consisting of 550 it 10 -inch
water main northerly horn Yosemite
.. Avenue. (oversize main)
WWS1014 Applewood Drive transmission main
5105,000
5105.000
SQ
$7.000
SO
t0
SO
SO
SO
$99,000
- consisting of 13,4801110-4nch
water main southerly from wading
. Applewood to Harney Lane. (oversized
main) .
WWSX!!01 ApplewoodDrive transmissionmain
59.000
$0,000
$0
to
So
t0
$0
to
$9.000
to
MW8 014 also Includes construction
- : of a 10 -Inch water line under the
W.I.D. Cana! (cost sharing)
q+
,
&A.,
TABLE 3' 1
21-Aug-91
DEVELOPMENT RELATEDCAPITALCOSTSMD PHASING
WATER
'2002-MV
Prujxt , ps iptian ..
lFretbat
Program
Cod
LW&d
Fes Fund
4991/92 1992N3
1993r94
1984105
19MM 1996197
fY97 2002:
,, ..
�•, MWSI0002 Appialsood Orivs transmission main
19.500
30,500
SO 30
SO
SO
30
SD
$9,500
SO
. (MWSt014) also includes construction.
of a 104ncb water line 00ress
Kauleman Lam (cost aharMp)
-' MWS*115. EvsrgreeftW •Dann l-,i n,maln-
.$2S.000
$25.009
312,143 $3.769
$3.031
$3,912
$1,955
30
30
30
'=. conslpin0 of 3.260 H 10-(ncA vrsier- -
-
southarlyand eestedy hom axisdng
EverW0fm (love to Lower.SWamOnQ0 .
(awrsizsmain)
MWOOREvergreenfMwmaN(MWSgt6)
29 Soo
X500
SD to
29 Soo
30
30
SD
30
30
inchrdesconarrrredonoftlamaln,
under Lower Sacramento Road (cost
sharing)
MW8101s Lod AyarnNlrenpniasial)nsln,.. --
220.000
so so
3o
to
$0
30
$3.208
216734
�,.,• - :ean.IMNidd2sooalo-Inch•
- _: :. -waNr mein westerly koia,lcwsr . --
.
"Cramer" Road to General Plan
eoundery.,(oversized maln)
IAW51017 Vine SIrseLtransndsslonmain
$/9.000
00
216.0
so 3o
to
3o
$a
so
$18,000
to
coasis11n8 of 2.460 a 104nch.
watermsinwasterlydLowat' -
Sacramento Road alarm a future
street angnment. (overeim main)
-.� MW810111 Ka9lemanLanatransmisdonmain - -
$34.000
$34.000
$12.000 SO
$0
to
3o
so
.$22,000
$0
consisting of 4.350 a f0-Inch .
water main from 112 mf. west of
Loser Sacramento Road to Sylvan
Way., (owrs[M main)
PAGE40FO
ll
■■ ice! 1m plll� IIS
Yf•
®
Mei
am van
am
ON"
rem
mm
am..
TABLE 3 -1
21-Aug 91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
Project Dewrwm
Program Impact.
.
mmnbet ...
Cad Fee Fuad
1991192
1992!93
1993M
1994M
1995M
198871
1997-2002
� 2002-2097
-
•
UWS1019 Lower Sacramento Road tranemiselon
$41.000
$41.000
30
so
3o
s0
$21.000
so
$3.2ee
.:: $18.734 -
main consli ft of 5.2W 010-inch
Ymw main northerly to KetOeman
t.anetoit* W.ID.Cansi.
- -
;`'
.
(overafzedmain)
MWS)W03ICatllentanfLowerSecramentoRow
$13.000
$13.000
s0
30
30
30
$0
30
S13.000
s0
trlgr Caton meati (mmote and
61 WSI019) also Includes boring under
;.'
the two existing roads. (cart cluing)
MWSM M& Amm trananisgim main
$11.000
$11.000
30
30
30
s0
s0
30
$11.000
30
.' 1V
'.. �= , eansistirpof 1.400M10-loch • � .
watar main northerly from KetOeman
Lane to W.I.D. Canal (oversized main)
MWSXD04 MNe Aven uue transmission main
pe.000
$9.000
30
30
30
30
30
30
$9.000
s0
00SI020) also includes eonstrueeon
- of the a do under Ste W.I.D.Canal. .
(cost sharinw,
Mets Avant* tranadesionmain
$9.500
59,500
30
30
30
30
30
30
$9.500
30
(MWWO20) also includes construction
of the main under Ketleman lane
: (cod sharing)'
MWS1021 Century Blvd tranamisslonmain -
$5.000
fs.000
SO
SO
SO
30
$5.000
30
so
30
consis5ng of I'M If 104nch
water main westerly from Sago
Way along kr4aa Cemury law.
ailgnmentto)ointhe wAsting .
mala. (oversized mein)
PAGESOF9.
.f1W.5Tr •~�� YiY P
pea"
TABLE 3 -
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
DescriptionProgram
Impact
- Number -
Cod
Fee Fund
1901/92
1982/83
1903M
1994M
1905180
19M7
1997-2002 ---
- 2002-2007
Afwslm century Blvd. transmission main
322.000
=22.000
30
30
$0
So
$0
$0.
$3.692
StB,400
-. conslodNot2.7001110-buh
water main a" future MQnment
koro Lower Sacramento Rodd to
Denerai plan boundary. (oversized
;. ' ": •,main)
` MWSm07 Cenaayetvd. transmission main
59.500
$9.5011
30
$0
$0
So
So
$0
'. - So
- $9.500 .
-;:'...(MWS1021)and MWSI042)also lndudes
construction of the main under Lower .
Sacramento Road. (cod sitotht0)
N
to
>" • ' MYVSXM Future transmission mala consisting
$51.000
$51,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
30
$10.000
$41.000
$0
.: of 2AN a 104nch aligned between
and parow to Century and Harney.
-' thence southerly kom4he canal to
Harney- W—dze main)
S `1,41AIM4 Harney Lane transmission main
$33.000
$$3.000
$0
so
$0
SO
30
SO
$21.000
512.000
condsthp of 7.9(10 If 10-4ncA
water main westedy from Ham Lane
to the western boundary of the general
.. plan area. (oversized main).. -
MWSX006 HatneyLane tranemission(MWSX024) ...
.$9.000
$9.000
$a
$a
m
$0
$0
SO
$0.000
$0
.: inductee construction of a 104nch
water One under the W.1.D. Canal.
(Cost sharing)
MWS)W08HarneyLanetrNamissionmain
.$9.500
$3.600
$0
$0
30
$0
$0
$0
SO
59.500
(MWSW24) Includes construction
of the main under Laver Sacramento
--
Road. (cod shaft)
PAGESOF9
TABLE 3 -1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTSAND PHASING
WATER
PK4- . obscir rl
Program .
Impact,
tun"
Cat.
Fee Fun
1991192
loom
1093194
19"M
1995/88
1998!97
1907-2002
2002.,
UwSlon; Corkery Blvd. transmbsion main
$9.000
$8.000
$3.888
$1.203
$1.225
$1.252
$434
$0
$0
$0
aondatln0 of 1.0801! 10 -Inch water
--
main easterly from &ockton SL to
Chlokadee lana. teed main)
` YWSI028 CherckNMrnay transmlwton main
$73.000
- $73.000
- $35.458 -
- $10.975
$11.180
" $11.424
$3.957
$0
$0
ccnsis9np 014."0 It 10-i10ch water
<main easterly from SP railroad abny
P Harney.. tMna. Hortilsrly along
ClwrakaetoContugBlvd. (owniwd
j
WATER MAID -
$853.500
. $853.600 --
$94,559
$37.447
$30.339
$30.283
$75.873
$10.000
$242.268
$332.794
' WATEN WELLS
MWW1001.ku1r9a0o001WWWWs9'A,
$723.000-
$723.000_
$0
$
to
to
to
$723.000
to
to
wltb pumping capaclty0f 1.800
GPM and a Granular Activated
i Carbon F,"". .
M0InMawonolWaterwou'r
Wm02:
$mow
_ $723.000
50
- SI
to
to
$0
$0
to
$723.000
'. with Pumping capacity of 1.600
GPM and a Granular A&Awed
Carbon Filter.
�.:MWWIMMstalta8anofWater W44le, -
- $773.000
$773.000
0
t0
to
t0
_ m
$D
$0
$773.000
with pumping capacity of 1.800
GPM. a Granular Activated Carbon
FHter. ww Stanby Power.
PAGE 7 OF 9
.,�yw:y _::,,:.^;{'!`r' A3'G s'H �.c.�+'gY•s�,�tn�n ,., �;. -z :': �, 2
,'.. .� .. _ .: ...., :>... s•,." .�..w-�+. r '4""i,; �'r�•.", `vat
i�s'�! �Wtt1t !� i� i� MA1 NM• I� ilk MM ice, "a n1 mum MM IiiiwiII
TABLE 3 -1 21-A"41
DEVELOPMENTRELATEDCAPITALCOSTS AND PHASING
WATER
`. Nwnbar Cost Fee Fund 1901102 loom - 1993/94 199" 1995199 loww 1907-2002 2002-2007
MwW1904 wUtatimico fww rwoa o• $7m000 V23.000 so $0 - $0 $0 $0 so $723.000 Se
with pumping capacity W 1,900
GPM and a Granular Acdvatad
Catbon Filter.
MWww9s meta0ationorwaterweek S723,o9a $723.000 30 30 $0 SO SO SO $723.000 SO
with pumping capacityo11.900
GPM and a GranuW Activated
Carbon Fitter.
tm iewwwoo mdaNalloh of Ws wow -r- 5345090 SM.009 30 30 30 30
::_ a41h p�W caDachY W 1.000
GPM and.S endbD Poway.
�A.
MWWM071ndaMatlonolWaterWON -G• 5295.000 (285.000 5295.000 SO 30 SO
with ptnmpin0 eapxhy 011,900
GFIA.:
MWwwo Installation o1 Wear WON •H•$345.000 5sa5,000 30 5345.000 SO gO
so
m
so
30 30 $345,009
30 SO $345.000
SO tm&ODO
SO
30
SO $0
$O
$345,000
SO
30
.-.... .... _�_._.__.._.._.___.._._.__........::--....-ww....�..wW..-:..�.a.....:.......a<.:ar....,..,..ww+:.u�¢�r.w;wre;,zY
30
SO
30
30
30
1
F
f
TABLE 3 —1
21-hV-M
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITALCOSTSAND PHASING
i
WATER
Project Deaeripticn
pram
kapact
Number -
Coat
Fes Fwd
IM"M2
loom
1993M
1994M
199sm
1998197
190-2=
2002-MW )
MWW1012 lnatauatrona Water We9 L
.:whh
5729,000
5723.000
$0
SO
so
$0
$0
$0
$723.000
$0
pumping capacity d1.000
�
GPM and a Granular Activated
Carbon Mar.
$
i= MWWI013 Mataudmol Water WeB•M'
5773,000
$773,000
30
30
30
30
$0
30
30
5773.000
with Pumpin0 capacity d 1.000
GPM. a Granular Activated Carbon
Filter. and Standby Poww
MWW1014 Inua9atian d Water Well •N'
�.
$295.000
5295.000
SD
30
30
So
SO
30
30
5295.000 .
NO Pumpkv capacity d 1.600
GPM.
MWS0001 Water Master Plan-1690
$57,969
567,3
557.3
30
30
$0
$0
30
30
So
;;. MW80002 Weser Master Wan
$20.000
$20.000
$0
so
30
30
30
$20.000
30
m
- and C.I.P. Update-1997
_-: MWS(=3 Wats Mahar Wan
$20.000
$20.000
SO
SO
30
30
SD
30
$20.000
SO
i ,.. rtnd C.I.P. Update-2002
MW80004 Public Works Admin. SW9. Exp. (50%)
$341.500
$341.500
so
$341.500
30
30
so
$0
('
So
SO
�- 84W9000bPu69eWorks StorageFacility(50%)
$235.000
5235.000
SO
SO
$235.000
SO
SD
SO
SO
SD
.. MWSOW Public Works Garogw Wash FacB.(93%
$186.667
$106,667
$166,687
so
so
$0
so
So
SO
SO
Upgrades to Ex}ping Facilities
$1.628,000
So
so
so
S0
so
so
30
So
30
Now Development Share of mating
Water Tank 131%)
$163.469
$183,486
$11,486
$11,488
$11,466
$11.468
$11,468
$11,468
$57.340
$57,341
TOTAL WATER COST
$10,931,525
PAGE 9OF9-.
J G P STUDY AREA. I
1 4S
VIP,
MWSI 0 TM
00 S
P08:_ t t
. I ; I`� . r, t_Ytwwufoos f! & .
�I
3
,51
006 007
71
f i—Mww[ W 10
L L
025 �
t
VWi 005 ,I /
i
1
I EGENO
Fu1ue WWII
Fttre Pipe
MWWI 005 Mbter System NOTE
ADVm"I UM"
Ro mt usher S" PM^l Dnac,,,,,
cortr� n.Aw
FIGURE 3-1 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
I�
r4,
developer credits should actual development costs deviate from the program
schedule.
In Table 3-1, two columns are shown, Program Cost and Impact Fee Fund.
Program Cost is defined as project costs to be provided through the CitWater
Fund. The Program Costs do not include costs borne by the developer. Costs
listed in the Impact Fee Fund column represent those costs for specific
projects allocated to future developed identified in the General Plan. Where
the cost in the Program Cost and Impact Fee Fund columns are the same, the
entire project cost has been allocated to future development. The usefulness
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
t..
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.
x 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 categoryp of
i existing facilities serving future development. As indicated in Table 3-1, 31
percent of the actual construction cost adjusted to January 1990 dollars has
@aA a�l9�gtpd,
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 71.1 million gallons per day. A total of 14 new wells will be required to
a suppl 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
f
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
27 Rom"
r
chlorination facilities (approximately $7,500 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.
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 o£ 4,673. Water main
extension costs ropresent 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 Xear for the
first 6 years followed by two 5 -year increments. Costs for projects serving
General Plan development funded on or before July 1, 1991 are shown in the
current year (1991/92)Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to
the January 1, 1990 dollars.
Many of the projects listed in Table 3-1 are oversizing projects wherein the
City's participation is limited to reimbursement to the developer for
oversizing costs. It is not intended that the Program Cost shown in the table
reflect the total cost of construction. Similarly, for projects such as the
Public Waw building expansion, the costs have been divided between the water
and sewer impact fee funds and the costs shown are the portion allocated to
the water impact fee fund. Also, where a project partially serves the
existing community and partially the general plan expansion areas, only the
cost allocated to the general plan areas are shown.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Water Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between (1) a fee's use and (2)
the type of development on which the fee is imposed. To establish such a
relationship, it must be shown that the type of development that is going to
be charged the fee actually uses, is served by, or benefits from the public
facilities that are to be financed by the fee revenue.
Because of the logical growth patterns conceived in the Proposed General Plan
and because of the planning effort set down in the Water Master Plan, the City
ensures that all water facility improvements will primarily benefit the
I; residential, commercial, industrial and quasi -public land uses within the
General Plan � area. Each and every water project to be financed by the fee p
28 RPN33•B
p
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.
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:of, or benefit from, the improvements.
This is accomplishedthrough 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
$5,504 per acre.
29
RPOOJlb
A
f
TABLE 3-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
1 i 1:
30
WATER
[land Use Categories
Unit
RAE
Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$5,710
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$11,190
Bigh Density
Acre
3.49
$19,930
East Side Residential
Acre
1.00
$5,710
PLANNED IDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$5,710
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$11,190
High Density
Acre
3.49
$19,930
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Comnwncial
Acre
0.64
$3,650
General Commercial
Acre
0.64
$3,650
DoNmA-Dvvn Commercial
Acte
0.64
$3,650
Office Commercial
Acre
0.64
$3,650
INDUSTRIAL
UgIt fndusbW
Acre
0.26
$1,480
Heavy Industi"
Acre
0.26
$1,480
Note: Fee arnountsshown are fir fiscal year 1991/1992.
Sources: Nolte 8 Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
30
E�
E'
OVERVIEW
if,
CHAPTER 4
SEWER SERVICE
The City of Lodi has provided sewerage services to its residents since the
early 1MIs. 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, Woodl.ake, and Park
West.
Treatment and Disposal
White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility is owned and operated by the
City. Currently, the plant is operating at the design capacity of 6.2 million
gallons per day (MGD). Expansion of the plant to a capacity of 8.5 MGD is
currently under construction. Future expansion to 10.3 MGD is planned.
Facility costs and financing for wastewater treatment and disposal are not
addressed in this report. These issues have been addressed in separate
studies and a financing mechanism, the Wastewater Connection Fee, has been
established.
Master Sewerage Plan
Planning for sewerage collection facilities to serve the expanded General Plan
area are addressed in the report by Black and Veatch, "Sanitary Sewer System,
Technical Report for the 1990 General Plan Update." Included in the report
are results of a comprehensive hydraulic evaluation of the existing collection
system and proposed expansions of the collection system to serve an expanded
city.
31 KPW3"
t�
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
capacitythan needed in order to provide service to expanding areas of a
communiy. 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
p� oversize trunks, the reimbursement policy applies to trunk sewers larger than
10 inches in diameter. For the purposes of this report, reimbursable
construction costs are assumed to include materials, construction,
administration, engineering and inspection. Administrative and engineering
reimbursement is limited by City ordinance to 10%.
City reimbursement policy as it relates to oversizing of sewer trunk lines is
reasonable. Historically, the oversize cost of gravity sewer lines has been
spread throughout the City. In preparing this report, the existing policy and
historic practice are assumed to continue in force during the General Plan
period .
Existing Deficiencies
A number of existing sewers within the City are operating above design
i 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.
G ,
-+ Based upon construction costs referenced to January 1, 1990 dollars, the
estimated cost to construct those parallel relief sewers is $1,305,500.
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 RP0033-6
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
station and force main costs would be spread over individual special fee areas
corresponding to the areas of benefit. Also, it is assumed that gravity
facilities costs would be spread City-wide and oversizing costs for facilities
serving future growth would be paid from development impact fee funds.
Treatment and Disposal
Expansion of the White Slough Water Polluiion 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 Januar 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 Acres Mapped Over
the General Plan Period (Appendix A) provided by the City. In Table 4-1,
33
RPW33.e
zy'k^.��.;v
"we w.iiii� Pon P= Ww "a am rmw as to am =0 am W" sew aim
MSS1801.13nckman Road server trunk
complain@ 1.100 ito110-kfCh
San" sewer pipe and manholes
from Pine Street to Lodi Avenue.
TABLE 4 —1 21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
SEWER
seam kapaet ..
Cot Fee Fund 1991102 1802M 1983M 1994M 1996" /008!97 1997-11how 2e02 -e0 07r
$48.000 so 30 S 0 S 0 30 so $0 $/0.000
- MSSp62 Westem boundary swear trunk -
consisting *1 500 K./2 -Inch.
$300.001
$300.000
$0
$o
s o t 0
30
30
$o
$300.000 .
600 If 15-11ch. 2.00011 of
-
. 18-bfeb.2.000 Itof21-inch, _
and2ANNot24-inch sewer
Pipe connecting to the existing
48 loch $swat trunk to Me
treatment plum. (over**)
USSID03 Overelmgravity sawertoHamel
$48.010
$48.000
SO
30
$o $o
SD
So
$49.000
m
. Lane tit stedon comprising 2.70
,..0of124nch
W" and 1.000ffofIS-
Inch sewer tnmk
j
I'
M351004 Harney VM tit station and
$282.500
$0 (1)
$0
so
so so
3o
30
to
30 +;
force main comprising 3 -ten
.
.. - Aorsapowsr pumps having a
.
- combknsd t 000 GPM capacityand -
-
$800It o10 -inch pipe.
S:
. - - .... MSSI006 Katisman Lane idt station and
$162.000
30 (2)
$0
so
3 0 3 0
30
$0
so
face main with 2-0.
so
.
horsepower Pumps and 450 GPM
. l
capacity and abort force main
- under KeRlemsn Lane.
_ MSSWW Chill Avenue OR station upgrade
1156.000
$0
so
and parallel force main with 2
30
3 0 3 0
SO
SO
30
30
fifteen horsepower pumps and a
1.500 GPM espadry
MSSI007 1.4001t of 18 -inch parallel
trunk line In Lower Sacramento Rd.
$42.00
142,000
so
SO
S 0 3 0
SO
SO
$42.000
- so f
- f
� - kom Taylor Rd. to Kenteman Lane.
.. F.•
i'.
PAGE10F2
Pies" MWA so"
SUBTOTAL- SEWERMAIN PARTICIPATION:[ P542.556 $9113.000 so to so
TABLE 4 —1 21-AU941
11 f 16 Public W0010 Adn"stratim SUIAW $0 3341AW so so so so
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
SEWER
GCF1007 Publio WorkS, Storage Facift (50%) $2$5.000 $236.000 $0 so S235.000 $0 so so
$0 $0
pawans
limpect
$0 $0
.
Number
Cod
Fee Fund
190111K 11992M 1993M 1904M 1996" 19MW 11907-2002 2002-2007
:�MsS00t1*_300ffoI1&4nChPWaW
$40.6110
$49.000
$0 so $0 $0 $49.000 s0 $0 $0
trualdine In Lower Sacramento Rd.
MSS000 Saw Mader Pun MW C.Lp. $20.000 $20.000 m so $01 so $D $0 $20.000 $0
Update -2002
knot L" Annue to Sm Street.
Upgrades to ExtdkV FarAftles 51.005.5" $0 30 so so $0. $0 SO
so so
MSsW" overvizograft"werl"Hwney
$116.000
vs.ow
$0 f0 30 so so io $16.000 $0
Lane to Ilk station. consisting of
11.400 Hof 124" **West kom,
.020
LowerSearamimtolPload (aimbe)
TOTAL 13,013,920
$1.368.920
SUBTOTAL- SEWERMAIN PARTICIPATION:[ P542.556 $9113.000 so to so
11 f 16 Public W0010 Adn"stratim SUIAW $0 3341AW so so so so
$0 .$0
GCF1007 Publio WorkS, Storage Facift (50%) $2$5.000 $236.000 $0 so S235.000 $0 so so
$0 $0
CAS ezFlen Pub. WbftG . va,&Gelft . A Fack (33%) $1116.11" $1160,867 31188.657 so $0 $0 $0 $0
U?
$0 $0
AASS000 sower Mader 1990 $112.753 $82.753 $82.753 $0 so 30 so $0
$0 so
Mssm Saw Master Plan and C.I.P. $20.000 so $0, so =0.000
0 so.
Update -1997
MSS000 Saw Mader Pun MW C.Lp. $20.000 $20.000 m so $01 so $D $0 $20.000 $0
Update -2002
Upgrades to ExtdkV FarAftles 51.005.5" $0 30 so so $0. $0 SO
so so
W0
K
.020
.21111
TOTAL 13,013,920
$1.368.920
Notes:
1. HameyLaneliftStationcostsWitt be funded by a Supplemental Fee assessed upon development within the area d benefit. Therefore, costs
of the projectsarenot shownin the City-Wdelrnpact Fee Fundcolumn. Forecastedtimingof the projectconstruction Is in the 1997-2002perlod.
2 Kettlarrian Lane lift station costs Will be funded by a Supplemental Fee assessed upondevelOPMent within the area of benefit Therefore. Costs
d theprojects arenot shown in thie City-Wdelmpact Fee Fundcolumn. Forecastedtimingof the projectconstructlon isin the 1992-1993per1od.
3. Cluff AvenuellftStation modificationcosts will befunded byaSupplemrvntal Fee assessed upondevelopment withinthO aread beneff. Therefore, Costs
of theprojects are notshown inthe City -Wide Impact Fee Fundcolumn. Forecasted timingd lheprojectconstiuctiOn is In the 2002-2007 period.
PAGE20FZ
....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........
...........
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ir
J o I o<
Ig I
r , Loo,
�1L I ae ctwz4
q
W
M
ON
it
ri
r! the phasing is divided by year for the first 6 years followed by two 5 -year
increments. Costs for the projects serving the General Plan development
funded on or before July 1, 1990 are shown in the current year (1990/91).
Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to the
January 1, 1990 dollar reference.
Some projects listed in Table 4-1 are not included in the overall development
impact fee program. These include projects related to serving the Cluff
Avenue Lift Station Service Area, the Harney Lane Lift Station Service Area
and the Kettleman Lane Lift Station Service Area. Since lift stations are
unusually large and expensive facilities and, the service area is specific, a
separate supplemental fee is calculated for each area. A separate calculation
for these sub -zones is presented in the section, BURDEN ANALYSIS FOR SEWER
SUB -ZONES.
Relationship of Sewer Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between: (1) the fee's use and;
(2) the type of development on which the fee is imposed. To establish such a
relationshEp, 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 Facilities is presented in Table 4-2.
37
I
TABLE 4-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
SEWER
vi
Land Use Categories Use Categories
Unit
RAE
RAE
Fee
Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$1,090
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$2,140
High Density
Acre
3.49
$3,800
East Side Residential.*
Acre
1.00
$1,090
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$1,090
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$2,140
High Density
Acre
3.49
$3,800
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
0.94
$1,020
General Commercial ..
Acre
0.94
$1,020
Downtown Commercial
Acre
0.94
$1,020
Office Commercial
Acre
0.94
$1,020
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Acre
0.42
$460
Heavy Industrial
Acre
0.42
$460
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1992
Sources: Nolte & Assoclates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
38
Recommended Fees
f�
The Sewer Facilities Fees for each land use are summarized in Table 4-2. The
p� total fee is $1,090 per low density residential acre.
BURDEN ANALYSIS FOR SEUER 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 todi 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 eccnomic.
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
ue that the cost of financing has not been included.
cam! In the case of the Harney Lane lift station service area, existing development
has been included in the sizing of the facilities. At the time of annexation,
it is expected that this area will be required to pay the supplemental fee
and, therefore, it has been included in the supplemental fee calculation.
39 RP00]}A
F�
TABLE 4-3
SEWER SUB -ZONE
FEE CALCULATIONS
Kettleman
Lift Station
Sub -Zone
Total Planned Residential Acres:
80
Total Planned
C
ommercial Acres:
22
Total Cost of Improvements:
$192,000
Cost Per RAE:
$ 1,610
Total
Total
RAE
Total
Burden
Per Acre
—
ng„�e
Feete
69.9
$ 1,6108.8
PR -Low Density Acres
69.9
1.00
$ 3,160
N6#uMeD91#ty Acres
�:�
1:411
19.5
20.7
$ 5,620
� 1,510
Office Commercial Acres
0.94
116.4
Harney Lane
Lift Station Sub -Zone
Total Planned Residential Acres:
292
Less Basin and Park Acres:
35
Net Planned Residential Acres:
257
5
Total Cost of Improvements:
$262,500
Average Cost Per RAE:
$ 830
Total
RAE
Total
Total
Burden
Rftt=jVt1 6 rr— Units•
attg1goed
faeber
RAES
Per Acre
PR - Low Density Acres
225.0
1.00
228.0
$ 830
1,630
= V1%uDeR@HjrtY ASEM
X10
$: $4
63.0
$ 2,900
257.0
315.0
40
RPpO)}8
i.,
r T,
a4
i
` y
.'. I -4
-
Cluff Avenue Lift Station Sub -Zone
Total Industrial Reserve Acres: 158
Total Cost of Improvements:
$185,000
Average Cost Per RAE:
$ 1,170
Total
Total
Burden
'�
Description Units
Developed Factor
RAE's
Per Acre
tight Industrial Acres
93.0 0.42
39.1
$ 1,170
i d
He vy Industrial Acres
65 n 0.42
2Z3
$ 1,170
158.0
66.4
Note: Dollar amounts shown
are for fiscal year
1991/92.
F
Source: Nolte and Associates
and Angus McDonald
and Associates,
1991.
l
� >a
41
RPW3"
9
Imo/
CHAPTER 5
STORM DRAINAGE
OVERVIEW
Major features of
Storm drainage services are provided by the City of todi. Ma 7
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 planning 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 City is limited to a combined total discharge of 80
cubic feet per second at the two existing pumping stations. Additional
discharge locations are not currently permitted by the agreement. The City
operates a series of interconnected detention basins within this area to store
runoff prior to pumping to the canal. The City utilizes detention basins in
other areas also to store runoff prior to pumping to the Mokelumne River.
Existing facilities for the collection of storm runoff include surface
La 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 Plan improvements and are
currently funded by Storm Drainage Fees collected by the City.
ai 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 City.
42 vft3"
in
I
T 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 WID 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
S
City of Lodi Engineering Division updated the Master Storm Drainage Plan in
M. This plan forms the principal basis for future expansions of the
drainage to the General Plan Major
service area serve area. collection system
improvements and detention basin improvements are identified in the plan that
have been included in this report.
jf
�k
u
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
a
to comply with AB 1600 regulations. This study updates the program and fee to
serve the General Plan Area. Also, additional fee categories have been
s
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
r
the most part, identified in the Master Storm Drainage Plan. A summary of
r j
(T
43 RPOU)18
Pa
f 4 those facilities is presented below and summarized in Table 5-1. Project
numbers listed in Table 5-1 are used to identify the location of projects
shown on Figure 5-1. Two existing reimbursement agreements, which are an
obligation of the costs for storm drain fund, are included.
Collection System
t-
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 sough. 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 Plan. New detention basins are planned for subareas F and 1.
ESTIMM 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 1s 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
PON 1, 1990.
r
44 RP00)YB
��� v. A.t f ;.Lie. ir-!�"��my-i.Y+ �•:•.. t - v, - �z x- �`4 �' �. . _'.a Y�j:2 '� !.,�L'', uiU�tt :�%th .1y?✓.
PAGEIGF3
TABLE 5 —1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENTRELATED
CAPITALCOSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
Project
Program
Impact
-�
tVrrmber
- -
Cat -
fee Fund
1981/82
- 1oom
199394
199495
199596
1988187
/99Y-2002
2002-2007
- .- USD10p1
Pixley Parkdrainagebasin.
$e9a000
$03.000
30
$177.000
5$
so
$0
$222.000
$284.000
80 .
ExpwW-and tf-610p4010 of
Basin -C- according to plan
adopted In 1968.(Dwg 88E003)
..' 8tWWW
Turnor toad storm drain. 6501f
$213.000.
$213.000
90
30
38
so
so
so
$0
5213.000
.
of e0•, 800If of 64•. and
-
t,15offof42•dorm drains
in Turner Road and Guild Avenue.
MsD1004
pimSlreststorm drain
SUN()
(42.000
SO
30
30
SO
so
so
$42.000
so
considfng of SW If of 30• ,
dam drain &ad manholes.
., (.(801005
. Thurman Street dorm drain -. -
$70.000
$70.000
$30.000
90
90
So
90
SO
MAW
fo
congieft of 1.2501136 -
as
' dorm drain and manholes.
-
& SWIo()7
Baspi •C• storm drain,
$172.000
$172.000
go
30
so
.. :.
eo6sedwfaciud" ._.
-eonsistNof42•and30••.
-
pipes, extending south and
east. 6tparrds ssMce area to
Kenig mur and SUN
....MSDIM
Evergreen0riwdorm drain
$120.000
$129.000
$0
$o
SO
$43.000
$43.000
$43.000
30
w
cdmcf n fac"s, extending
eanics area north to Turnor
Road. bnprowmdrda Include
pipes thatwig tarry runon to
Basin •E-.
YASDww
Evergreen, Drive done drain
.$63.000
-$83.000
SO
$21.000
$21A0o
$2100
30
SO
5o
SO
coitectien faclildse extending
service south of E -basin,
knpmwmmds Include 30• and
38' Pipes that will carry
runolt to Basin -E•.
PAGEIGF3
TABLE 5 —1 21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
-- MSD1016 Basin 'ti'dorm drakt. $261,000 $261,000 SO $0 W SO $281,000 SO
Collection fsaSies
consisting consisting of 48'
and 38' pipes extending
ecutinady and easterly from -
Badn'G'. Exact location not
yet determined.
PAGE 2 OF 3
Project
- Program
Inved
-
cost
Fee Fund - -
' 1991!82
199=11
190=4
1994M
1996M
1996197
1087-2M
2002-,2967
1.4SM10
Westgate Park expansion and _
$11.034,001
MIMI. ((
SO
$1,343.000
$167.000
S167.(00
5277.600
$0
So
$a
development Pak improvements
are not Included. .
MSDg11
Devoki msllt of now Basin *P.
$"19.(0
$3.619.000
SO
SO
SO
W
SO
SO
$2.632.060
$987.600
located north of Kettleman Lane .
and west of Lower Sacramento'
Fbad. Servfeeareebtchldea„
.
bad wed of Lower Sacramento
!load. naM of Kettlemam rnd
wutlr of the W W cartel. Pak
improvements we not included.
L SM12
Basin F'. storm dram ' .
aetleetltin taeWtles
. $387.00
53g/.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
W
SO
$0
$387.000
etMlldkip
north of Bosh IF' Mctuding
.p. ..
' y�'.48•. and 30•. pipes:'. ..
IiAS01013
Storm drain consisting of 38'
$149.000
$149.000
$0
SO
W
W
SO
SO
$149.000
50, .E
and 3p' pipes extending
eagerlyIsamtheendetlng6a ::.
. .. :.
trunk line aorto of Kettleman
Large. Exact location sot I at
determined.
:- MSDIO14
�Basin IF* outfall storm Aral(".
$194.000
$184.000
$0
SO
SO
SO
SO
W
5184.000
W
consisting of 30' pipae
extending easterly Isom the
basin W the exieft S4• trunk
line. '
-- MSD1016 Basin 'ti'dorm drakt. $261,000 $261,000 SO $0 W SO $281,000 SO
Collection fsaSies
consisting consisting of 48'
and 38' pipes extending
ecutinady and easterly from -
Badn'G'. Exact location not
yet determined.
PAGE 2 OF 3
Pon" 64-4 fwa" f-raa w01 sx..w
TABLE 5 —1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
21 -AUG -91
Project. -
"ram
impact
- -
14wnber
Cad
Fee Fund
1901Al2
1802193
1903194
1994NS
1995M
1998!97
1997-2002
2002-2007
MSD1016
Basin -G- collection facilities
$64,000
$64.000
$84.080 (1)
30
30
30
30
So
$0
30
consisting of 3G' and 36• pipes
extending westerly and
northerly from the existing 38•
trunk In Orchis Way. Exact
Location not yet determined.
- MS101017
Expansion and development of
$3.744.000
$3.744,000
Sioux (1)
30
$2.000.000
$50,000
So
$817.000
$769.000
so
Basin -G-. Goll course
Improvements are not Included.
MSW018
-Mader PlanlUpdates
$50.000
$50,000
$10.000 (1)
SD
SD
SO
30
$20.000
$20.000
so
MSDIM
Development of Basin -1•
$3,819,000
$3,819,000
s0
so
so
30
30
$o
$0
$3.619,000
!sealed south of Keldeman Lane
and west of Lower Sacramento
A
Road.
M00=1
Basin -1- collection facilities
$265,000
E2ffi.0W
s0
s0
so
30
s0
$o
$0
S265.Ow
..'consisting
0130.38.42. and
.
..48 inch pipes extended north
.
of the basin.
MDSIM ..
Basin 11- discharge consisting
$275,000
$275,000
$0
SD
30
30
80
$0
SD
$275,000
.
of 421 inch pipe extending north
and east to Basin -G•.
Upgrades to Existing Facilities
$1.051.000
s0
so
30
30
So
s0
$0
to
30
Parkwed (E- area)
-
Reimbursement Agreement
$260.838
S26t1.839
SD
so
s0
30
so
$288,838
to
30
surtwed (G -area)
Reimbursement Agreement
$154.809
$154,869
SO
s0
30
s0
So
$154,869
s0
s0
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE COST
$17.285.707 $16.234.707 s S2)2,'OOf}4t>000f
32.178,Ob,
„$271.000
xS32000(fi..SIf523°,�707;
NOTE
(1) Previously Appropriated from Drainage Fees
i
PAGE30F 3
GP STUDY AREA
.6j
%%
co
0
0
L V 4 4 E5 7n
OWN
I"
I gilmml
A-
LEGEN
Future Basin
Future Pipeline
MSDI 005 Storm Drainage
'n"mment
ftie,t Number
Droinoge Arect,
FIGURE 5-1 STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
48
!"T
AWIC—M L=ck"
Sm F upc Dwvww+
LOCI
jl
isM
GP STUDY AREA
.6j
%%
co
0
0
L V 4 4 E5 7n
OWN
I"
I gilmml
A-
LEGEN
Future Basin
Future Pipeline
MSDI 005 Storm Drainage
'n"mment
ftie,t Number
Droinoge Arect,
FIGURE 5-1 STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
48
!"T
AWIC—M L=ck"
Sm F upc Dwvww+
LOCI
1.�
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)
26
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.
r,
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
$7,910 per low density residential acre.
49
RM03"
TABLE 5-2 21 -Rug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
STORM DRAINAGE
Land Use Categories Unit RAE Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Acre 1.00 $7,910
Medium Density Acre 1.00 $7,910
High Density Acre 1.00 $7,910
East Side Residential Acre 1.00 $7,910.
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhaod Commercial
General Commercial
Downtown Commercial
Office Commercial
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Acre
1.00
$7,910
Acre
1.00
$7,910
Acre
1.00
$7,910
Acre
1.33
$1 0,520
Acre
1.33
$10,520
Ace
1.33
$10,520
Ace
1.33
$10,520
Acre
1.33
$1 0,520
Acre
1.33
$10,520.
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
50
r
r
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, TJRM was able to forecast future traffic conditions
throughout the project study area. Based upon these forecasts, road sections
of future streets and improvements to existing streets were identified.
A listing of general street, intersection, signalization, and interchange
improvements was submitted to the City along with the circulation study.
Working with City staff and the City improvement standards, cross-sections
were prepared for future streets and improvements to existing streets. These
are discussed in the following section.
Existing Deficiencies
Existing 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
RP00)SB
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, Proposition 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
$1.66 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 $26.56 million. Funding
for these program costs is anticipated to comerimarily from General Fund,
Gas Tax and Transportation Development Act (TDApj sources in proportion to
existing funding levels of 52%, 26%, and 22%, 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 policy 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 travei 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 of 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 RPN3"
111111" PM
am MR W" a"
0=4
no"
no
sun
TABLE6-1
21-Aug-91
DEVELOPMENT
RELATEDCAPITAL COSTSAND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project
Major Planned
Program
impact
Number
Facilities
Costs
Fee Fund
1991192
1992!93 1993194
1994195
1995M
1988/87
1997-2002
2002—M'7
MTS1001
Restaping of Kettleman Lane
522.000
$22,000
$0
$0 $0
$0
so
$0
$22.000
$0
(8 — Lams, Divided) from Lower
Sacramento Road to Ham Lane.
MTSIM
Rsatriping of Ketttemen Lane
522.000
mow
so
so
so
So
='0W
90
W
(6 - Lan$, Divided) Gram Ham
Lane to Stockton Street
MTSWW
Rastripfrw of ""Man Lane
512,01)0
$12.000
so
so so
so
to
$12.000
so
so
(8 — Lana. Divided) from
Stockton Street to Cherokee
Lan.
MTS1004
Design, construction. and
$5.108.000
$3.575.000
SO
$0 SO
s0
$0
11,787,500
$1,787,500
$0
engineering associated with
widening K*Wornan Lane (Highway
12) @ State Route 99. (Measure
w
'K' Funding - $700.000. State
Funding - 5831.000)
SIM
Widening of Kettleman Lane
$519.000
$519.000
s0
s0 $0
$259.500
s0
SO
s0
$259.500
'.-MT
(4 - Lanes. Divided) from
Beckman Road to Guild Avenue.
MTS1008
Widening of Lower Sacramento
$483.250
$278.000
s0
to s0
$0
$30.580
$47.280
$200.180
SG
- Road (8 - Lams. Divided) from
Tumor Road to Lodi Avenue.
(MeasureK' Funding - $185,250)
MTS1007
Widening of Lower Sacramento
$325,000
$195.000
s0
to SO
SO
$21,450
$33,150
$140.400
SO
Road (8 - Lane, Divided) from .
Bm SUM to Taylor Road.
(Measure'K' Funding $130,000)
MTSW08
Widening of Lower Sacramento
$228.000
$137.000
so
SO SO
SO
s0
So
$137.000
SO
Rood (8 — Lanes, Divided) from
Taylor Road to Kettleman Lan.
(Measure 'K' Funding . $91.000)
Page 1 of 9
i
y „ 'k?'r,��,`u •y1'y gr'??.: 1'"�` z' Re` .. � �
'!oK C'i'�.y�.�=elm '".1�.. �e'f�, �r�le�`p'r "'. ^.-- ...
y . 7 +S r„ 1 �^;A�'.0 °,1a"' : S..
.; :... :.;r:� �.�
�: ..
+t�. ^:w.ci`lq..�r%�`{'�'�?<as3-�;-.
S tv. ,.,;
/11�t�N:�j��✓:+2�p',
TABLE 6-1
21-Aug-91
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND
PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
fpr phoned
ram
Number
Fac.Bitlae
Costs
Fee Fund
1991/92 to^'1, 21M 1993194 1994,95 1995196
199M7
1997-2002
2002-2007
WTMM
1WWngdLowerSacrsmento
$235,250
$141.000
so So so
S0
S0
80
$141,000
So
Road(6-Lanes, Divided)fr0m
Ket6srnut Lane toOmMe Drive.
weaswo,lr Funding 894.250',
k4TS1010
' Widening of Lower Sacramento
$195.000
$117.000
$a s0 s0
So
so
80
$117,000
so
Road (6- Lanes. Divided) from
Orchis Drive to Century Blvd. "
weiisure'w Funding -178.000;
1tT5p11
WtasntnryrJLomnarsacrauneuty .
8300,250
8180.000
s0 s0 s0
so
so
So
s0
8180,000
Road (6 - Lanes. Divided) from
Can%" Bk-. Urdlden CauL
p"sure'K' Funding .8120 25
MTS1012
WkfenUg 0f tower Sacramento
i130,000
878,000
$O SO SO
SO
SO
SO
m
878.000
.. , .:..
Road (A- Lanae, Divided) from
Kristen CowltoftneyUm ,
Measure_ K' Funding
(f52.000j
MiT3 la
. o� �:
$173,000
$173,000
so so so
so
so
s0
$173,000
SO
p-Lsnes}Arori►tower .
Sauamento Road Eas12.660 feet
WTS1014
:WideningofHarneyLaw
$173,000
$173,000
5o So s0
So
So
80
$173,000
SO
(4 -!Arad from W.I.D.
croWng west 2,650 feet.
MTSW15
VYndWng of Harney Lane.
8120,000
8120,000
go 80 so
so
m
s0
8120,000
s0
`(4 - Lamed from W.I.D.
erossiag East 2,250 feet.
MT9016
: Widening of Hwasy Lane
8120,000
8120,000
So So 80
so
so
so
8120.000
so
N -. Land from Hutchins
Street to Stockton Street'.. '
YTSYOt7
VAdanim of Hamev Lana '
8147.000
8147,000
80 So so
s0
s0
80
8147,000
so
(4- Lanes) from Stockton
'
Street to Cherokee Lane.
Page 2 of 9
�
S
�'
-
... -, r.�a•
�', 9:.K9`{`
,hi'rs
15.x^3 .. ''`.- rL?s � '. ..
..
'.
+ '!'''�
r..ri jtt9iW1 I�
ws
I•
wwr
+�
w"
son
ON
!
TABLE 6-1
21-Aug-91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETSAND ROADS
Project
Major Planned
piewarn
Costs
impact
Fee Fund
1wise
109M 1993!84
1994195 1995190
1991 w
1987 2002
2002-2007
Numtrer
FaciMMs
Ir(TS1018
yyideniog d Harney Lane
$179.000
$179.000
$0
t.0
$0
SO
SO
$O
to
$178.000
(4 - Lows) ham Lower
sacramento Roel to the
General Plan Boundary.
Lff=j9
Highway 12
$90,000
$90.000
390.000
$0
$o
SO
SO
SO
to
SO
project Study Report
MTS1020
Design. eonstruction. and
51.000.000
$1,500.000
SO
SO
$o
SO
SO
SO
to
$1.500.000
engineering associated with
widenkp d Turner Road over
State Route 99-
MTSM21
Redoing of Lcdi Avenue
$13.000
$13.000
SO
$0
$0
SO
SO
SO
$0
$13,000
(4 - Danes) from Cherokee
Fa d9900100L
. MTS1022
i'ieccost -don d Lodi Avenue
$33.000
$33:000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$33.000
SO
(4 - Lanes) from Guild
F.
Avenue Wed 700 fret.
MTs1p23
Redrtphtgd7umerRoW
$11,000
$11,000
SO
$0
SO
SO
30
SO
$0
$11000
ra - Lanett from Beckman Road
6d 2.500 bel.
MTS1024
Widening of Turner Road
$22.000
$22.000
$0
to
SO
So
SO
so
SO
$22.000
(4 - Lanes) from Guild Avenue
Wed 700 feet.
MTS1025
WidonbV of Century Blvd.
$240,000
$240,000
$0
SO
SO
SO
SO
$240,000
SO
$O
(4 - Lanes) from Lower
Beef amento Road east 4,100
feet.
MTS1029
' yyfderriog of Century BW.
$31.000
$31.000
SO
SO $31.000
SO
SO
(4 - Lanes) from Stockton
i
Sheet to Chickadee lane.
Page 3 d 9
i
pegs 4 of 9
MalorPiarmed
nogram
rmpacc
�� FacfBtlss
Coats
Fee Fwd
199102
1802/83
199304
1994195
1985M
1990!97
1907-2002
2002-2007
µ"381Q" Widening of Stockton SWeel
$81,000
$81.000
$40.500
SO
$40.500
SO
SO
m
SO
SO
;- (4-LansokomKouleman
Lane to Hemet Line.
Widening of Guild Avenue.
$188.000
$188,000
$20,180
$10.080
$10.080
$10.OBD
$10,080
$10,080
$48,720
548.72p
(4 -Lanes) from Lodi
Avenue to Kettleman Lane.
MTSIM widening of Tumor Road
$84.000
$84.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
s42.ODD
$42.000
SO
$0
(4 - Lanes? bore Lam,
Sacwmado Road Westin the
General Plan Boundary.
µTf>Y030 Wklanlnp of Lod! Avenue -
$84.000
$84.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$84.000
(4".- Larres) boon Lower
Saer&m@nto Road West to the
Gerk" Plan Owndary.
k4TS1031 Wideningof Kettleman Lane
$178,000
$178,000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$178,000
(4 - Lome) from Lamer
Sacramento Road. West to Itis
General Plan Soundary.
µT31032-vAdeningofLockefordStreet
$1,207,000
$1.287.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$1.287,000
.(4; -Lanes) fram Sacramento
SUeet io Cherokee Lar
µT31033 Wmknknii of Victor Rd.(Hwy 12)
$342.000
$342.000
SO
SO
SO
so
SO
So
SO
5342.000
,:.to 4lane1
µTSMI Mader Plan 1987
$78,187
$78,187
$78,187
SO
SO
SO
$0
SO
SO
SO
µ"3C002 Mader Plan and
$20,000
$20.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$20.000
SO
SO
CIP. Update -1997
MT3C003 6yew Master Plan.
$20,000
$20.000 '
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
520.000
SO
and CAP Update - 2002
pegs 4 of 9
TABLE 6-1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPI[ AL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
PFOJW
Major Planned
Program
Impact
Nwnbx
FadMes
Cows
Fee Fund
1691102
190M 1003164
loam
1995108
1998197
1997-2002
2002-2007
MTS001 '
- Installation of traffic
$95,000
$95,000
so
SO $85.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
50
signal located at ft int of
Lower Sacramento Road and
Turner Road.
MTS002.Instafadonottraffio
$05.000
$95. 000
30
so so
so
so
so
so
$06 .000
agnei located a ae int. w
Turner Road and the State
Route 99 Southbound Ramp. .
MTS009
Msfaiwon of traft signal
599,1100
$47.500
$47.506
so so
$0
to
so
so
So
located at the Int. of Victor
Road and Cluff Avenue. (5046)
. Indagadon of trafic
SM800
$47.500
$47.500
to so
s0
so
so
so
s0
�sl located at the L-9. of
79ATSt10a
v
Lodi Avenue and Lower
Sacramento Road. (50%)
MTS105
Inatagatbn of tr&Mc s1wW
-
595000
$47,500
S0
SO s0
$o
SO
30
547,500
SO
tocaad at Ow ka of Lada
Avenue and MRIs Avenue. (W%)
$i1TSt10e
Installation of tram
$90.000
$45. 000
S0
so so
so
so
so
$45.009
so
signet located at Oe int. a
Lowrar Sacramento Road and Vine
Street. (50%)
11 9007..Installation
of tralio,SgSo00
$47.500
$47 500
SO $0
SO
t0
SO
30
SO
Cignal toasted at the kN. of -
Nettleman lane and Mitis
Avenue. (50%)
MTSDOS
Inaatiationoftraffic
$05.000
$95.000
m
so so
so
$95.000
so
$o
$0
signal located at the int. of .
Kanlenen Lane and the Stat,
j
i
Route 99 Southbound Ramp.
�qyB $et t
A?'
TABLE 6-1
21-Au"l
DNELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETSAND ROADS
project
Number
Major planned
F&CON!"
Raw—
code
Impact
Fee Fund
1991/92 199M 1993M
1904M
1995196
11906197
1097-2002
2002-2007
mum
Indaustion of traffic
$0.000
$06,000
so so
so
so
so
$95,000
so
so
Wonal located at the Int. of
Kettleman, Low and Beckman
Road.
MTSDIO
lnVAN6dCn Of tralft
$96.000
$05,000
so so
to
so
595.000
so
so
so
signal located at the Int. of
Lower Sacramento Road and
Harney Lam.
Lasoi I
MataNation of traffic
$90.000
$90,000
so so
so
so
so
so
$60.000
so
signal WAW at the laL of
Harney Lam and MM* Avenue.
... UTS012
I . nitallatlOn Of trAfft
$90.000
$90.000
so to
to
so
so
so
so
$90.000
d
9VW located at do Int. of
OD
Harney Lam and Ham Lane.
MT8013
InVAllation of traffic
$90.000
$46,000
SO $45.000
to
s0
to
so
so
so
signal w4w at ft InL of
Harney Low and Stockton
street. (SM)`
MT$014
of traffic
$90.000
$45.000
$45.000 W
so
so
so
so
so
so
aignW locittecl at the Int. of
'Al
Elm SUM and Lower Sacramento
Road. (W%)
MTS0115
lndalladoaoftraffic
$90.000
$46.0.00
so to
to
$45.000
so
so
so
so
signal located at the Int. of
Lockeford Street and Stockton
street. (W%)
MTSDIG
Installation Of traffic
$90,000
$46.000
$45.000 to
so
so
so
$0
so
so
signal located at the Int. of
Turner Road and Stockton
street. (5016)
Page eat 9
Page 7 018
.t'fi "W, ;.
TABLE 6-1
21-AW-91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project
Major Ptah ed
Program
Impact
.Nmnhex--
ac9ities
Costs
Fee Fuad
1991192
1992193 1993194 1994M
1995M
1998/97
1987-2002
2002-2007
LITSO17
Installation of traffic signal
$90.000
$15.000
so
s0 $45.000
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
loeand at the inL of Pine SL
and Stoeklon Street (50%)
MTS01ti
Installation ol trame dgnai
$90,000
$45,000
s0
s0 s0
So
$45.000
s0
s0
s0
located at dw InL of Tumor
Road w0k.4116 Avenue. (50%)
MT8019
Installation of trame otgnd
$90.000
$45.000
s0
s0 s0
s0
s0
$45.000
s0
s0
located at the Nu. of Turnor
Road and Edgewood. (50%)
f Tstw
Installation of tratoo
$90.000
$45.000
s0
s0 s0
s0
s0
$45.000
s0
so
signal Waged at tiro Int. of
Kotdenum Lane and central
n'
a
UTS021
hntapadonoftr-M-
.$90.000
$45,000
s0
s0 $0
s0
s0
$45.000
s0
s0
signal located at the int. of
Elm Stroll and We Ave6uo.(50%)
UTS022
Instawm of trafbc a9nd
$105.000
$52,500
so
$0 so
so
so
so
$52.500
so
located at the int, of Cherokee
Lane and VkW Street (60%)
MT8023
Installation of traffk: atonal
$95,000
$47.500
s0
s0 s0
s0
$0
s0
$47.500
s0
located at the inL of Ham Lane
and Century Blvd. (50%)
M. T9024:,.
Indabdon of trafflc signal .'
$105.000
$52.500
so
so so
s0
so
so
$52.500
so
located at the kit, of Cherokee
Lan. and Elm Street, (50%)
mixMi
Wi wft o1 WID Box culvert
SM000
$295,000
so
so so
so
so
$295.000
so
so
along Lower Sacramento Road
appy-. 1,380 fed South o1
Lodi Avenue.
Page 7 018
w"t'.�Ai�'5'.£�^'"+?"'9.„°`
1�, ... �s01=0
M me
F� PWO PMR 1111"
TABLE 6-1 21-Au"ll
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND F'RAZNG
STREETS AND ROADS
Project frlsjor PlarUNK Program bepact
Humber FadNtiss Cods Fee Fund 1991192 1982193 1093194 1994195 1995188 199"7 19il7-2002 2002 2007
MBC002 Widetttrtg of WID Box Culvert
$160,000
575,000
g0
g0
$0
$0
$0
so
$75,000
g0
stoop Turner Road approx.
2,400 feet Welt of Loner
Saaamento Road. (50% S.J. Co.)
I.1BC003 Wi(WftofWIDBoxCuiv n
$141,000
$141,000
so
so
$0
90
90
$0
$141,000
so
along Milis Avenue approx.
100 IM South of Royal
Crest Drive.
UB0004 Widening of WO Box Culvert
$216,000
$216,000
$0
90
$0
so
so
so
5218,000
so
along Harney Lane approx.
3,300lost West of Hutchins
Skeet
MRRX001 Widening of S.P. railroad
$202,000
$101,000
50
SO
so
SO
so
so
$101.000
so
a' crossing on Lower Sacramento
O
r Road 1.400 R North of Turner
Road. (50% S.J. Co.)
MRRX004 VVkW np and upgrade of
5202,000
5202,000
$0
SO
so
$0
SO
so
SO
5202,000
protection devices of the
railroad crossing at the inL
of Lockeford Skeet and Guild
Avenue.
MRRX005 Widenkq of Cowell California
$222)000
$222,000
$0
SO
s0
SO
SO
so
so
$222.000
Traction Co. viossing on Victor
Rd. (Hwy 12)1.350 ft. Ead of
Guild Avenue.
L4RRX006 Widening and. upgrade of
$227.000
$227.000
$0
SO
$0
so
$0
so
$227.000
g0
protection devices of the
railroad crossing at the intersection
of Beckman Road and Lodi
Avon us.
URRX007 Construction of railroad
:215.000
$215,000
SO
SO
so
SO
so
$0
$215,000
so
crossing at int. of Lodi
Avenue and Guild Ave.
Page 5 of 9
.,4 p�'S,-.,,.u.
paptt.hJt�s? �w?!?'.. .
pill". 111111110,
TABLE 6-1 21-Auq-91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITALCOSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
?roject Major Panned
Program
impact
Number Facilities
Costs
Fee Fund
1981192
199M
1993194
1994195
199585
1988187
1997-2002
2002-2007
•,Mfvo=0 Construction draiiroad
$189,00D
$189,000
so
so
so
$0
$2
so
$189,000
so
uossirq atint of Clu1f
Avenue and Thurman Street
MRRXW9 WWenleg and upgrade of
$215,000
$215,000
so
30
so
$0
90
Sd
so
$216AW
- -- - WatectiondevieesofCantrat
-
-
- -
C&W. Traction Co-X-ing an
Ketdeman Ln.1,350 R East of _
Guild Ave.
MRR>aD/0 WFatatitrp of SP railroad croseatg
S202,000
s202.000
$0
$o
so
$0
so
$0
$202.000 -
so
on Hanna. Ln:.138o R East of
Hutchins Street.
J.
Upgrades b Bddh g Facilities
$28.580.000
SO
so
so
$0
$D
$0
$D
50
j0
New Dnvelopn Share of Existing FadBties
a. ttutehate SL VPMenbq-
-
Tokg1ot"m%)
S4/.M
t ltW"m SL Vrxwdng-
Ranby to tine (58%)
$151.458
a Lockeford SL Waning -
pleasant to SPAR (80%)
$59,838
d. ChsrokedCentt ry letter=
secdon wifta ng (100%) -
S48,W3
e. Cenhtrywo Bax Culvert(88%)
$109,551
L SrecMott SL Widsnap-
Kephman to Vine (100%)_
$463.597
9. Stoeamn St. WWenMg-
VinotoTokay(100%)
$92.235
h. TumedCWlfkderseetlan
WkMnhv (100%)
$139,835
NEW DEVELOPMENT SHARE SUBTOTAL
$1,094,000
$1,084,000
$88,375
$86,375
$58.375
$68.375
$68.375
688,375
$341,875
3341.875
STREt fS AND ROADWAY COST
345.100,937
$15,290,687
2P!, ....
Nils
11 x
rw
Signal lights, bridge crossings, and freeway interchanges are not privately
constructed facilities and are completely funded by the City through
development impact fees and other funding sources such as Federal, State,
County and Measure K.
Street and Road Improvements
A listing of the street and 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
d� 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 met, 50 percent of the improvement cost has been
allocated to the Impact Fee Fund.
Freeway Improvements
As recommended by TJKM, interchange improvements for Kettleman Lane/State
Route 99 and Turner Road/State Route 99 will be necessary to maintain a LOS C
or better. Proposed interchange improvements at Kettleman Lane/State Route 99
call for the realignment of Beckman Road. Currently, Beckman Road is located
about 225 feet east of the northbound ramp onto State Route 99, a distance
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 99/12 interchange as a funded project in the
amount of $700,000. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that 30
percent of the interchange costs will be derived from sources outside this fee
,.� program. A portion of the 30 percent will be Measure K funds and the other
could be State funds or possibly additional growth in Lodi not covered by this
study.
62 RM33.8
t.5:t Max.
slope to ex.
ground
25' c
Right -Of -Way IR/W) 88'
Face of Curb to Face of Curb (F -F) 52'
i(s2. (-
j 2' ymmetrical) j
2.5% 1 2_5%
verficai C.G3s. vertical C.G&S.
MAJOR COLLECTOR
TWO LANE
MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION BY DEVELOPER
FIGURE 6-2 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
64
��TE
ADpro-W* loWft a
5.. Actio Du o+en
toa
f$<
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
In Table 6-1, a summary of the street projects and development impact fee
funding is presented. Estimated costs are referenced to the Engineering News
Record 20 Cities Construction Cost Index for January 1, 1990 of 4673. Roadway
improvement costs reflect only the City's funding responsibility per the
proposed City Reimbursement Policy and do not reflect the total estimated
construction cost.
In preparing the estimates of construction cost, the developer obligation,
City obligation and development impact fee funding for the projects, the
following factors were considered. The City obligation for funding of
projects includes everything not required of the developer including special
medians, landscaping, and right-of-way.
Phasing of the improvements is based upon the Forecast of Units Constructed
Over the General Plan Period (Appendix A) provided by the City. In Table
6-1, the phasing is divided by year for the first seven years followed by two
five-year increments. Costs for the projects serving the General Plan
development funded on or before July 1, 1991 are shown in the current year
(1991/92). Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to the
January 1, 1990 dollar reference.
t
Lower Sacramento Road is also included in the list of projects funded, in
part, by Measure K. Based upon discussion with the City, the funding of Lower
Sacramento Road improvements are divided amongst the City fee program,
developer and Measure K. Obligations of the developer have been discussed.
For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that Measure K funds will pa
for 2 lanes (one each direction). Therefore, the obligation of the City Fee
Program is for 2 lanes and the center median and curbs.
Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between the fees use and the
type of development on which the fee is imposed. In order to establish this
relationship, we must first demonstrate that the type of development upon
which the fee is to be charged will, in fact, use, be served by, or benefit
from the public facilities to be financed.
Each and every land use will benefit from the streets and road facilities
within the community. Residents use the streets to get to and from work,
shopping, and entertainment. Commerce and industry use the streets for
deliveries, customers, and employees. Each and every land use in the Proposed
General Plan will benefit from the facilities constructed as part of the
capital improvements program and, therefore, is appropriately part of the fee
program.
w
65 RM0)}8
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)roportion to its use of, or benefit from, the improvements.
0 This is accompilnMed 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
94 detached residential category.
Trip generation factors developed and used in the Circulation Study form the
N basis for calculating an RAE schedule for streets and road facilities. Based
upon recommendation of the City Transportation Consultant, trip generation
factors for commercial categories were reduced by 30 percent to compensate for
pass -by trips. As a result, net trip generation factors were calculated for
each land use and compared to the base RAE factor of 1.0 for single family
detached residential. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship
between the cost of streets and roads projects and the financing burden placed
on each land use as based upon their relative generation and demand for
streets and road facilities. RAE schedule for streets and roads is shown in
Table 6-2.
t.
Recommended Fees
The Streets and Road Facilities Fee is shown in Table 6-2. The total fee is
$5,470 per low density residential acre.
Regional Facilities
The fee program presented in this report does not include funding for
improvements to roads outside the City of Lodi General Plan boundaries. The
cent sales tax override for transportation (Measure K) recently approved by
San Joaquin County voters, includes a provision for Regional Traffic
Mitigation fees to be adopted by January 1, 1993. This fee
the
will need
to be modified in coordination with San Joaquin County and e ouncil of
Governments (the local transportation authority) to include a regional.
element.
66
RPW31-5
TABLE 6-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
STREETS AND ROADS
RESIDENTIAL
6ediDeftsity
High Density
East Side Re4'
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
nt1l..l=In nl A V
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Downtown Commercial
Office Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Acre
1.00
$5,470
Acre
1.96
$10,720
Acre
3.05
$16,680
Acre
1.00
$5,470
Acre
1.00
$5,470
Acre
1.96
$10,720
Acre
3.05
$1 6,680
Acre
1.90
$10,390
Acre
3.82
$20,900
Acre
1.90
$10,390
Acre
3.27
$17,890
Acre
2.00
$10,940
Acre
1.27
$6,950
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
67
i �
i
q
CHAPTER 7
E
POLICE
pe OVERYIEW
I
Level of Service
Target for emergency response time i s 3 minutes anywhere i n the City.
Currently, emergency response times are under this goal. There were a total
of 65 sworn personnel and 33 non -sworn personnel authorized in 1988/89. These
figures reveal a service standard of 0.95 sworn personnel and 0.47 non -sworn
personnel per 1,000 persons served. Currently, the department i s 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 WD 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 dented 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
W resident, and in the case of non-residential uses is a use per employee.
These use per "person served" figures are then normalized around the Single
Family land use to produce "Persons Served" factors which are applied to a
forecast of the total number of residents and employees from each land use to
compute the total persons served from rev development.
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
T space. The current employee standard based 98 total employees i s 1.3
employees per 1,000 persons served. The current space standard is 220 square
�- feet of building space per employee.
.r
J
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.
t PLANNED W L I C E 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
A 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.
F
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 KPW3}9
TABLE 7-1 21 -Aug -91
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
POLICE
Existing
Description of Item Service Future Future
Population Additions Total
�.GENERAL G.G.M. PERSONS SERVE
E
SERVICE CAPACITY
j ;R Police Employees-...
Police Facilites (Sq:: Ft.)
' SERVICE STANDARD
Current Service. Standard:
Police Employees. Per
1,000 Persons" Served
Building .Sq. Ft. Per Employe4
Target SArvinA Standard
�! Police Employees Per
..� 1,000 Persons Served
Building Sq. Ft. Per Employee
�= ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRED
Additional Employees
Additional Building Area (Sq. Ft.)
For Existing Employees
For New Employees
Total
Burden on New and Existing Development
Cost of New Facilities
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates
. 70
81,478 35,796 117,274
98.0 43.0 141.0
21,571 10,000 31,571
1.20
220.1
1.20
223.9
0.0 43.0 43.0
372 372
0 9,618 9,618
372 9,618 9,990
3.7% 96.3% 100.00%
'Sq"4'CnR y,.:r.�,-rii�.y+. •:Y,Yy' .+1w R ^� v. ,.: Y, ...� y ..v. . _. _ l's t .:• ^ }' - _ _ -
TABLE 7 - 2 21-Au0-91
DEVELOPMENTRELATEDCAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
POLICE
ProJeU
Number
' 2002-2007
Program
Cost
unvecc
Fee
1981192
1992!83
1993x04
1994M
1005!08
1998x97
1907-2002
.-LP0001 Police station expansion
$2.000.000
$1.928,000
to
to
s0
30
s0
$021900
$1,033,100
30
to add 10,000 square feet
of space.
LPDO02 Jag expansion to add
$275,000
$275.000
s0
s0
to
so
s0
$27,500
$247.800
to
lanew cegs
LPO1103 Lasceganeous safety
$11.000
$44.000
$3.000
$3.000
(3.000
$3.000
$3.000
$3.000
$13.000
$13.000
equipment for 29 officers.
LP13004 Animal control truck
$23.000
$23.000
$0
s0
s0
to
s0
so
s0
$23.000
. and equipment
LPD005 2 pickup trucks equipped
538,000
$38,000
to
s0
to
s0
s0
s0
$30.000
s0
with radios and other
aquipmenL
LP13000 Eight patrol cars
$144.000
$144.1100
$18.000
so
$18.000
s0
$18.000
s0
$30.000
$54,000
and equipment.
LPDO07 Ten portable radios.
528.000
$20.000
s0
$3.000
s0
$3.000
$0
$3.000
$9.000
$8.000
LpD008 Five work stations.
$20.000
$20.000
to
$4.000
to
s0
$4.000
s0
$4.000
$8.000
LPD000 Five computerterminals.
BE7l
$8.000
s0
$1,500
so
$1,500
$0
s0
$2.600
$2.500
'
ycJ,
.?W ..,< x
- � 3sy
r9 ,x�
�,2,. •TSP` i
gp;
TOTAL POLICE DEPARTMENT
$2,576,000
$2,502,000
PAGE IOFI
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Police Projects to lav Development
The relationship between existing deficiencies, unproved service standards and
capacity for rev development was summarized in Table 7-1. Only the portion of
the police facilities whose demand was generated by rev development was
included in the Development Impact Fee program.
Relationship of Police Projects to Land Uses
The RAE schedule for police facilities that is spawn in Table 7-2 was
developed from data supplied by the Lodi Police Department. The schedule is
based cn the relative rnmbff of calls for service from each land use category.
Recommended Fees
The Police Facilities fee is shown in Table 7-3. The total fee is $1,110 per
low density residential acre.
id
cros
+1
mei
wit
� ft
72 RPW3 e
64
-r
lM
is
1A1A
F�
TABLE 7-3 I -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELQPMENT IMPACT FEES
POLICE
c (Land Use Categories Unit RAE Fee
73
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acm
1.00
$1,110
Medium Density
Acre
1.77
$1,960
Hi h Densit
Acre
4.72
$5,240
Eat Side ResidentialAcre
1.09
$1,210
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$1,110
Medium Density,
Acre
1.77
$1,960
A �'!
',.'High Density
Acre
4.72
$5,240
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
4.28
$4,750
General Commercial
Acre
2.59
$2,870
Downtown Commercial
Acre
4.28
$4,750
Office Commercial
Acre
3.72
$4,130
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Acre
0.30
$330
Heavy Industrial
Acre
0.19
$210
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year ;991/1992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
e.r
F �
x
73
CHAPTER 8
FIRE
OVERVIEW
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.
f; Existing Fire Facilities
The City of Lcdi Fire Department currently serves the City from three fire
1A 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
c s (
74 AP0033-B
Y�I
e !.:!•<2 I�""ii f- .:.e/ t•ew..>y . ^'`+ rM f°" r" q IN !`°°"'� r"Ml !'�"i 1 !A" ! II" wWl C
TABLE 8 —1
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITALCOSTSAND PHASING
FIRE
GEN SIAL CITY PROJECT PHASING
Fefi..ufs
PrpleCt 1)reuiptlon ' . '• Conetruo5an ' .
Number Cwt
UVW1 New wedW* etawn eon*ucdm $475,000 $475,000
(t, I, lkunldWV5 endequlpnent.
cnmz ttw
IOW ladderbuck and $475.000 $475.006
bnpfd
Fee 199UM2 1992193
so $45.000 $430,000 so
so so 5o $475,006
$20,006
SO
so
So 56
$30,000
50
So
so 5o
$16,600
So
So
So so
$13.000
so
so
s0 so
$18,066
$0
so
so So
$19,666
SO
SO
SO so
so
SO
so
so to
30
SO
so
so
to
$0
so
so
z1-lukp-Mt
1988197
1897_2002
2002-2007 f
SO
So
SO
30
SO
SO
So
$10,000
$10,000
$15,009
SO
$15,000
$3.000
$8.000
$7.000
$13.000
5o
50
$19,000
SO
so
So
$18.000
so
SO
$6
SO
projects can be characterized as a grading 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. 1`b personnel are included.
ESIIMATED CCT AND PHASSM
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 4673.
DEVELOPMENT MALT FEE
Relationship of Fire Projects to IW 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
1
The. RAE schedule for fire facilities that is shown in Table 8-2 was developed
fi from data supplied b the Lodi Fire Department. The RAE schedule considers
relative number of fire calls and Emergency Medial Service (EMS) calls
3 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.
per low density residential acre.
76
The total fee is $520
RP0033.8
TABLE 8 2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FIRE
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
East Side Residential
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
f%nf1Af1AC0f%1 A
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Downtown Commercial
Office Commercial
INDUSTRIAL
Light industrial
Heavy industrial
Acre
1.00
$520
Acre
1.96
$1,020
Acre
4.32
$2,250
Acre
1.10
$570 -
Acre
1.00
$520
Acre
1.96
$1,020
Acre
4.32
$2,250
Acre
2.77
$1 , 440
Acre
1.93
$1,000
Acre
2.77
$1,440
Acre
2.46
$1,280
Acre
0.64
$330
Acre
0.61
$320
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
77
CHAPTER 9
ri PARKS AND RffitEAU N
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
R.
6
0
10
The current level service for standard parks (not including school parks or
drainage basins) is 3.3 acres per 1,000 Park and Recreation Persons Served and.
the current level of service for community center building space is
approximately 1,765 square feet per 1,000 Park and Recreation Persons Served.
The City has adopted standards of 3.4 acresper 1,000 persons served and 1,800
square feet of community center space per 1,000 persons served.
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 53,713 park and
recreation persons served, the existing standard for parks and recreation
acreage is 3.3 acres per 1,000 persons served. Based upon an estimated current
building space inventory of 94,800 square feet in community center buildings,
the existing space standard is 1,765 square feet per 1,000 persons served. A
summaryof existing park facilities provided by the City and is presented in
Table -2.
The adopted standards are slightly higher than what the City is currently
providing. A a result, a small percentage of the new facilities will be paid
for from fundsggenerated outside of the fee program. This calculation is
shown i n Table 9-3.
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 otherersons present during the
day may use the park and recreation facilities in addition to residents of
Lodi. The concept "Persons Served" considers all persons who may use these
facilities so that the service standard also captures the burden these other
participants will place on the facilities. A weighting factor is estimated
that accounts for various categories of persons served in accordance with the
78 RP 033
TABLE 9-1
INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARK AND RECREATION ACREAGE
- 1 Description
Existing Park Facilities Future Parks
Total Standard Total
Acres Park Basin School Acres
1. Armory
3.2
3.2
2. Beckman
16.6
0.8
15.8
3. Blakely
9.0
9.0
4. Kandy Kane
0.2
0.2
5. Century (1)
2.5
2.5
6. Emerson
2.0
2.0
7. English Oaks Commons
3.7
3.7
8. G -Basin
0.0
9. Henry Glaves
12.6
3.0
9.6
10. Grape Bowl
15.0
15.0
11. Hale
2.6
2.6
12. Hutchins Street Square
10.0
10.0
13. Kofu
10.0
10.0
14. Lawrence/Zupo Hardball
18.0
10.0
8.0
15. Legion
5.6
5.6
16. Lodi Lake
101.0
101.0
17. Maple Square
1.0
1.0
18. Pixley Park (C-1 Basin)
17.0
17.0
19. Salas Park
21.0
1.0
20.0
20. Softball Complex
7.6
7.6
21. Van Buskirk
1.0
1.0
22. Vinewood
14.0
0.8
11.2
2.0
23. Westgate
6.0
0.3
5.7
24. Washington School
5.1
5.1
25. Lakewood School
5.0
5.0
26. Reese School
6.0
6.0
27. Nichols School
5.8
5.8
28. Heritage School
2.0
2.0
29. Woodbridge School
5.0
5.0
30. Sr. Elementary
12.0
12.0
31. Lodi High School
25.0
25.0
32. Tokay High School
21.0
21.0
33. Needham School
2.0
2.0
Westgate Expansion
13.4
0.6
6 -Basin
50.0
1.0
F -Basin
24.0
1.0
I -Basin
24.0
1.0
C -Basin Expansion
8.0
1.0
Park Area 11
3.0
Park Area 13
3.0
Park Area /6
10.0
Park Area 14
10.0
Park Area 15
8.0
Park Area 17
10.0
Eastside Park
2.0
East Side Softball Complex
19.4
Lodi Lake - Expansion
13.0
Total Acreage
368.5
180.3
208.7
98.9
83.0
Total Acreage for Standard (1)
177.8
Source: City of Lodi.
(1) Century Park is a temporary park and is not included in standards.
79
RP00339
ar
1
,Mw
relative frequency with which they are expected to use park and recreation
facilities.
�— Existing Deficiencies
is
Calculation of existing deficiencies is based upon the current standard
P' relative to the future standard for parks and recreation acreage and
community building space. In Table 9-3, results of the existing deficiency
analysis are presented.
The findings indicate the following. First, the added park acreage in the -
Proposed Fee Program matches the acreage standard from 3.3/1,000 persons
served . As a result the added park acreage can be allocated to new
development. Second, the added community building space will match the
existing space standard of 1,800/1,000 person served.
Existing deficiencies are not funded through the development impact fee
program. In this fee study, alternative funding sources are not
specifically identified that would cover parks and recreation existing
facilities deficiencies.
TABLE 9-2
INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
PARK FACILITY
EXISTING STANDARD
Park Acreage
3.3/1,000 persons served
NO
Community Building Area
1,765 sq ft/1,000
persons
served
Restrooms
1/park over 3.0 acres
Lighted Baseball Diamonds
11 Total
Tot lot
1/park
Lighted Tennis Courts
11 Total
ON
Swimming Pools
4 Total
Source: Nolte and Associates
and Angus McDonald & Associates
tf
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
F=�
aw
80
RM331.9
n
t
r
f"
r
4
TABLE 9-3 21 -Aug -91
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
PARKS AND RECREATION
MiNng Future Future
Desci iption d Item Conditions Additions Total
if
PARK PERSONS SERVED
53,713 24,020 77,733
SERVICE CAPACITY
Park Acreage
177.8 83.0 260.8
Community Center Buildings (Sq. Ft)
1. Hutchins Street Square Cafeteria 6,400
2 Camp Hutchins Room 6,000
3. Hutchins Street Square N. Complex 19,600
A Hutchins Street Square Pool Area 5,400
5. Hutchins Street Square Fine Arts Bldg. 8,700
6. Recreation Annex, N. Stockton St. 3,500
7. Kofu Park Building 1,800
a Lee Jones Building J@ Leigion Park) 900
9. Grape Festival Pavi ion 32,000
10. Grape FestivalChablis Hall 9,600
11. Recreation Office Meeting Room 900
Total All Buildings:
94,800 45.100 -139,900
SERVICE STANDARD
Current Service Standard:
Park Acres Per 1,000 Persons Served
3.3
Community Center Sq. Ft Per 1.000 Persons Served
1,765
Target Service Standard
Park Acres Per 1,000 Persons Served
3.4
Community Center Sq. Ft. Per 1,000 Persons Served
1,800.
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRED
Additional Park Acres
2.4 80.6 83.0
Additional Community Center SgFt
1,870 43,230 45,100
BURDEN ON NEW AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Additional ar cres
3.0%
97.0% 100.0%
Additional Community Center SgFt
4.0%
96.0% 100.0%
I=1 Notes Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1992.
Sources: Nolte $ Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
�. 81
L;
v pr "on n POR PonIowar P-0 w p" wa Irl 11"n') !'� lr1aM taA� talalq !ami
TABLE 9-4
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS AND RECREATION
-
�Pr .. D*ecriptlon
t4umbe►
Program
Cad
knpact
fee
1991102
1997-2002
2002-2007
so
so
MPR001. Parke andRscreatlon
$50.000
s50,000
350.000
Master Plan.
so
s0
6128-000
MPR002 . Adn"wallon twBdiW
$2.884.000
$1.289.000
s0
expansion at corporation prd.
so
so
s0
MPR003 undatprourld tank replacement
$37.000
s0
to
MPR004 Lodi lake Centrd Park
$868.000
s0
s0
Mpp005, L" Lake penin"
$375.000
s0
so
Improvement*: .
30
so
s
s0
to
$0
so
N 4�p1p06 L"►1akam"..1-lo13awe
$1.816.000
$1.816.000
to
wastddoare&
so
$0
30
MPR007 ; Lod Lek* eNt rem04081.
$250.000
30
to
MPROOS , Led! Lok* Tumor Road
$156.001
30
$0
Y.. wdL
so
so
so
UPFW9 Lodi Lake UUMY fxtendon
$133.00t
so
so
(1Mater).
s0
so
s0
MPRO10 So"A compimc com eadoo.
$79.000
so
so
MPR011 So.Meg Complex replacement of
$107.000
so
so
corwe9d00 stand. '
30
so
s0
MPR012 So"I Complex shad*
$12.000
30
so
sauctur*.
so
so
so
MPR013 , SoftallComplex paving.
$11.000
so
s0
MPRO14 SORW Complex upgrade
$81.000
s0
so
sports lighting.
so
s0
so
Page 1 of 4
21-Au0-01
1
f09=4
Isom
1995"
1906187
1997-2002
2002-2007
so
so
$0
$0
so
s0
so
so
s0
6128-000
$1.160.100
so
so
$0
so
so
so
s0
so
s0
so
s0
s0
so
so
so
s0
so
so
s0
so
30
so
s
s0
to
$0
so
s0
$181.600
$1.634.400
so
to
so
$0
30
so
so
s0
so
so
so
30
so
s0
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
s0
so
s0
30
$0
30
30
so
so
so
30
$0
30
so
s0
so
so
$0
so
s0
so
so
so
so
30
so
s0
so
so
so
so
30
so
s0
so
TABLE 9.4
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS AND RECREATION
21 -Aug -91
project Description Program impact
Number Cott Fee 1981/92 1994!93 1993194 1994M 1995M 1996x97 1997-2092 2092-2907
MIPWIS
Stadium Electrical & Sports
$122.000
so
Lighting-
s0
MPR016
Stadium Press Box
544,300
MPM17
.Stadium Parkhrg Lot Landscape
$81.000
s0
& Lighting
s0
M-FIMts
Stadium ReWrt&Drainage
$136.000
so
Improvemente
so
MPR81Y
Stadium Addlllonai Seating
Sa.000
s0 so
so
so
w MPFM
Kota Park Enlarge Bleacher Area
$25.000
MPR021
Kota Park New Playground
523.000
so
Equipment
so
mprAn
Kotu Park Permanent Backstop
$8.000
MPMM
Kolu Park Group Picnic
$7.000
so
Facilities
s0
MPR024
Kofu Park Entrance Improvements
$13.000
LIPR025
Armory Park Parking Lot
$126.000
MPR026
Armory ParkPressBox 4Bleacher
$27.000
s0
wag
s0 s0
M1PR047
Mmory Park Upgrade Electrical
520.000
MPR026
Zupo Field Replacement of wood
$26.000
so
s0 $0
so
s0 s0
s0
so
so
s0
s0
to
so
s0 s0
s0
so
s0
s0
s0
s0
$0
s0 s0
s0
so
30
so
s0
s0
$0
s0 so
so
so
so
so
s0
s0
so
so so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
s0 s0
so
so
so
s0
s0
so
s0
w s0
s0
so
so
so
s0
s0
s0
s0 s0
s0
so
so
so
s0
s0
so
s0 $0
so
s0
So
so
s0
s0
50
s0 s0
$0
30
so
so
so
s0
s0
s0 s0
s0
so
so
so
s0
s0
s0
s0 s0
s0
s0
so
w
s0
to
s0
so to
so
so
so
s0
s0
s0
s0
to s0
s0
s0
so
s0
to
s0
s0
p w
Pao
piii1M
P" am Pw
am
am"
on" mm
am t
TABLE 9-4
zt-M,y-ot
DEVELOPMENT
RELATED CAPITAL
COSTS AND PHASING
utvcwrmt
PARKS AND RECREATION
'Impact
1907-2002
Number
1981/82
1682!83
1993w
1994M
1995186
199x67
2002-2001
S61,000
30
SO
SO
SO
30
SO
SO
30
SO
UPP&M
zSportc ugh$ mgtde Eteetrical &
$81.000
,
Sports righting
so
$0
so
MPR1131
Hale Park General Improvements
S2681000
$0
s0
$0
$0
$t
$0
$288.640
$288.840
MFR033'
Commun"BuIldings(City-Wide)
$4.510.000
$4,320.61
$288.640
$288.840
$288,640
$1,443,200
$1.443,20$
so
so
so
MPRO34
Blakely Park Upgrade Lighting
322.000
SO
$0
so
SO
SO
SO
30
MPR035
Sales Park Protective Shade
$51.000
Structures
00MPR03e
Sales Park Fenced Diamond Area
$0,000
I
S0
so
so
30
SO
30
SO
SO
MPR037
Emerson Park Restroom$178.000
I
s0
s0
s0
$0
$G
30
s0
so
Replacement -
so
30
SD
S0
30
30
$485.000
mPR038
PbrelyPark(C-Basin)
$485.000
$485.0$
General Improvements
so
30
SO
so
$353,000
SO
SO
MPR030
Westgate Park improvements
$353,000
$353,6(
�-MPR0
s0
SO
s0
s0
s0
$459.000
so
.Area /1Park (3ac.)
$459.000
$459,OL
s0
s0
s0
$D
SO
s0
SO
$712.000
UPRO41
Area 03 Park i4 Pool (3ac.)
$712.000
$712.0$
SD
SO
SO
SO
30
30
$0
$1,462,000
MPRi142
Area 04 Park -
$1,462,000
$1,482,00
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
so
$888.500
$888.500
MPR043
Area 06 Park Improvements
$1.377.000
$1,377,OC
30
SO
SD
��•
,000
•�
$313,000
$D
MPR044
Area 95 Park Improvements
$1,148,000
411.148,00
SO
$188,000
$0
$1,494,000
SO
g0
SO
MPRO46
Area 07 Park Improvements
$1,680,000
$1,e80,0O
30
s0
30
30
s0
SO
$307,000
$0
0
—^r` r...ti �! r■r wr�r !�! /nom � �1 r.r rr+y !r�'� a�a+! r� �r.r re.ry M�� a�
TABLE 94
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKSAND RECREATION
IProjxt DesMptlon Program impact
Number Cost Fee 1991!82 1982793 1903194 1994195 1995160 1990784 1907-2002
MPR04M East Side Softball Complex
$2,60,000
$2,338,445
SO
SO
MPR047
F -Basin Improvements Pais
$120.000
$120.000
SO
SO
MPRWB
i
t -Basin Improvements Park
$120.000
$120,000
S0
SO
MPPAW,
Ga -Basin Park Improvements
$300,000
5300,000
so
so
MPRO53 '
Hutchins Square Catering
$35,000
to
30
SD
SO
IOtchen
SO
SO
SO
30
co
n MPP454
Hutchins Square Multi -Purpose
$750.000
So
30
SO
MPR056
Hutchins Square Child Care
5500.000
SO
SO
30
Center
MPR050
Hutchins SquareConnagord
$1.000.000
So
So
30
Wallways
MPA057
Hutchins SquareAudhorium
Remodel
$4.000.000
to
SD
SD
TOTAL PARKS AND REC.
330,191,000 S16 306;448.
�.SO 00028>#
SA
K451
Page 4 of 4
21 -Aug -91
30 SO
SO
30
SO
$2.339.845
SO So
so
so
so
$120,000
So SO
So
So
So
$120.000
So SO
30
SO
$300.000
SO
30 30
SO
SO
SO
30
30 30
SO
30
30
SO
SO SO
SO
SO
SO
30
30 SO SO 30 30 30
30 SO SO SO SO 30
LEGEND
Rem r� 3q ry
STE•
S.PMzoO
....m ...r FIGURE 9-1 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS
concert with City staff. Project numbers listed in Table 9-4 are used to
identify project ocations in Figure 9-1. The Parks and Recreation Master
Plan is scheduled early in the program to refine details and costs of the new
i -
parks .
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
Improvement and land acquisition costs for parks and recreation facilities are
based upon information provided by City staff and the City Capital Improvement
Plan. Land costs were determined to be $100,000 per acre. In cases where
land for parks expansion is already owned by the City, the proposed fee
program does not pay or reimburse the City for land costs. The fee
calculation methodology did not consider different cost increase factors for
land acquisition versus construction.
A number of the projects identified by the City are not attributable to new
development and more accurately fall into the category of maintenance and
repair. These projects are easily identified because no cost has been
allocated to the impact fee fund.
In Table 9-4, thepphasing 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
Ft 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 lunch time use, company picnics and
company team participation in sports leagues.
The RAE schedule was based on the relative amount of time available to
residents and to employees to make use of park and recreational facilities.
Recommended Fees
The summary Parks and Recreation fee is shown in Table 9-5. The total fee is
$11,980 per low density residential acre.
87 RPM334
„
TABLE ���� �- �.�, T FEES-au9-s1
,(” a, d - - -- -�
Unit --
Ai --
Fees
I
RESIDENTIAL
i_r
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$11,980
Medium Density
Acre
1.43
$17130
High Density
Acre
2.80
$33,540
East$WaResileRWl
Acre
1.10
$13,180
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$11,980
Medium Density `
High Density
Acre
1.43
$1 7,130
Acre
2.80
$33,540
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercia
Acre
0.32
$3,830
p
General Commercial
Acre
0
$3,830
Downtown Commercial '
�ifieeCOmiitNrq
Acre
Acre
0.32
0.54
$3,830
$6,470
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial'
Acre
0.23
$2,760
Heavy Industrial
Acre
0.33
$3,950
I°01
Note. Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1992
Sources:- Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
.S.
6ai
isai
#
88
i
i CHAPTER 10
GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
OVERVIEW
Level of Service
01 The current staffing leve 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
E 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 dernand or use of
general city services by persons associated with each land use type. Instead
of determining the use Uy 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 ruv 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 thepplanning period. As a result, a portion
4 (27.8%) of the addition can not be funIfrom 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 2005/7.
ESTIlVIAH D CCSI' AND PHA NCi
Y
A summary of the phasing of projects funded by the fee program is provided in
Table 10-2. Phasing of the projects i s based upon the forecast of units
constructed over the General Plan period.
�x
E
89
RP00310
TABLE 10-1 21 -Aug -91
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
CITY HALL FACILITIES
Change End
'Prsonnel Units Current 1989190- State
1989190 2007108 2007/08
90
Administration
Persons
13
8
Finance(w10 Purchasing)
Persons
28
14
21
Purchasing (FT)
Persons
5
3
42
8
Purchasing (PT)
Persons
1
-1
0
Data Processing
Persons
5
13
18
Building (CDD)
Persons
6
5
11
Planning (CDD)
Persons
5
4
9
Public Works
Persons
19
9
28
ITotals:
82
55
1371
FTE
Change
End
Personnel
Conversion
Current
1989190
State
Units (1)
Factor
1989/90
2007/08
2007/08
Administration
FTE
100YO
13.0
8.0
21.0
Fllnance(y�/o Purchasing)
Purchasing (FT)
FTE
FTE
100Y0
28.0
14.0
42.0
100%
5.0
3.0
8.0
Purchasing (PT)
FTE
50%
0.5
-0.5
0.0
Data Processing
'Building
ME
100Y0
5.0
13.0
18.0
(CDD)
FTE
100%
6.0
5.0
11.0
Planning (CDD)
FTE
100Y0
5.0
4.0
9.0
Public Works
FTE
100%
19.0
9.0
28.0
Total Units
Buildingkea Square Feet
81.5
55.5
137.10'
Total Persons Served
18,657
14,448
33,105
Staffing Standard:
64,906
30,064
94,970
Sggs�W&ff Person's Served
1.26
0.19
1.44
Area Per Employee (FTE)
228.92
12.72
241.64
90
TABLE 10-1
(Cont.)
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
CITY HALL FACILITIES
iY Existing Future
Description of Item Population Additions
GENERAL GOVERNMENT PERSONS SERVED 64 906 30.064
CFRV1 F f APAQMT
General Government Employees (Full
Time Equivalent (FTEs )
Generaf Government uildings (Sq. Ft)
SERVICE STANDARD
in Current Service Standard:
General Govsrnment Employees Per
1,000 Persons Served
Building Sq.. Ft. Per Employee
TargetService Standard
General Government Employees Per
1,000 Persons Sewed
Building Sq, Ft. Per Employee
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRED
Additional Employees (Full Time
Equivalent (FTE))
Additional. Building Area (Sq. Ft.)
For Existing Employees
For Now Employees
81.5
18,657
1.3
228.9
12.1
1,037
2,931
55.5
14,448
43.4
10,480
21 -Aug -91
Future
Total
94,970
137.0
33,105
1.4
241.6
55.5
1,057
13,411
Total
3,968
10,480
14,448
Burden on New and Existing Development
27.5%
72.5%
1
Cost of New Facilities
v° 51: X159; i�25s f'a :. >xy�s ..............S3,Q55,8�x
. .
Source: Nolte & Associates and Argus McDonald & Associates
s�
i�
air
aei
91
Page 1 011
TABLE 10-2
21/Ml
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
Proleet
Location
Program
Impact
Number
Code
Fee
1981102
loam
1993M
1984M
1905166
1088187
1997-2002
2002-2007
GCF1*01
City Hall Remodeland Addition
$4,216,000
$3,066,876
SO
5700,000
$700,000
SO
SO
SO
$1,855.875
SO
GCF1002
ClyloCenter Parking Lot BcWsion
S141,000
$141,000
80
SO
SO
SO
SO
$141,000
SO
30
13N. Church.
GCFW8
Prop" acquisition,
5213,000
5213,000
80
$0
SO
30
SO
50
30
$213,000
2175. LockOUd,
GCFlM
P+ukin9 Lot Improvements.
$70.000
570.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
So
m
$70,000
NEcornet of Lockeiord and
Stockton.
ro GCF1910
LibraryExpanrlon
$2.800.000
52.900.000
SO
80
$0
$0
SO
SO
$2.900.000
SO
:.; N.
GCF1011
Public Works -Truck@
$760,000
$760,000
$46.875
$48,876
546.875
$46.875
$46.875
$46.875
$234.375
$234,376
GCF1012
Public Works -Pkkup&and Sedans
$715.000
$716,000
$44,688
$44.688
$44,688
544.688
344,888
$44,688
$223,438
$223,438
GCFf013
Public Work* - Air Cpnpreasors
$90.000
$90.000
$5.625
$5.625
55.825
$5.625
$5.625
551825
$28.125
$28.125
GCF1014
Public Works -Misc.Office Equipment
$65.500
$85.600
$4.094
$4.094
$4.094
$4.094
$4,084
$4,094
$20.489
$20.460
GCFW/5
Finance -M4a.015csEqulpmenl
$181,700
$181,700
$11,356
$11,366
$11,358
$11,358
$11,358
$11,366
$56,781
558,781
GCF1016
Finance Computer (AS 400Upgrade]
$72,000
572.000
$4.500
$4,500
$4.500
$4.500
$4.500
$4.600
$22,500
$22,500
GCFW17
Fee ProaramMonitoring
$2.580.000
$2,680,000
$160,000
$180,000
$180,000
$160.000
$1601000
$160,000
$800.000
5800,000
COC WO1
General Plan Updste1H7
$411,109
$411,109
$411,109
SO
80
$0
SO
80
SO
80
COOV002
General Plan UpdatelW7
$250.000
$260,000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$250.000
SO
SD
C00V003
GamalPlan Update 2W2
$250.000
$250,000
SO
SO
SO
30
SO
SO
$250.000
30
/�
TOTAL CnY
FACILMES
$12,884.309
$11,725,184
247 X59771'38
Sen iso .5277Ise
5277138
X668o
3�'
19 `
X t36B`
Page 1 011
E
DEVELOPMENT TVIPACT FEE
Relationship of General City Projects to Nw Development
The relationship between existing deficiencies, changing service standards and
demand created by
raw 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
t The RAE schedule that has been developed for general City facilities is shown
in Table 10-3. This schedule is based on an estimate of relative population
and employment (measured in persons per household and in employees per
thousand square feet, respectively) and on the judgment that employees place a
relative burden on general City administrative facilities that is 50 percent
of that imposed by residents.
txe Recommended Fees
The sunmixy General City Facilities fee is shown in Table 10-3. The total fee
i is $6,380 per low density residential acre.
93 RI -W3"
. i
TABLE 10-3
21 -Aug -91
po
SUMMARY OF
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
�d Use Caiegories
Unit RAE
Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$6,380
Medium Density
Acre
1.43
$9,120
High Density
Acre
2.80
$17,860
East Side Residential
Acre
1.10
$7,020
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$6,380
Medium Density
Acre
1.43
$9,120
High Density
Acre
2.80
$17,860
COMMERCIAL
(�
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
0.89
$5,680
General Commercial
Acre
0.89
$5,680
,.�
Downtown Commercial
Acre
0.89
$5,680
!
Office Commercial
Acre
1.53
$9,760
n
INDUSTRIAL
Ught Industrial
Acre
0.64
$4,080
Heavy Industrial
Acre
0.93
$5,930
r
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
I
J
. i
94
APPENDIX A
FORECAST OF MAPPED ACREAGE FOR
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
95
aPW3"
.•e�rtn—..�..+r.s... e.....,-.....,..'..... y. :,..v. ^.,. r•..rd:."Y� ��F:•,%: ':h%"aS,�+!rw;' .'�Y .. r: s, .. . .
TABLE A -I
GENERAL PLAN ACREAGE GROWTH FORECAST
CITY OF LODI PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
1997 2002 Total
Land Use Categories Units 1991/92 1992/93 1993194 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 /2002 /2007 Forecast
RESIDENTIAL -
Low Density_.;: °; .., .;
'Acres:
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
17
Medium Density :•,'.: ; °:,
Acres
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
High Density. .:..'
Acres:
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
5
East Side. Residential
Acres .
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
PiANNEtF.RESIDENTIAI: .`
..:."...
Pi:- Low Density .. ..
Acres
74
82
74
61
66
61
267
288
973
PR-.Madiwr Density ..."
Acres :.
5
5
5
4
4
4
17
18
62
PR.. -"High Density
'Acres:
6
7
6
5
5
5
21
23
78
Total: Residential..,`;
89
97
88
74
78
74
310
333
1.143
COMMERCIAL: `:. ... . .
Neighborhood . ...
Acres.,.
15
15
6
6
6
6
25
26
105
6enersl ;.:
Acres '
0
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
11
Downtown
Aeres."..
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
3
fice:.
Of:::
Acres...
2
2
2
2
2
2
11
11
34
Total'Comnercial.. ::
17
18
9
9
10
9
40
41
153
INDUSTRIAL.'. '
Light .tndustrial
Acres
26
17
22
22
22
22
139
165
435
Heavy. Industriai.:.".
Acres.:
10
7
9
9
9
9
56
66
175
Total Industrial..
36
24
31
31
31
31
195
231
610
Sour ce: City of Lodi Public Works
Department.
MOM
,��vaewsr�r��.e!ax*�.� ;n,.a....«:m..-...,.. ..,_......,. - - ,.:... . ,.;... r .. � ..:..:.,: -. .--'.`a.+�, .,.r^.. ;gas , .. :•r f..;r aer�'.�+�?Ye��,o' �:!'.� j
K
I
FINAL REPORT
CITY 0 F LODI
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUdY
AUGUST 1991
PREPARED BY:
T,
NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES
ANGUS MCDONALD AND ASSOCIATES
NOLTE and ASSOCIATES
Engineers / Planners/ Surveyors
J
Aug�uust 20, 1991
25;0-88-00
l4 Jack Ronsko
Director of Public Works
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
:.;
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT "ACT FEE SRJDY FINAL REPORT
Dear .14r. Ronsko
-`
'his report has been prepared for the City of Lodi to evaluate the capital
improvements required to serve expanding areas of the City identified in the
General Plan. The primary objectives of the study were to identify capital
improvements, prepare estimates of probable construction cost, forecast the
timing of capital improvements, and develop a financing plan to fund the
construction of the capital improvements.
The principal results of the study are surranari ed in Chapter 2, Methodology
City
and Results. A 11 comments received from the and others on the draft
report have been incorporated into this final version.
We appreciate the assistance and cooperation vie received from City staff
during the course of the study. Richard Prima deserves special recognition
for his tireless efforts on the project.
It has been our pleasure to serve the City of Lodi on this important project
T,
and we look forward to again serving the City on future projects.
--'
Very truly yours,
NOLTE AND APSOGATES
F. Walgy Sandel in���
Group Manager ..n
r n'
d0. �`�L' �J
FWS/ler (CL1223-B)
g=• is
Enclosure J'q C��►l1, tai. �.`
0-r
NOLTE and ASSOCIATES
Engineers / Planners/ Surveyors
J
FINIAL RST
CITY OF LODI
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Prepared far:
CIN 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
(415) 548-5831
August 1991
J
_7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sectio
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
- Purpose of the Fee
Planning Period
Basis of Costs
Background - Development Forecast
Residential Acre Equivalents
CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES
Phasing of ImprovementsforMaximum Efficiency
Assumptions/Concepts
Procedure for Staging Public Improvements
Comments on Specific Projects and Services
Streets and Roads
Parks and Recreation
Police, Fire and General Facilities
Identifying Projects Curing Existing Deficiencies
Interfund Borrowing
Detailed Methodology
Summary of :Fees
Changes In land Use Entitlements
CHAPTER 3 WATER SERVICE
OVERVIEW
Supply
Distribution System
Water Master Plan
Water Reimbursement Policy
Existing Deficiencies
PLANNED WATER FACILITIES
Supply
Distributian System
Treatment
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Water Projects to New Development
Relationship of Water Projects to Land Uses
i
f
Pacie No.
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
4-
4
6
7
7
8
8
8
9
10
10
14
14
14
14
15
15
16 .
16
27
27
27
28
28
28
29
Rpm3ma
.- r!T .-I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sectign
Page No.
Recommended Fees
29
CHAPTER 4 SEWER SERVICE
31
OVERVIEW
31
Collection System
31
Treatment and Disposal
31
Master Sewerage Plan
31
7-1
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
Recommendod.Fees
39
BURDEN ANALYSI. FOR SEWER SUB -ZONES
39
CHAPTER 5 ..,STORM.DRAINAGI
42
nVFRVTFW
42
Collection System
42
Detention Basins
43
Master Storm Drainage Plan
43
Master-SatomDrainage Fee
43
PLANNED STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
43
Collection System
44
Detention'Basins
44
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
44
Relationship of Storm Drainage Projects to New Development
49
Relationship of Storm Drainage Projects to Land Uses
49
Recommended Fees
49
CHAPTER 6 STREETS AND ROADS
51
OVERVIEW
51
Existing Traffic Conditions
51
Circulation Plan
51
Existing Deficiencies
51
RP0033.Afl
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
PLANNED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
52
- Developer Required Improvements
52
Street and Road Improvements
62
Freeway Improvements
62
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
65
Relationship of Streets and Roads
Projects to New Development
65
Relationship of Streets and Roads
Projects to Land Uses
66
- 1%%3 -commended Fees
66
Regional Facilities
66
CHAPTER 7 POLICE
68
OVERVIEW
68•
Level of Service
68
Existing Police Facilities
68
Existing Deficiencies
69
1 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
76
Recommended Fees
76
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section PdQe No,
iv Rnow
CHAPTER 9 PARKS AND RECREATION
78
OVERVIEW
78
Level of Service
78
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
78
Existing Deficiencies
80
PLANNED PARK.AND RECREATION FACILITIES
80
ESTIMATED COSTS. AND PHASING
87
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
87
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to New Development
87 -
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to Land Uses
87
Recommended Fees
87
CHAPTER 10 ',.GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
89
OVERVIEW
89
Level of Service
89
Existing Deficiencies
89
PLANNED GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
89
3
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
89
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
93
Relationship of General City Projects to New Development
93
Relationship of General City Projects to Land Uses
93
Recommended Fees
93
APPENDIX A
95
iv Rnow
LIST OF FIGURES
Fiqure Number Title
Paqe
26
36
48
63
64-
86
V RPOMW
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number
Title Page No.
r
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
t
-
6-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Streets
67
and Roads
7-1
Existing Deficiencies Analysis - Police
70
7-2
Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - Police
71
-s
7-3
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Police
73
i
8-1
Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - Fire
75
8-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Fire
77
,a
9-1
Inventory of Existing Park and Recreation Acreage
79
9-2
Inventory of Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
81
-
9-3
Existing Deficiencies Analysis - Parks and Recreation
82
9-4
Development Related Capital Costs and Phasing - Parks
83
and Recreations
..,,
v1
;OW3,1AB
v 1 l RPD033"
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
93
10-3
Summary of Development Impact Fees = General.City
94
Facilities
APPENDIX A
96
c
.
v 1 l RPD033"
CHAPTER I
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
r+ as the desire to have a comprehensive financing plan for the various public
and numerous new facilities in Lodi, the current fees must be updated and new
numerous fees need to be implemented.
The goal of the Development Im act Fee Study is torepare development impact
fees which will provide funds o 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
u3 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.
Plarning Period
The proposed General Plan before the City of Lodi covers a planning period of
April 1987 to 2007. For the purposes of the fee study, the planning period
was broken down into fiscal year increments: 1991/92, 1992/93, 1993/94,
1994/95, 1995/96, 1996/97, 1997 - 2002, and 2002 - 2007. The planning
i 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 treatinent
facility), Storm Drainage, Streets and Roads, Police, Fire, and General City
facilities. Capital costs included in the General City facilities category
are, for example, city hall expansion, library expansion, fee program
monitoring, parking lot construction, and miscellaneous projects not falling
1 RPoOJ}B
F
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
PO -Cities Average Construction Cost Index for January 1990 was, at that time,
4673. The cash flow model inflates the actual expenditures for public
improvements (for both land and construction costs using the above index) to
the midpoint of each fiscal year.
Background - Development Forecast
The first step in calculating a valid development impact fee is to prepare a
forecast of the timing and rate at which the City will develop. This forecast
must be consistent with Lodi's General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance.
The development forecast serves two purposes:
• The development forecast provides the basis for determining when the
,., required infrastructure 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 planning
period determines the amount of the fee and the development in any
particular year determines the total dollars that are available to fund
improvement projects.
The forecast of final mapping was prepared per gross acre by the City of todi
and i s 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 on 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 tip "umber of Residential Acre Equivalents (RAE'S)
that would be developed, for tach category of public improvements. An RAE
factor measures the use or burden a land use places on a category of public
improvements (e.g. , water supply or roadway improvements) relative to the use
2 Rpw».e
or burden placed on those improvements by an acre of single family dwellings
in the low-density residential category.
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 1nd use gategory has a
RAE factor for all services equal 1.0 RAE per acre. Alf other KAE factors for
the category of public services being considered are scaled relative to this
"base" RAE factor f r the Low Density Residential land use category.
For this expple,.'Lca RAE faclprs.Sor water are calculated in the following
manner for loi density: and meMum ity residential land use categories.
Assume a population.and unit:densit, 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 r er consumption of 285 gallons per day.
Therefore, the waterdemand --- -- can be calculated as follows:
Low Density Demi d = 2.75 x 5 x 285 = 3,919 gal/day/acre
Medium:.Density : Demandx 12 x 285 - 7,695 gal/day/acre
--`- hat the demand of medium density
residential land exerts a 2 times (7695/3919 - 1.96) greater demand upon water
supply and transmission facilities than does low density residential.
Therefore, a RAE factor of 1.96 is assigned to medium density residential for
water remembering, of course, that low density residential is the baseline
having a RAE factor of 1.0.
K
RPM3"
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
SUNVM 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
existingg deficiencies were identified in each of the service areas that are
not to be funded by development impact fees. City staff has projected, where
possible, the sources of funds to finance those projects and/or portions of
projects that are not development related as summarized in Table 2-1.
During the course of assembling the information included in this report and
summarized in Table 2-1, a number of capital improvement plans, old and new,
" were reviewed. Information has been taken from these capital improvement
plans and has been included in the table. Because the planning horizon for
the capital improvement plans provided by the City are not synchronized with
-. the General Plan period, the totals for capital improvements in Table 2-1 are
not comparable to past City plans.
Phasing of Improvements for Maximum Efficiency
k
i
The matching of required public improvement projects to revenues from the
development impact fee program was an iterative process that included close
coordination with the Growth Management Plan. Two objectives were served:
The location and timing of new public improvements in Lodi were planned to
help assure an orderly and cost-efficient pattern of development.
• Public improvements were timed to assure that Level of Service (LOS)
targets for each service were reasonably maintained.
Insofar as practical, the growth rates that are part of the Growth Management
Plan can be accommodated throughout the City. Development can occur
simultaneously in several areas of the City, rather than be concentrated in
one area at a time. A temporary quasi -monopoly on supply of developable land
is avoided.
The following paragraphs describe some of the basic assumptions and concepts
that were used in arriving at project phasing. Additional information
concerning specific facilities is included at the ad-
Assumptions/Concepts
dAssumptions/Concepts
The following assumptions and concepts guided the process of preparing the
development forecast and staging of public improvements to meet LOS targets.
4 RPW33-8
---- - -- - .- - ----
TABLE 2-1 21 -An -91
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATEDMAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTSAND FUNDING SOURCES
bTORM SAN
STATE AND GASTAX -
DEVEFr
PROGRAM GENERAL WATER
SEWER DRAIN JOAOWN .
FEDERAL FUNDS
MEASURE'K
NUDESCRIPTION
COSTS(1) - - FUND - FUND
- FUND FUND COUNTY
FUND T.D.A.- -
FUNS -
OTHER
- F - -
-
-1. WaaerService $10".525.:., "---se - $/.026.000
so $0 so
m -. m-
-- m
m-
59.301,524
- - _ - 2. SewsrSarvice(3) 51.915;920--- - . so $0
$1.005.500 30 30
so so
30
$639.500 (4)
31,368.920..
Z Stonntbd.. $17.285.707 $930.000 Sl
s0 $121.000 $0
so 30
$0
so
$16,234,707
4 Streets, and Roads U5.100-937 213a06X so
W $0 $776,000
$931,000 313,552,500
$1.450.750
so
515,290,867
--_ 5. Ponce $2.578.000 $74.000 so
so so 30
so 90
30
90
32,502,000
$2'165'000 $1'090'000 30
30 30 90
30 so
s0
so
$1.065,000
7 ParksesMRea�y� 530,101.000 $5,531,653 90
so s0 so
so s0
30
$8.353.000 (5)
$18.306,444
IL Galiew MyFaoNI"s $1$664,309 $1.150.125 S0
30 30 so
so so
so
50
611.725,164
,TOTAL $124,138,398 522,584.680 1;
- '....
..,... :..
P1,.....-._�'1�:.......
.......:. . Vii. ,.
.:: ...,,...
NOTES .`
1: Costs do not include Streets and utilities with In development projects typically construed by the developer as normal improvements
2 :'Development Impact Fee Fund*. will consist of eight separate funds. one for each category of facility.
3 Sewer service does not include the waste" Of plant OxPanSiOn which Is funded by the exLsfing wastewater Connection fiae.
4. ".Lift station area of benefit fees.
5 ` Hutchins Street Square Fund.
& _. Fee amounts shown are for fi50 at year 199111992
- - Pape 1 of 7
7
i
o Development of new residential land will be limited such that the
ulation will grow at 2% based on the September 1989 population. This
M
ows more units (acres) in the early dears than in middle years due to
"catch up" after the wastewater moratorium.
o 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.
o 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.
• Subareas surrounding the City
were identified based on available storm
drain basins, utility trunk lines, major streets, General Plan limits, and
natural boundaries.
The acreages were matched with the sub -areas and broken into three phases:
one 6 year block followed by two 5 year blocks.
The above two steps were repeated until the acreage provided in each phase
matched the number of units in the first step.
The majority of the projects were then placed in the appropriate phase
coinciding with development of the adjacent area. This would include projects
-= in which the impact fee fund would be used in conjunction with frontage
improvements by a developer such as for oversized lines and major street
crossings. As noted in the assumptions, there should be few cases in which a
utility must be extended outside the development. (Exceptions and
clarifications are noted below.)
Careful attention was paid to the timing of construction of public
-' improvements, compared to increases in development and demand for services.
Each improvement was staged to insure that it would be completed and in place
6. R?M7}8
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
1 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, fee; would be collected upon issuance of
the building permit. In addition, parcels that are permitted to develop
�,. without a final subdivision map (which happens often for commercial and
:i industrial development) will also pay the fees at building permit.
J
The present document constitutes a "...proposed construction schedule or
elan - - -" for seventeen years. The various fee ordinances will ensure that
..an account has been established and funds appropriated..." Accordingly,
the quoted requirements of Government Code Section 66007 have been met. Lodi
can collect residential impact fees in advance of final inspection or
occupancy.
Comments on Specific Projects and Services
The following paragraphs explain the reasons for the staging of certain key
projects.
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.
7
RM0)}6
Parks and Recreation
• The Master Plan Study was placed early since it will take some time to do
and the results will affect the scope and cost of subsequent projects.
• Parks would be completed by the end of the phase in which adjacent
development occurred.
Police, Fire and General Facilities
Projects were phased based on discussions with the Police and Fire Chiefs
7 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
71 or renovation of an existing facility which provides for little or no added
capacity.
3 In addition, large projects, or groups of projects, in Parks and Recreaticn,
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,rovide capacity beyond the year of construction - and beyond
the time in which the funds are required to construct the project. One
approach to deal with cash flow deficits is through interffind borrowing.
Interfund borrowing is predicated on the creation of a "Pooled NknLy Fee
Account" into which the annual surplus from each fee account flows and from
which borrowing to cure cash flow deficits occurs. Each fee (i.e. Water,
Sewer, etc.) is calculated and accounted for separately. Positive fund
balances earn interest revenue and negative fund balances accrue interest to
be paid. Under this apprcach 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 Rpwj-%a
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 borrowin will take place, it
is entirely possible that the "Finance �harge" 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 improvenients are funded in the year required. The inter -
fee -fund borrowing mechanism is such that funds borrowing money pay interest,
and funds lending money receive interest. As a result, the fee in a fund
which lends money to other fee funds is not any higher than it otherwise would
t
be to fund the public improvements.
Alternatives to this approach include borrowing from other City funds, which
would also entail repayment with interest, and "borrowing" from developments
early in the program. This would entail charging a higher fee to the initial
development projects and repaying it in later years with fees from subsequent
development. Both alternatives require additional administrative effort and
result in a higher fee.
Deta it ed Methodology
A project phasing schedule is prepared, as determined by the development
-- forecast and the adopted service standard, showing the timing of the
expenditures required for each improvement. A forecast of Residential Acre
Equivalents is prepared, then converted into a forecast of revenues collected
from the fee in each period. The fee and cost of capital improvements are
inflated, for purposes of analysis, at the same rate. However, it was assumed
that the inflation effects on the fee are lagged one year due to the fact that
the fee is only updated at the end of each year. Because the General Plan was
not completed in the 1990-91 fiscal year, all capital costs were inflated to
January 1991 dollars and the fees then calculated.
F.M033.8
The amount of the finance charge is manipulated until:
U All projects have been constructed at their then actual year
cost;
U Only a nominal surplus remains in the Development Impact Fee
account at the end of the planning period.
Summary of Fees
A summary' of the development impact fees is presented by major land use
category in Table 2-2. This summary presents the summation of the impact fee
imposed for each of the relevant facility categories in the development impact
fee plan. The fee for each particular category of public improvement is
presented in the applicable chapter (e.g. Streets and Roads - Chapter 6).
Each fee, except portions of the sewer impact fee is imposed citywide
throughout the entire planning period.
'i
Each fee will be fine-tuned annually to reflect inflation and other minor
adjustments. Annual updates of the fee should be based upon the increase in
construction costs for the year as determined by comparing the ENR 20 Cities
Average Construction Cost Index for the beginning and end of the year. The
first two annual fee updates (1989-90 to 1990-91 and 1990-91 to 1991-92) is
reflected throughout the report. Fee calculations for this report were done
to the nearest
$1.00 and have been rounded to the nearest $10.00.
t
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.
D R A F T (8/21/91)
A REMJIICN OF THE IS.E1 CITY CT JNCI ,
I STABUSFM DEVELOPMENT "AT MITUA ON FEES
FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS VMM THE CITY OF ISI
WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council has adopted Ordinance Na 1518, creating and
establishing the authority for imposing and charging Development Impact Mitigation
Fees i n the City of Lodi; and
WHEREAS, studies have been made and data gathered on the impact of contemplated
future development on existing public facilities in the City of Lodi, along with an
analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by new
development; and
rw
WHEREAS, the relationship between new development, the needed facilities, and the
estimated cost(s) of these improvements is included in the study entitled
"Development Impact Fee Study prepared by Nolte and Associates and Angus McDonald &
Associates dated August 1991; and
WHEREAS, such information was available for public inspection and review 14 days
prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that:
1. The purpose of these fees is to finance Water, Sewer, Storm Drainage, Streets,
Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and General City facilities and to reduce
the facility service impacts and related problems caused by new development
within the City of Lodi;
2. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance only the
public facilities described or identified in said study;
3. After considering available information and data, and the testimony received at
the public hearing, the Council approves said study and incorporates such study
herein, and further finds that new development within the City of Lodi will
generate additional impacts within the General Plan area and will contribute to
the degradation of the existing facilities and the overall quality of life in
that area;
4. There is a demand in this described impact area for such facilities which have
not been constructed or have been constructed, but new development has n o t
contributed its fair share toward these facilit costs and said facilities have
been called for in or are consistent with the Cyity of Lodi's General Plan, and
or appropriate Master Plans.
5. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable
relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the
impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged,
RESDEV/TXTW.02M
and, also there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type
of development for which the fee is charged, as these reasonable relationships
or nexus are in more detail described in the studies and data referenced above;
6. It is appropriate to establish the fees on a city-wide basis in order to
construct facilities in a timely and cost-effective manner and reduce the demand
for replacement of existing facilities in order to accommodate MV development;
except for those sewer lift stations needed to serve a specific area;
7. The cost estimates set forth in the Study are reasonable cost estimates for
constructing these facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by MV
development will not exceed the total of such costs plus a finance charge where
interfund borrowing is necessary to fund improvements in a timely manner;
8. The City has appropriated funds and established a Capital Improvement Program
which includes the projects shown in the Study;
NOW, THEREFORE, 1T IS RESOLVED by the Lodi City Council that:
1. DEFIMTIONS.
The definitions contained in Ordinance 1518, Lodi Municipal Code
Section 15.64.020, are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
2. FEES.
?he City Council hereby repeals Resolution 88-165 "Storm Drainage Fee", adopted
December 21, 1988, and Resolution 89-186 "Amending Storm Drainage Fees", adopted
December 20, 1989, and herein provides for a fee structure for public facilities
as follows:
FEE
CATEGORY FEE PER RESDENIlAL ACRE B�WALFNI' (RAE)
C i ty-Wide Fees
1.
Water
$
5,710.00
2.
Sewer
$
11090.00
3.
Storm Drainage
$
7,910.00
4.
Streets
$
5,470.00
5.
Police
$
1,110.00
6.
Fire
$
520.00
7.
Parks and Recreation
$11,980.00
8.
General City Facilities
$
6,380.00
Supplemental Specific Area Fees
A.
Kettleman Lane Lift Station
$
1,610.00
B.
Harney Lane Lift Station
$
830.00
C.
Cluff Avenue Lift Station
$
1,170.00
The Kettleman Lane Lift Station area consists of approximately 102 acres bounded on
the south by the north right -of way of Kettleman lane (State Highway 12); on the
east by the west line of the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal right-of-way; on
the north by the south line of the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal right-of-way
RESDEV/TXTW.02M
and the quarter -quarter Section Line north of Kettleman Lane and on the west by the
property line located approximately 1185 feet east of the centerline of Lower
Sacramento Road, plus the area of Tract No. 2378, Sunwest Unit Na 12 as filed for
record in Book 30, Maps and Plats at page 52, San Joaquin County records, all as
shown on Exhibit A.
The Harney Lane Lift Station area consists of approximately 292 acres bounded on the
south by the north right-of-way of Harney Lane; on the east by the west line of the
Woodbridge Irrigation District; on the north, east of Lower Sacramento Road by the
quarter -quarter Section Line north of Harney Lane, and west of Lower Sacramento Road
by the property line located approximately 2300 feet north of the center line of
Harney Lane; and on the west by the General Plan Boundary, approximately 1/2 mile
west of Lower Sacramento Road as shown cn Exhibit B.
The Cluff Avenue Lift Station area consists of approximately 158 acres bounded on
the south by the right-of-way of the Southern Pacific Transportation C.y (SPT)
tracks along Victor Road (State Highway 12); on the east by the right-of-way of the
Central California Traction Cly (CCT); on the north by the Mokehamne River and
on the west by the property lines approximately one-eighth mile west of the
centerline of Guild Avenue; plus the 7.7 acre parcel located east of the CCT and
north of the SPT shown as Parcel A per the Parcel Map filed for record in Book 11 of
Parcel Maps at page 73 San Joaquin County Records.
3 mWIMIf_�i�4 OF FEE.
Development Impact Mitigation Fees shall be calculated by the Public Wcdcs
Director in accordance with Chapter 15.64 of the Lodi Municipal Code and this
resolution.
The project acreage shall exclude portions of property left vacant and not to be
used for storage, parking, or other uses related to the project. Where the
project adds to or incorporates existing buildings or improvements, the acreage
shall be adjusted by the Public Woks Director to account for this existing
use. For purposes of this section, "existing" shall rrican any building or
improvement which is in existence or for which a permit has been obtained upon
the effective date of this resolution.
Where projects include a change in land use categories, the appropriate
difference in RAE factors shall be computed by the Public Wo&s Director.
Where the project results in a less intensive land use involving a lower RAE
factor, a fee credit in lieu of a refund shall be made. Record of the previous
higher RAE factor shall be maintained by the Public Wc& Director for that
parcel for a period of time not to exceed ten years and shall, during that time,
be applied toward future improvements on that parcel.
4. EFFECTIVE DATE
The Development Impact Fees adopted in this Resolution shall take effect
immediately upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 1518. For projects
in which an agreement and men crandum of understanding forpublic improvement
fees has been executed and a final map or building permit has been approved,
such fees shall be due and payable thirty days after the above effective date or
thirty days after billing by the City, whichever is later.
RESDEV/TXTW.02M
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 91- was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held , by the
following vote:
Ayes= Councilmembers
Noes: Councilmembers
Absent: Councilmembers
RESDEV/TXTW.02M
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
CITY OF LOBI KETTLEMAN U&
4T LIFT STATION,
PUBLIC W01W DEPARTMENT
L.,� �, - SERVICE AREA
. WIW
SEMCE AREA mmm m
Approx. 102 Acres
--- L
I T- LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD
i
i
{
' •, CITY OF L O D ! HARNEY LANE
LIFT STATION
•' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SERVICE AREA
MTRICT CANAL
F
GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY—
N. 7-5.
1Ad I too. I Dote Rergion A—
SERVICE AREA = •
Approx. 292 Acres
EXHIBIT B
S. P. T.
VICTOR ROAD -� (STATE HWY. NO. 12)
TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
ALL SERVICES
21 -Aug -91
Land Use Categorles
Total
Fees
WaterSewer
RAE(1) Fee
RAE(1) Fee
Storm Drainage
RAE(1) Fee
Streets & Roads
RAE(j) Fee
Police
RAE(1) Fee
Fire
RAE(1) Fee
Parks and
Recreation
RAE(1) Fee
General City
Facilities
RAE(1) Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
$40,170
1.00
$5,710
1.00 $1,090
1.00
$7,910
1.00
$5,470
1.00
$1,110
1.00 '5520
1.00 $11,980
1.00
$6,380
Medium Denahy
$81.190
1.90
$11,190
1.96 $2,140
1.00
$7,910
1.98
$10,720
1.77
$1,960
1.90 $1.020
1.43 $17,130
1.43
$9,120
High Density
$107.210
3.49
$19,930
3.49 $3,800
1.00
57,910
3.05
$18,680
4.72
$5,240
4.32 $2,250
2.90 $33,540
2.90
$17,800
East Side Residentiat
$42.160
. 1.00
$5,710
1.00 $1,090
1.00
$7,910
1.00
$5,470
1.09
$1,210
1.10 $570
1.10 $13,190
1.10
$7,020
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL.
LowDeneity
340,170
1.00
$5,710
1.00 $1,090
1.00
$7,910
1.00
35,470
1.00
$t,110
1.00 5540
1.00_ $11,980
1.00
$8,380
Medium Dendty,
$61,190
1.98
$11,190
1.96 $2,140
1.00
$7,910
1.98
$10,720
1.77
$1,960
1.98 $1,020
1.43 $17,130
1.43
$9,120
High Dansily
$107,210
3.49.
$19,930
3.49 $3,800
1.00
37,910
3.05
$18,680
4.72
$5,240
4.32 $2,250
2.80 $33,540
2.80
$17.660
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commwcla
541,280
0.64
$3,650
0.94 $1,020
1.33
$10,520
1.90
$10,390
4.28
$4,750
2.77 $1,440
0.32 $3,830
.0.89
35,880
General Commercial
$0.470
0.64
33,650
0.94 $1.020
1.33
$10,520
3.82
$20,900
2.59
$2.870
1.93 $1,000
0.32 $3,830
_
0.99
$5,680
DownUmnCommerclal
$41,280
0.64
,$3,650
0.94 $1,020
1.33
$10,520
1.90
$10,390
428
$4,750
2.77 $1,440
0.32 $3,930
0.89
$5,680
OfficeCommerolal
$54,720
0.84
$3,650
0.94 $1,020
1.33
$10,520
3.27
$17,890
3.72
$4,130
2.46 51.280
0.54 $8,470
1.53
$9,760
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
530,900
0.28
.31,480
0.42 -$460
1.33
$10,520
2.00
$10,940
0.30.
5330
0.64 - 3330
023 $2,780
0.84
$4,080
Heavy industrial
$29,820
0.26.
$1,480
0.42 $460
1.33
S10_SW
1.27
$8,950
0.19
$210
0.61 . $320
0.33 $3,950
0.93
$5,930
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.
r;
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 ofprojects 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 development forecast on which the fees were based includes new development
and an estimate of redevelopment. 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 16 year, $124,000,000 Capital Improvements Program
is a major undertaking; It will require a very serious effort at program
management and monitoring of actual performance as compared to plan.
The Capital Improvements Program contains specific line items to provide the
cost of Staff or consultant. services for Program Management for the fee
? program. A budget is also provided for a major General Plan Update/Capital
Improvements Program and Development Impact Fee Update every fifth year.
The program management function should include the responsibility of
monitoring actual performance compared to that planned. This monitorin^
function can be combined with any environmental impact monitoring program as
12 RPW3"
i
j
is recommended either in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which are a part
of revisions to the City's update of the General Plan or in the EIR's for
3
major projects or Capitol Improvement Projects.
s
The City is required to make findings each fiscal year regarding any fees
unexpended or uncommitted in its account five or more years after deposit. If
the findings indicate that there is not a reasonable relationship between the
fee and the purpose for which it was charged it must be refunded to the then
s
�a3
currentproperty owners. AdditionallYF the City must, each year, prepare an
accountingof each fee account. This is to include the beginning and ending
g g g
�
.'1
balances, interest and other income, and expenditures and refunds made from
the account. The annual accounting of each fee account is to be prepared
within 60 days of the close of each fiscal year and must be made available to
the public.
r.
a
k
r
F
I
i
6J
W
W�1
l
13 RPW33.8
i
j
CHAPTER 3
WATER SERVICE
r.,
OVERVIEW
Water service to Lodi resident is provided by the City. Major components of
the water system include wells, distribution piping and a single elevated
.� storage tank. The following sections will describe the City's existing supply
and distribution facilities, current planning for expansion of the system,
policy relating to cost sharing for major facilities, and existing water
r-;
service deficiencies.
°i
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
s wells. Also, funds have been appropriated to design treatment facilities for
the removal of DBCP.
fi r,
Water quality in the aquifers tapped by City wells is generally good.
Recently adopted Department of Health Service (DHS) standards for
dibromochl oropropane (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
s 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
allons per minute. Pumping levels varyacross the well field b
{ apg
proximtely 80 feet, with the shallowst water in the northeast area and the
deepest water in the southwest area. The City operates a Supervisory Control
L and Data Acauisition (SCADA) system to assist in operating the well field,
maintaining 'pressures'in the system and recording operating data.
f
4 .—s
Di stribut ion System
Existing distribution piping within the City ranges in size from 2 to 14 inch.
By current standards, any distribut on piping smaller than 6 inches is
14 RPO03}e
substandard. Smaller pipe was primarily used in the older portions of town
3=a 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
i- 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 Haster 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.
r 4. One of every three wells should be equipped with standby power.
5. Re-evaluate the Water blaster Plan at least every 5 years.
Water Reimbursement Policy
a:
Under the City's Water Main Extension policy, applicants are reimbursed a
portion of the construction cost of oversize mains and major crossings.
Commonly, city's and agencies share in the cost of constructing special items
of infrastructure, especially, since these special items are typically part of
the backbone of the system.
For oversize mains, the reimbursement policy applies to water mains larger
than 8 inches in diameter. Major crossings covered by this policy are
Woodbridge Irrigation District canals, Southern Pacific Transportation
15 RPOO"
Company, Central California Traction Company, Highway 99, Highway 12 west of
Highway 99, Lower Sacramento Road, and Hutchins Street south of Kettleman
Lane. For major crossings, the City will reimburse one half the cost of
construction.
City water reimbursement policy is reasonable for the facilities to which it
applies. In developing the fee program for water service, the existing policy
has been applied to oversizing of water mains and construction of major
crossings. For the purposes of this report, reimbursable construction costs
are assumed to include materials, construction, administrative, engineering
and inspection. Administrative and engineering reimbursement is limited to
10% by City ordinance.
Existing Deficiencies
The Water Master Plan identified a number of existing deficiencies in the
water distribution system. These deficiencies generally include replacement
of older pipe and construction of additional mains to reinforce the
distribution network in older areas of the City. The work on main replacement
will continue to be an ongoing program throughout the City. Funds to provide
capacity (wells) for existing City development(s) have previously been
appropriated. Significant water quality (DBCP) deficiencies exist at 12 of
the 20 producing wells. Estimated cost to correct the pipeline and water
quality deficiencies is $8.2 million. Pipeline reconstruction will be funded
through the City water fund. DBCP facilities for existing wells will be
constructed using borrowed State funds that will be repaid with water service
rates.
Specific listings of the projects earmarked to correct existing deficiencies
are not included in this report. Estimates of probable construction cost have
been developed for the existing deficiency projects identified by the City.
Total estimated cost to construct these projects is $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. Minor projects, (mainly water main extensions) are shown
separately for administrative purposes; they are subtotaled as one "project"
under the fee program. This will allow greater flexibility in providing
16 RM3"
:.�:. .... ': '
• . , ;.r{ �. ry6•;:�.n> V+i.=!t-�i1R�•Y.i=L`.'�itire...
J
a•'.:w;^,mX
. ...R . ..
":rA�,xY,.: ti'tLM..va�:GY+%.<.y's:.n. '�
.. l:A'C�Sw�.. ..
�.J .. :.w.
_w.•J 1•+.+-.M
i.�+..•r1
i-...:.-:. 1-..mow.
�
f' 'S
Poo"
/'..: +.1
TABLE 3 —1
21-Atq-91
DEVELOPMENT
RELATED CAPITAL COSTSAND PHASING
WATER
2002-2007
,: Ona rlpYwlt
bK ..
Praprem ., .
Cat ..
Impact
Fee Fund
1991/92
1!1om
1993f98
19"M �
1995!96
19ow
. 1997-2002
"5'r-WATER MAIN ef7ENSKfNS
;> MWSI001';:Tumagd.trpwniwbnmain
SIGA00
$18909
so
so
so
so
so
30
$2.673
=13387.
:;:; ` ..;...1 •;:°.; : oonefdfrlQ ortow M fo-ineb
wetor mdnwee! from the
c. Cenlnl wt. tr cWn Co.
(awrmind mein)
? MV"=10 Turner Rad transmit" mein
$20.000
$20.000
30
30
50
30
SO
30
SO
$20.000
G (MW81001)Includescw*uclion
ol1M main. under the Contra( CORE
Traction Co: (eat 164Lrin0)
v
MW81002 Lodl Avenue frutams"maks,
$9.000
$9.000
30
30
$0
SD
30
so
51A70
$7.600 ;
aontlMkg of 1200 it 10-Inch
ivew main oaderty from Guild
"Aw. to Control CaliL Traction
MW81009:,I.Mi10anehwater main
$11.000
$11.000
$5.500
30
$0
30
$5.600
30
30
so
_ :igNwrlyboai.Lad Avenue. .
(owraizedrnair (annAw
Avenue traramiealon ...
$38.000
s36.000
so
to
s0
so
so
$36.000
$0::.
nmin aaudotino of 6.000 M
watermain. atom
. •' . friatn Guild Avenue beeeeen
frfneand .Kettleman,&-atzedman]
:- MWmoll Guild AvenueMain(MBININ4a,-.
320.000
$20.000
SO
30
$0
30
to
so
$20.000
30
Includes cornu cllOn of 00 main
.
^
dn
Co. RR Tracks. (coat dw9)
PAGE IOF9 -- - : -
- - -
Ax
TABLE3-1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
2002-2ao7
:;_
Ptojet oeaeription
Nnranbar
Program
Cod
impact
Fee Fund
1991192 1962163
loom
1094196 -
1996me
1008197
196]-2002
lmisal ahnPars" 10an
Mv6.8 OS Trannm
$51.000
151000
gp 30
30
SO
SD
36
f0
151.000
adjacent roCantral Ca9f. Tractio
Co. RR tracks. eoneidkV of aPPrm
s , . a.tloo if of 10 -inch watar Ilrw
x
` between Pine and Kettleman.
x - - (OVafaltad main),
kMf870ot2Trammiaalo!rMsin(MSwWos)atao'
;! x 1F --� kxllnda"s eanatruellan a mi main
120.006
120.000
t6 30
m
SO
SD
30
to
120.006
r
under the Camrsl Calif Traction
}
L Co P1lirackL (cod dlarbgj
« }
1ItNS1009 NtduMrfalWaytranNnlatonntdn
57.000$700
57,006 so
30
to
SO
SO
30
to
tondatlnp of 000 0 lo -inch '
3a�%�, weterin.inrou�eriedacwn
Awnur, (owrsixad main strawy.
2
� eanmva�fi
"SW InduWialwaytransmUabnmain
$9.000
' $9.000
to 30
30
19.000
So
gp
SO
30
,.
eondjony of 1,110 it 104nch
weNr mew to do cad d chid '
:'i 4. Avon . exlendinY MW8low
w (owrahed maim .:'
rAwstoo9 gackn,on Road transmission main
$10.000
110,00(
gp $10.000
to
to
to
30
to
30
0ondding ofI.W01t 104nch
crater main tothe nosh ol
',:'� � ' KBNalnarar tame. (pA1CfaIZed �i
MWSI006 ChM Avenu atransmission main
520.000
120.00(
to so
so
so
520.000
SD
to
to
cpnslathp of 2,0001! 104nch .
vaster main along tutwa strati
between Kenwro o and Vino.
to oozed main) . .
" PAGE20F9
s
a ,
Pk
;-
T
rd
TABLE 3 -1 21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
Rojed Description
Ropram
Impad
..
Number
Cost
Fee Fund
199IN2
199M
1993M
1984185
19855
1996W
low -21M
2002-2007
- .
MWSI010 Ksttlemart lane aananl.don main
W.000
$57.000
s0
3o
to
to
$17.000
to
$0
$40,000 . -
. conWdhvof3,6901112-Ineh
-
water main easterly from Beckman
Rod. (oversize main)
MWS1011 Turner Road transmission main
$20,000
$9.714
53A07
$3.065
$3.130
$1.064
$0
to
conslo tp of 2,60011 io-Inch
water awn from lower Sacramento
r ` Flood. (owrsked main)
MWM12ApplewcodDrive transmission main
Win
$10,000
54,657
$1,503
$1,532
$1,565
$542
so
$0
$0
conslatirq of 1.300 If 10 -Inch water
- main consisting d 1.3001t 10 -Inch
,
water mein emAerly from Turner Road
- to the erdddnp main. (oversize main)
"
MW51013 Mower Sacramento Rod transmission
$4.000
$4.000
$4.000
to
to
to
to
to
so
s0
`... main consletbp 0550 It 10 -inch
water main northerly from Yosemite
Avenue. (oversize main)
MW6614 Applewood Drive transmisslon main
$105,000
t105.000
to
$7.000
to
s0
$0
$0
to
586.000
�eansisftol_13,48011.104nch ..
water main southerly from exlstMp
Appiewood to Ramey Lane. (oversized
main) -
MWSX001ApplewoodDrive transmission main
$9.000
$9.000
to
to
to
to
to
s0
$9.000
to
MWS1014 also includes consaucYion
of a 10 -inch water tine under the
W.I.D. Cana) (cost sharing)
TABLE 3 —1 21-hW41
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
Cod
F«rra
MWSXM
sa wo
S9.Sog
to
to
to
So
to
to
$0.50
to
p W61014)abolactKf"0 *00dom
of a 104mb water lana acmes
Kew#~ Lane (am aming),
88WSID15:-Fy an ikivatramraiaetonmain -
525.000
$25.000
i12,143
52.799
$3.831
$3.912
$1.355 -
m
conddhg.of UM a 10 -inch water
- "W wty and oadi11y cram wAsthg
.L!Wrw oDdoetoLmnrSmAm"d
MWSX.Do Evergreen Drtre male (MWSI0.15).
$9.500
$9.500
m
$0
$9,50
to
to
to
5
to
'N , ..:-:. inckwaaeandnweiondt"mala
WWW Lwrw Seca mmo Road (cod
sharing) C
-." MWSp1E' Lod) Avenue transmission mala .-
$20.000
S20.00r
to
to
to
to
to
to
$3.265
$16,734
con"ou of 2.600 B 104ncb
water main wedarfy from Lower
Schemer" Rad to General Plan
Boundary. (oYirti2id
U D17 vine Street tranvnfNlart main ..
MS
$18,000
$18,00(
to
to
$Q
to
t0
SO
$18.000
t0
oa waft of 2.250 a r0 -inch
woter maki wedMf al Lower - -
Saeranranto Road along a hrtura_
.. Wren alignment. (ovanlzed main)
.
MWSI018 tfOMMMLaMUanNnisel-awla
$34.000
$34.00
$12.000
m
$0
SO
i0
$22.000
to
oMslcdnq of 4XOIt 104neh
..:.. water main ban i2 M. Moa w.
- .. Lower Sacramento Road to t74van
_ _
-
Way. (awrdzed mato)
PAGE 4 OF 8
1
pmaP6,04
ww
ply
TABLE 3 —1
zt-Aaq-91'
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
.
2002-2007
py t
gtrmbsr
Prow— u"°'a
Cut Fes Fund
1961192
1owmi -
1993196
1994195
1695iB8 1969197
19D7-2002
- mmols. LoRwSaGamsnloRoad tr--*Won.
$41.000
$41.000
S0
m
s21,000
to
68.206
S10.734
main con@Mrq of s m o 10-incn
auNr mdn normarlyto KNpsman
Lane to dw W.LD. Canal.
(awrslzed auto)
mvi's 0903 K Mower SaetammEO Road
513,000
$13.OW
t�
to
$0
$0 -
'. $13,000
$O
msmisabn mains (MWSIOi9 and
LLWSWtt) dao includes boring under
tM lvro atd$ft roads. (0" 0181dn0
NwS1020 ums Avenue transmission Maki
$11,000
$11.000
to
$0
$0
to
511.000
s0
N >': eattbWtp d 1,4001f 104nch
"'� wester mato nadway from Kenlsman
tatiefoW.tA.Cand(ovsr izedaWn)
i vis m04 lima AwmaNtranpnlsalanmain
$9.000
$9.000
SO
m
SO
to
SO.000
59
(MWS1020) also klcWdes cOnsetoctlM
of"mala under the WJ.D. Canal.
NwSXM Mips Aventw trarwmtwion main
59.500
$9,500
1�
to
$O
so
So
$9.5m
i0 .
(UWS1020)almkakdsseonstrudbm .
of the mainunder Kedent- Lane
(cost sbarinp)
�. UWS1021 comury BWd tranum-lat main
$5.000
Awo
So
so
55.000
to
to
to
conststk* of 130011104ach
VA" main westerly from o"s
i way atwx;b* oCKAWYBhm&
appnment to join the e)istltq
main. (oversized main) ..
PAGESOFB
..
'� y
PWM PM" r°esr'! FEW" 1"'a01 !00,001 ra®'9 VANs! "r�" a" iar°w! rrray o
TABLE 3 —1
21 -Aug 91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITALCOSTS AND PHASING
WATER
Project
Program
impact
-
PNunber
Cost
Fee Fund
1901)92
1992/83
1093184
1994185
1896106
1908!07
1097-2002
2002-2007
UWSK122 Century Blv& transmission main
$22.000 -
522.000
30
s0
so
30
30
30
$3.692
$18.409
eansidln0 o12.'001110 -Inch
water main &tong future alignment
-korn Lower Saaament0 !load to
`general plan boundary. (oversized
X
main)
1
141AI.S70107 Century Blvd. transmission main
$9.500
$9.500
30
so
30
s0
30
so
30
$9.500
(
-'(MWS1021)and MWS1022)also indudea
,
eonstrudionof Oa main under Lower
_
c
Sauamento Road. (cod st-ing)
-
-MWb'1021. Fuhu0transmission Main consisting
$61.000
$51.000
so
30
so
50
so
$10.000
$41.000
50
of 2.900 it 104nch aligned between -
-
-- and parallel to Century and Harney.
"nos sou"ly from the canal to
Hamey. (oversize main)
-
' MWS1024 Harney lane transmission main
$33.000
$33.000
30
so
so
to
so
so
$21.000
$12.000
'. eonsti;" &7.900 It 10-4111A
='
water main westerly from Ham Lane
to the western boundary of the general
plan area. (oversized main).
MWSX000 Harney Lane transmission (MWSX024)
$9.000
$9.000
$0
so
30
to
30
30
$9.000
so
-includes construction of a 104nch
water Cme under the W.I.D. Canal.
k
(wit sharing)
MWSX00al Harney Low transmission main
$9.500
$9,508
s0
30
30
so
so
30
s0
$0.6+00
(MWS1024) inchoss construction
of die main under Lower Sacramento
Road. (cod sharing) -
'
PAGE 6OF9- - .
TABLE 3 -1
21-/u,g-91
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
- � 21102-2007
Project° Deecriplion
- - - -
Program
Cost -
hopedNumber
Fee Fund
1991M
1992/93
1993194
-1994M
1995x96-
1988!97 -
1997-2002
�MWSt025 Century Blvd.frenan►etlon main
- $8.000
58000
$3.988
$1.203
$1.225
$1.252
$434
30
SD
So
consisting o11,090It 104nch water
-
main easterly from Stockton St. to
Chickadee lane. (oversized main)
MWSl02e Cherokee/Ham yganNNubnmaln
$73.000
$73,000
$35.458
$10,975
$11.186
$11.424
$3,857
to
So
30
conal sting of 4.700 It 10-Inch waler
main easterly from $P rallroad along
HameY, thence: Northerlyalong
Cherok99 to Century 894. (omdzed
main)
N
W
_
S(18TOTAL - WATER MAIN
3883.500
$953.500
396.559
-
g37A47
$30,338
- _ -
$30,283
$75.873
$10.000
$242.208
" :.WATERWEZLS:..:;
- ':.: MW941001 Matapatill pion of Wagr Wap •A•
$723.000
5723.000
So
m
30
30
30
$723.000
to
30
wNh pumping eapeft of l,5oe:
6PM and a'Granular Aetiwted
Carbon Filter:
::!'=eyY,••:MWWI002+MstaonolWatarWap•B•
$723.000
$723,000
$0
SD
SO
30
30
$0
30
$723,000
_ .:`:' with pumpingoapacltyof 1.800
...GPM and a Granular AetNated
Carbon Fr W.
^.MMIWWD3InsWWionolmterwep1C•
$773.000
5773.000
30
$o
30
SO
SO
$0
to
3773.000
wpb pumtping ospaelly011.800
GPM, a Granulw AdWated Carbon
but. 1".
PAGE 70F 9
W.
'..�{�. •'.,i5+µ - .
. ,
..
..
_
TABLE 3 —1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITALCOSTS AND PHASING
WATER
002-5007
Project DaaiP
prow m
Cowl
impact
-Fee Fund
MIN
Isom
1903M
199495
1994ree
1990197
-1967-2002
.;
MWWNO� InWtiaOondwatorwell•C•
SM000
$723.000
$0
$0
$D
$0
en
se
SM300o
SO
Wbh Pumping capacity of 1.0011
Gpm and a snumiar Activeled
Carbon Filter.
_ 1pd UW rd WdarWe0 •E• -
$723.000
$723.000
gp
30
30
s0
30
$0
$723.000
WVA pumping capacity of 1.600
GPM and a Granular Activated
Carbon Filter.
MWWMs IeatalladondWkwWeg•F•
', -$345.000
1345.000
gp
SD
SO
SO
30
30
5345.000
SD
rdtlr pumping capacity of 1,500 .
GPM and Standby Power.
ki'v 07 1ns"it donalwi6r Wall•G• -
-. 5295.000.
$295.000
sm.000
so
so
so
to
s0
30
SO
..
wbh pumpbg cop"lty d 1.000
GPM.
MWWj= Inata0adwalW.arWeVil'
$344,000
$345.000
gp
$345,000
SO
SO
SO
to
30
SO
With pumping capacityof1.000
GPM and SwMby Power-
14WW1009InstallationdwaterWe0•I•
$345.000
$346.000
to
30
to
$345.000
so
so
s0
to
wMh pwnpkW aPacityd 1,000
GPM and Standby Para..
MWWI010 installation dwater Weg•J•
5294.000
$295.000
gp
s0
$295.000
30
s0
s0
30
30
With Pumping capacity of 1.900
GPM. .
MW W1011 Imtabation d Water Well • K•
$345.000
: $345.000
gp
so
s0
s0
$345.000
30
30
s0
with lumping capacity of 1.000 -
GPM.
PAGE80F9
TABLE 3-1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
WATER
:. project DescrOm
Program
Impact
-.
µpap.
Cat
Fee Fora
1901192
1902193
1983191
1909195
te9519a
1988197
' MWW10i2 inatanadonolwatetwon IV
$723,000
$723.000
$0
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
with pumping capacity Of 1.800
GEW and a Granular Activated
Carbon filler.
&JWW1013 lnstaMana�of Water Wen'fd•
$T73,00a
fm•000
to
to
to
50
to
to
with pumping capacity of 1.88
GPM. a Granular Activated Carbon
Filter. and Standby power.
MW W)014 Installation of Water Wen IN,
$295.000
x•000
$0
to
to
$0
So
tc
vvhh pumping capacity of 1,600
GPM
.. MWS0001 Water Master Plan -1990
$57.309
157.369
$57,380
m
to
to
to
$0
: M1N80002 Water Masts Plan
520.000
$20.000
$o
t0
to
to
to
MON
and C.I.P. Update -1007
- MW50003 Water Master Plan
520.000
320.000
t0
t0
to
m
m
$0
:-.and C.1.P.Update-2002
' MWSI')OW Public Works Admin. Bldg. Ery. (50%)
5341.500
$341,500
$0
$341,500
to
t0
t0
to
?'MWS0006PubN:Works OorageFaenity(50%)
$235.000
$235.000t0
to
$235.000
$0
to
10
MW,S0006public Works Gwago/WashFecn.(33%
$1811,857
$188,11119
$156,W7
SO
to
to
$0
so
Upgrades toEAWngFecinties
$1.6.^8,000
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
New Development Share of Odefing
..
Wall Tank(31%)- -
- $183,489
$183.*9
$11,46$
$11,469
$11.468
$11,468
$11.488
$11,489
21 -Aug -91
to ITINK)w
$0 $295.000
$0
to
to
to
to
So
$0
$57.341
G P STUDY AREA. d '
kwmca (6j ooa Mwsl oo X, -
XI L.�i �1 i1 4��1 ���;�I'll- 1 \• MWWt
_—=--{ FIGURE 3—t
M 006 007
► m
H
io
1
L
025r*
25 '
WWI 005 h
LEGEND
• Future Wel
Future Pipe
MWWI 005 VVMer System
pppwuw+r ttm+v�
Rvject Nument
ber s.. PftW on"ft+
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
26
1►
i
iI
VNIOL
MIMI
_—=--{ FIGURE 3—t
M 006 007
► m
H
io
1
L
025r*
25 '
WWI 005 h
LEGEND
• Future Wel
Future Pipe
MWWI 005 VVMer System
pppwuw+r ttm+v�
Rvject Nument
ber s.. PftW on"ft+
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
26
1►
developer credits should actual development costs deviate from the program
r schedule.
In Table 3-1, two columns are shown, Program Cost and Impact Fee Fund.
Program Cost is defined as project costs to be provided through the City Water
Fund. The Program Costs do not include costs borne by the developer. Costs
listed in the Impact Fee Fund column represent those costs for specific
projects allocated to future developed identified in the General Plan. Where
the cost in the Program Cost and Impact Fee Fund columns are the same, the
entireproject cost has been allocated to future development. The usefulness
of differentiating the costs will be evident in latter sections when Program
r 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
t Existing Facilities". This Stem 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
tot 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 al located.
i 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 my 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 my wells will be equipped with standby
power generators.
Distribution System
i
F
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
27
stmol"
chlorination facilities (approximately $7,500 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
E of the 15 new wells.
z
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
r
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 6 years followed by two 5 -year increments. Costs for pro7octs serving
General Plan development funded on or before July 1, 1991 are shown in the
current year (1991/92). Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to
the Januant 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
j A reasonable relationship must be established between (1) a fee's use and (2)
the type of development on which the fee is imposed. To establish such a
relationship, it must be shown that the type of development that is going to
be charged the fee actuallyuses, is served by, or benefits from the public
facilities that are to be inanced by the fee revenue.
Because of the logical growth patterns conceived in the Proposed General Plan
and because of the planning effort set down in the Water Master Plan, the City
ensures that all water facility improvements will primarily benefit the
residential, commercial, industrial and quasi -public land uses within the
General Plan area. Each and every water project to be financed by the fee
28 RP00318
'? program will provide the same level of sery ce 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.
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 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. A summary of the RAE factors for water is
ppresented 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 dens ty residential use is
$5,504 per acre.
r;
us
L
29
RP0033.8
TABLE 3-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT INVIPACT FEES
WATER
Use C".ateunriec Unit RAF Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Arne
1.00
$5,710
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$11,190
High Density
Acre
3.49
$19,930
East Side Residential
Acre
1.00
$5,710.
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$5.710
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$11,190
High Density
Acre
3.49
$19,930.
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
0.64
$3,650
General Commercial
Acre
0.64
$3,650
Downtown Commercial
Acre
0.64
$3,650
Office Commercial
Acre
0.64
$3,650
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Acre
0.26
$1,480
Heavy Industrial
Aute
0.26
$1,480
Note: Feeamounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
30
'4 CHAPTER 4
SEWER SERVICE
r�
` OVERVIEW
The City of Lodi has provided sewerage service3 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
k southwest of the City.
,.., Collection System
The sanitary sewer collection system within the Cit includes more than 155
miles of pipeline. Sizes of the main sewers range rom 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
'S addressed in this study.
Li 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.
3 Facility costs and financing for wastewater treatment and disposal are not
addressed in this report. These issues have been addressed in separate
studies and a financing mechanism, the Wastewater Connection Fee, has been
r� 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.
v
31 RP0023-8
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,
Pon "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.
Wi Under the City's Sewer Trunk Extension policy, applicants are reimbursed a
portion of the estimated construction cost of oversize trunk sewers. For
oversize trunks, the reimbursement policy applies to trunk sewers larger than
10 inches in diameter. For thepurposes 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 $1,005,500.
F. Estimated cost to clean the existing sewers is $165,000. Source of funding
for these deficiencies has been identified by the City to be the Sewer Fund.
32 RPM33.8
PLANNED SEWERAGE FACILITIES
Sewerage collection facilities to serve the expanded City have been identified
•-- in the Master Sewer Plan. A summary of these facilities is presented below
q 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.
u
Collection System
Expansion of the existing collection system to serve new areas will require
P^ construction of new gravity sewers and lift stations as described in
t 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
station and force main costs would be spread over individual special fee areas
corresponding to the areas of benefit. Also, it is assumed that gravity
F1 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 Januar 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 Acres Mapped Over
,., the General Plan Period (Appendix A) provided by the City. In Table 4-1,
V
33 RPW33.8
PAGE1OF2
TABLE 4 —1
�a n!la
Iia
77r77
PAGE1OF2
TABLE 4 —1
21-Au041
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITALCOSTS AND PHASING
(�SEWER
1 lilanbsr .
Cat
%s Fund
1991)92
1892/89
1989198 1994!95. '
1995196
198$187
t997 2092
2002007
:. hitt$ Oi 8adchm Rosa saws kmdt
$49.000
$49.000
30
So
so
`2o
SO
s0
.. $0
$49.000
eoalprwwo 1.1o6 a of 104nch
ssnp.ry.awar pipe and mwft les
from P6a Streetblodl Avenue.
MSS002 W"Um boundarysewer trunk
$300.000
$900.000
30
30
s0
$o'
so
s0
$0
$900.000
u:.rgial4q of 800 q.12-kroh.
.. b00M15-ineh.2A00Mo1
;
784ach. tm ul of 2f-Insh.
p
and 2.800.8.1244nch.ewat
'
piW eonnxtMO b Ms exilAGi9
" 49'inchsewerkunkbdie
:.: treaknent pl ad. (barsize)
1$30008 Overdze yravihr sewer b Marney
$48.000
$48.000
s0
30
30
$0
30
so.
$411•0
so �.
Line a e1at[611 comodaklQ 2.700
y� krcti"War kiadr.
,,ussi 1 NerneyLeneOksrallonand
5282.500
m (t)
s0
s0
30
$0
80
SO
$0
.
f ru mah eunprhin0 8 -Mn
bonwpower Pupa liumft ■
ooad*wd tA40 GPM cepadtY am
2.8001/ g9 -Inch _pipe,
.'.` IISSI006.iAU18 An two flit dote and
$192.000
$o 12)
30
30
s0
$0
30
s0
$0
30
free mein w111112. Aura
horsepower pumps and 480 GPM
t
capwkywA thatbrco main
... . Inkier KN6.raarl Low.
i
MSSW09 puff Avenue AQ dation upgrade
$185.000
5o (3)
$0
30
s0
$0 :
30
s0
so
$0. .
wW paraAd torte main with 2
fi8esn llonepower pumps and a
s
1.800 GPMcapacity
F
fiUMM7 1.400 It of 19 -Inch parallel
$42.000
$42,000
$0
30
s0
so
30
SO
$42.000
$0 i
bunk line in Lower Sacramenf0 Rd.
from Taylor Rd. toKenleman Lam.
PAGE1OF2
TABLE 4 -1 21-Au"t
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
SEWER
-
Project D99=10 n - - Program knpad
.
Number CaR Fee Fund 1991102 1992/91 1993/94 1994M 199588 1986187 1897-2M 2002-2007
USSw89 2.5o9Not 15-tncbParaIM $49.009 149.000 30 to to So $49.000 30 to W
bWA*W In L&AW Samunente Rd.
from Loa Aw" to Elm Street
usswe Owrefze g►r*y mwer In Harney $15.000 $15.000 so to $0 so $0 so $15.000 to
Lane to 6R dation. oandsling of
1.400 If of 12 -Inch pipe wed from
- Lower Saaamento Road. (merdze)
SU BTCirAL- SEWERMAM PART)CIPA710N: 11,142,599 $503.000 to to so $0 $49,000 3o S105.000 $349.000
GCF1006 PubecWbftAdmkddmdm $341.800 $341.$00 30 5341,500 $o $O SD to to 30
Bldg. Erpmalon. (509►)
GCFW Public Warks Storage Faditr-*%) 5235.000 $235.000 30 to $235.000 to to $0 t0 W
-: GCF1o08 Pub. Wake GamgaAV"h Facp,(38%1 $186.897 5105.857 1180.087 t0 So so 30 to t0 t0
:---9aSS000:SmerMaderPlm-1990-. - $82.753 $92.751 $92.753 to t O W t0 so t0 30
- 9RS'i000 sewer Me" Plan and C.I.P. $20.000 $20.000 30 to so $0 $0 $20.000 0 t0
Update -1997. - - -
,- MSSON sewer Master Plan and C.I.P. $20.000 $20.000 $0 to $O SO to m $20.000 - m
Update -2
Upgrde. bExiding Faeilitlea 11.005.600 to 30 10 so $0 to 30 $0 to
:.
TOTAL . _ $3.013.920
$1,368.920
Motes
1 Harney Lane Ilft Station cods will be fundedby a SupplementalFee m"ssed upon development within the area of benent. Therefore. costs
of the projects are rrN shown intheCity-Wide Impact Fee Fundcolumn. Forecastedtlmfrtg oftheprojectconstructlon isin the 1997-2002period.
2 KettlemanLaneliftsiatIMCWS will bettmdedbyaSupplementalFeeassessedupon deralopmentwilhintheareaofbenefitTherefore, costs
Of the projects are tot shown in the City -Wide Impact Fee Fund column. Forecasted timing of the project eonstiuction is in the 1992-1993period.
3 Cluff Avenue lift nation modification Casts willbe fimdedbya SupplementalFeeassessed upon development within Ihe area ofbenelit, Therefore. costs
of the prc�scls are tot shoran in the City-WideImpact Fee Fund color m Forecasted timing d: the project constluctlonis in the 2002-2007 period.
PAGE20F2
p-
. k
y G P STUDY AREA ti
-36
P—
I>�
qN" the phasing is divided by year for the first 6 years followed by two 5 -year
increments. Costs for thepro]'ects serving the General Plan development
funded on or before July 1, 1990 are shown in the current year (1990/91).
P. 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
t- Avenue Lift Station Service Area, the Harney Lane Lift Station Service Area
and the Kettleman Lane Lift Station Service Area. Since lift stations are
�! unusually large and expensive facilities and, the service area is specific, a
separate supplemental fee is calculated for each area. A separate calculation
for these sub -zones is presented in the section, BURDEN ANALYSIS FOR SEWER
�. SUB -ZONES.
Relationship of Sewer Projects to New Development
�* A reasonable relationship must be established between: (1) the fee's use and;
(2) the type of development on which 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
b 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
14 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. ?he RAE schedule shows a
reasonable relationship between the cost of required Sewer Facilities projects
and the burden placed on each land use. The RAE schedule that has been
developed for the Sewer Facilities is presented in Table 4-2.
37 RPoO)Y8
M
1.0
y
Y
TABLE 4-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT UAPACT FEES
SEWER
Use Categories Unit RAE Fee
mmim ' cm e.wnttnfe eMnwn 4nn4 i�nnn
sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
,
.r
WWT IAL
Acre
1.00
$1,090
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$2,140
High Density
Acre
3.49
$3,800
East Side Residential
Acre
1.00
$1,090
PLANNED RESIDENTI,
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$1,090
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$2,140
High Density
Acre
3.49
$3,800
COMMERCIAL'
Neighborhood Com ercial'
Genara! Commercial
0.94
$1,020
Downtown Commercial
Ace
0.94
$1,020
Acre
0.94
$1,020
Office. -Commercial
0.94
$1,020
Acre
0.42
$460
}
Heavy Industrial
0.42
$460
mmim ' cm e.wnttnfe eMnwn 4nn4 i�nnn
sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
,
.r
Recommended Fees
The Sewer Facilities Fees for each land use are summarized in Table 4-2. The
-- total fee is $1,090 per low density residential acre.
! BURDEN ANALYSIS FOR SEWER SUB -ZONES
There are three sewer sub -zones which are not served by the improvements in
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.
1 4
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.
n.; In the case of the Harney Lane lift station service area, existing development
has been included in the sizing of the facilities. At the time of annexation,
it is expected that this area will be required to pay the supplemental fee
and, therefore, it has been included in the supplemental fee calculation.
39 aroo3ie
c
h�a
r!
r; {
TABLE 4-3
'°'
SEWER SUB
-ZONE FEE CALCULATIONS
F" •g
Kettleman
Lift Station
Sub -Zone
Total Planned Residential Acres:
80
I
Total Planned Commercial Acres:
22
Total Cost of Improvements:
$192,000
Cost Per RAE:
$ 1,610
Total
Total
RAE
Total
Burden
acrri +inn Units
Developed
Factor
RAEs
Per Acre
PR - Low Density Acres
69.9
1.00
69.9
$ 1,610
PR - Medium Density Acres
4.5
1.96
8.8
$ 3,160
PR - High Density Acres
5.6
3.49
19.5
$ 5,620
Office Commercial Acres
212A
0.94
20.7
1,510
102.0
116.4
Harney Lane Lift Station Sub -Zone
Total Planned Residential Acres:
292
U
Less Basin and Park Acres:
35
Net Planned Residential Acres:
257
Total Cost of Improvements:
$262,500
Average Cost Per RAE:
$ 830
Total
}
Total
RAE
Total
Burden
nesrriotinn Units
Developed
Factor
BAE.q
Per Acre
"?
PR - Low Density Acres
225.0
1.00
225.0
$ 830
�-
PR - Medium Density Acres
14.1
1.96
28.0
$ 1,630
PR - High Density Acres
�0
3.49
63.0
$ 2,900
f.
257.0
315.0
40
a»�
Cluff Avenue Lift Station Sub -Zone
Total Industrial Reserve Acres: 158
Total Cost of Improvements: $185,000
Average Cost Per RAE: $ 1,170
Total
Total Burden
Doscriation units Developed Factor RAE'S Per Acre
Light Industrial Acres 93.0 0.42 39.1 $ 1,170
Heavy Industrial Acus 158 0. 0.42 2 ..3 $ 1,170
Note: Dollar amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/92.
Source: Nolte and Associates and Angus McDonald and Associates, 1991,
41
RM033.1
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 Cityp 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 planning 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. 3y agreement, the City is limited to a combined total discharge of 80
cubic feet per second at the two existing pumping stations. Additional
discharge locations are not currently permitted by the agreement. The Cit
operates a series of interconnected detention basins within this area to sore
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 Plan improvements and are
currently funded by Storm Drainage Fees collected by the City.
!° A number of relatively minor deficiencies exist within the collection system.
.: For the most part, these consist of substandard surface drainage facilities
(for example, ditches and alleys), deteriorated curb and gutter, and
undersized pipelines and catch basins. Many of the system deficiencies can be
found in the older central and eastern parts of the City.
r 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 5854,000 in 1987 dollars
and 6930,000 in 1990 dollars. Small scale projects have been performed by the
City to repair sections of curb and gutter. Replacement of the alley systems
F is not expected due to high cost and grade conditions.
Detention Basins
f
As mentioned above, the City operates a system of interconnected detention
basins that store runoff prior to pumping to the WID canal or the Mokelumne
River. These basins also function as park-like areas when not utilized for
storage of storm runoff.
" 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. This study updates the program and fee to
serve the General Plan Area. Also, additional fee categories have been
created from the former drainage fee to establish ge°eral conformance with the
other fee categories.
PLANNED STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
..i 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 RP00»-e
those facilities is presented below and summarized in Table 5-1. Project
numbers listed in Table 5-1 are used to identify the location of projects
shown on Figure 5-1. Two existing reimbursement agreements, which are an
obligation of the costs for storm drain fund, are included.
�- Collection System
Drainage subareas established duringplanning 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
1. 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.
;3
Detention Basins
Expansion of `existing detention basins in subareas C, E, and G are identified
s in the Master Plan. 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
a 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 Pla development
funded on or before July 1, 1990 are shown in the current year ( 990/91).
Actual costs of these project have been adjusted to the base dol ar of January
1, 1990.
44
RPM"
TABLE 5 —1 21-Auy-ot
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
PAGE10F3
Pry ....
4Nanber
:
PMwam
Coat
Impact
Fee Fund
190UO2
1982!83
19am
loom
1995194
111111111111117
1807-2002
2602-2007
81801001'
PIxNy Padt dwktapa basin
$093.000
$493.000
SO
5177.000 ..
SO
SO
So
5222,000
520•.000
$0
.6spaHAa► and development of
Bodo 'C' according to plan
adopted in 1994 Nwg 8812003) .
MSOM
Tumer Roadstorm drain. 450 N
$213.000
$213.000
SO
so
SO
SO
so
$0
$0 ..
$213,000
'
of 60'. 80011 of 54', and
.
-.1 150 N of 42' storm drains
817umet Road and Guild Avenue.
USO1004
: Pfne Street storm drain
$42,000
$42.000
SO
$0
s0
so
SO
so
$42.000
S0
consisting of am if of 30•
Harm drain and manholes.
I1 SDK
� 7Aarmen Street storm drain
$70.000
570.000
$30.000
SO
SO
SO
so
SO
$40.000
W.
-`` ecaststirp of 1.25011 36•
iloirodrainandmanholes.
_ , BASDI007;
': Bisiti :C' sbrm drain
$172.000
$172,000
$0$0
$
o
a
W
$84.000
380.000 :.
:oONactlonteciNOas '
consisting of 42• and 30' .
poet; axtendhrg souNr and
. eaA Expsrtds eerAce area tc
Koah man and Guild.
..:. 8ASD1009
: 'E-ritrean Drive atonn drain :
$129,000
$129.000
so
$o
$o
$43.000
$43.000
$43.000
SO
s0
collection facilities extending
service area north In Tunw
Fwd. Improvements Include
pipErtltat will carry runoN to
Badn •E•:
U,SD1W
..: Evergreen Drive Storm drain
$83.000
$63.000
SO
$21.000
$21.000
$21.000
SO
so
SO
SO
collection facilities extending
service south of E4asln.
Improvements include30' and
38' piperlhatwill carry
runoff to Basin •E'.
PAGE10F3
TABLE 5 —1 21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
Project
Program
Impact
Number
Cost
Fee Fund
1991192
1992/93
1993M
199M
1995188
1998!87
1987-2002
2002-2007
ta5DI010 :
Westgate Park expansion and
$1.934.000
$1.934.000
SO
$1.343.000
$157.000
$167.000
$277.000
s0
to
to
deveiopment. Park Improvements
are not included.
MSOWtt
DevelopmentotnewBaein•F•.
$3.519.0110
$3.519.000
$0
to
to
$0
.=-$o
to
$2.532.000
$987.000
located north of KeWeman Lane
and west of Lower Sacramento
Road. Service arse Includes
land west of Lower Sacramento
Road, north of Kettieman, and
'.
south of the WID canal. Park
improvements are not Included.
MSDI012
Basin IF, storm drain
307
$.000
$367.000
$0
to
to
to
to
so
to
$387,000
collection facilities extending
,.
north of Bastn,•F• Including
01
54'.48'. and 30• PiP80. .
USD1013
Storm drain consisting of 36'
$149.000
$149.000
to
to
so
to
so
to
$149.000
so
and 301 pipes extending,
easterly from the existing 54'
trunk line north of Kettleman
Lane. Exact location nct yet
determined.
MSDIO14
Basin IF* outfall storm drain
$164.000
$184,000
$g
to
to
to
to
$o
$184.000
to
consisting of 30' pipes
extending easterly from the
basin to the existing 64' trunk
line.
usD1015
Basin' G' storm drain
$261.000
U61.000
to
to
SO
s0
to
to
$261.000
to
collection facilities
consisting consisting of48•
and 38' pipes extending
southerly and easterlyhom
Basin'G'. Exact location not
yet determined.
PAGE 2 OF 3
,• ._ _ _art d
_ r
TABLES —1
21-Au"I
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
Project
Program
Impact
Number
cost
Fee Fund
1991192
1992193 1993194 1994/95 1995198 1998/97
1997-2002
2002-2007
MSDpte Basin -G• collection facmd"
5e4,000
$64,000
$84.000 (1)
SD SD 30 30 SO
30
$O '
consisting of 301 and 381 pipes
extending weuedy and
northerly from the existing 33•
trunk in Orchle way. Exact
Location not yet determined.
MSDIO17 Expansion and development of
53,744,000
$3.744,000
$108.000 M
so $2.000.000 $50.000 50 $817.000
$789.000
SO
Basin -G-. Golf course
Improvements are not included.
MSOI018 Master PIanlUpdates
$50.000
$50.000
$10,000 (1)
so so so 3o $20.000
$20.000
$0 -
MS04020 Development of Basin oil
$3,819.000
$3,819.000
S0 50 SD SD SD
$0
$3.819.000
located south of IGttleman Lane
and wed of Lawes Sacramento
v Flood.
MDS102/ 88,10141- collection facilities
$285.000
5285.000
30
30 SD 30 SD $0
SD
$265.000
consisting of 30.30.42. and
- 48 Inch pipes extended north
of Me basin.
MOS1022 Basin -M discharge consisting
$275,000
$275.000
so
so 30 30 s0 30
So
$275,000
of 421 Inch pipe extending north
and east to Basin -G'.
Upgrades to Existing Facilities
$1,051,000
30
s0
30 30 30 50 30
SD
SD
Parkwest (E -area)
ReimlwreertientApreemeM
$266.838
$288.838
s0
30 3o 3o 3o ,$265.836
3o
50
su nwest (G -area)
Reimbursement Agreement
$154,889
$154,869
30
So so 3o 3o 5154,889
3o
3o
Tornf_ STORM DRAINAGE cosTc
'#,`" 'SS .:... �:
.y...
... .,;:.Y�jG%t�y,'Y�
:✓%�
,meq SJ yy,�'q
at
a17.2as,707 516.234a07
NOTE
(1) Previously Appropriated from Drainage Fees
1
PAGE 30F 3
Future Basin
RAwe Pipeline
WSDI 005 Storm Drainage WTA
Ir
Project Number
AXrowl-Cift NuNumberSo*at
P"Po
Drainage Area 0113.11WAL KAN
wa
FIGURE 5-1 STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
48
Ilia
4f
pal
Future Basin
RAwe Pipeline
WSDI 005 Storm Drainage WTA
Ir
Project Number
AXrowl-Cift NuNumberSo*at
P"Po
Drainage Area 0113.11WAL KAN
wa
FIGURE 5-1 STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
48
Relationship of Storm Drainage Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between the projects and
iw 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
6 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
p 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 acccmplished 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
57,910 per low density residential acre.
r�
g
49 RP0033.8
TABLE 5-2 21 -Aug -91
} r SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
STORM DRAINAGE
x
r
x Land Use Categories Unit RAE Fee
1.33
1.33
1.33
1'33
1.33
1.33
$7,910
$7,910
$7,910
$7,910
$7,910
$7,910
$7,910
$1 0,520
$10,520
$10,520
$10,520
$10,520
$1 0,52Q
3
`
k
,
RESIDENTIAL
u
Low Density
Acre
Medium Density
Acre
;.
High Density
Acre
East Side Residential
Acre
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
Medium Density
Acre
High Density
Acre
1
t
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
General Commercial
Acre
Downtown Commercial
Acre
Office Commercial
Acre
Q
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Acre
Heavy Industrial
Acre
p�
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald 6 Associates.
Li
I
`.i
50
1.33
1.33
1.33
1'33
1.33
1.33
$7,910
$7,910
$7,910
$7,910
$7,910
$7,910
$7,910
$1 0,520
$10,520
$10,520
$10,520
$10,520
$1 0,52Q
`o OVERVIEW
CHAPTER 6
STREETS AND ROADS
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
Pi 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
bi 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, TJM that identified the impacts associated with the envisioned
General Plan. As mentioned earlier, the existing traffic counts were done by
"t 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, signalization, and interchange
improvements was submitted to the City along with the circulation study.
Working with City staff and the City improvement standards, cross-sections
were prepared for future streets and improvements to existing streets. These
are discussed in the following section.
Existing Deficiencies
Existing deficiencies are relatively minor and mainly consist of deteriorated
r pavement, and curb and gutter and drainage facilities on some streets.
w- Project costs to correct existing deficiencies are not funded by development
impact fees unless the correction is incidental to providing higher capacity
5: VW3"
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, Proposition 111 gas tax, Measure K sales tax, and other
R. sources. Typically, general fund allocations are strictly used for operations
and maintenance (0 & M) activities. Funds from other sources are allocated to
k 0 and M, capital and reconstruction activities.
w
�i
Based upon the current budget for capital maintenance and reconstruction of
$1.66 million, a forecast was prepared for the program cost for similar work
during the General Plan period. The total is shown in Table 6-1 as
Enhancements to Existing Facilities in the amount of $26.56 million. Funding
for these program costs is anticipated to come primarily from General Fund,
Gas Tax and Transportation Development Act (TDA) sources in proportion to
existing funding levels of 52%, 26%, and 22%, 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 policy 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 1s 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 of 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
RPW13.e
OWN
TABLE 6-1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT
RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Reject
Major Planned
Program
Impact
Number
FacWhies
Coats
Fee Fund
1881!82
1992!93 1883M
1904M
1905188
1988187
1997-,2862
2002-2607
- MTS1001
Restriping of Kettleman Lane
522,000
$22.000
$0
$0
So $0
5o
$0
$22.000
_ - - so
(6- Lanes, Divided) from Lower
Sacramento Road to Ham Lane.
k1TSM
Restriping of Kettleman Lane
$22.000
522.000
$0
$0
$0 so
to
$22.000
to
to
(6- Lanes. Divided) from Ham
Lane to Stockton Streat.
UTS1008
: Reatriphtp of Kettleman Lane
s12.000
$12.000
$0
$1
$0 $0
to
$12.000
SO
to
(8-Lmmm Divided) Rom
Stockton Street to Cherokee
Lane.
IiATSIM
Design, construction. and
$5.100.000
$3.575,000.
$0
$0
$D s0
to
$1.787.500
$1,787,500
to
engineering associated with
widening Kettlentan Lane (Highway
12) @ State Route 99. (Measure
w
'K' Funding - $700.000, State
Funding . $931.000)
MTS1006
1NWenknp of Kettleman Lane
$519.000
$519.600
$0
$0
$0 $259.500
so
to
5o
$259.500
(4 - Lanes. Divided) Rom
Backman Road to Gugd Avenue.
htTS1000
Widening of Lower Sacramento
$483.250
$278.000
$0
$0
$0 SO
$30.580
547.280
$200.180
$0
Road (8 - Lanes. Divided) from
Turner Road to Lodi Avenue.
(Messure'K• Funding. S185.250)
MTSM07
Widetdng of Lower Sacramento
$325.000
$195.000
$0
$0
so SO
521450
$33.150
$140,400
to
Road (B- Lanes. Divided) from
Elm Street to Taylor Road.
(Measure 'K, Funding -$130,000)
MTSt009
Widening of Lower Sacramento
$228,000
$137,000
$0
$o
$0 to
So
$0
$137.00
s0
Road (8 - Lanes, Divided) from
Taylor Road to Kettleman Lane.
(Measure 'K, Funding $81.000)
Page / '099, .
WA"
1111111
TABLE 6-1
21-hu9-01
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project
Flowers
Number
Faei6tles
Cods
Fee Fund
1001102
1002113 1013f14
1094M
1985109.
1088107
1907-2002
2002-2007
MTSKW
Widening ofLokvwSseramento
5235.250
$141,000
s0
so
so
SO
to
$0
$141,000
s0
_
Road (e- Lumen. DhAded) tan
Kamemen Lane to Orchis Drive.
Qatseture -K- Funding $04.m
f ATSp10
widening ofower Lsu.famerto
$195.000
$117.000
30
$0
so
$o
$0,
$117,000
$0
Road (8- LarMs.Ohidadl Nom. ...
.: 'OrchisDrFebCarWryBhd.
OAsasure'K- Fundi !9-$7e.0%.
MTSI011-.'
WlderrYrg d Lower Sacramento' ':
$300.250
$180,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$180,000
Rod(e -Lanes. Divided)
Century 91vd. to Kristen Court
(Measure 'KI FundmO . $120,250)
11=12
Widening of Lower saeameMo
$130.000
$79.000
$0
$0
$0
so
so
to
�^
-lob
Hoed (!t - Lame. Divided) from
Kristen Court to;;ney,Lane.
Odeawra -K- Funding . $52.000)
MTSWIS
Widening of Harney Lane
$173,000
$173,000
so
$0
$0
s0
$0
So
$173,000
so
(4-,Lanes) tom Lower.'.:,:.
saw amsi :o Road East 2.850 feet
f ATS1014.
WW&rdng of Harney Lana
$173.000
$173,000
$0
$0
$0
So
So
So
$173.000
$0
(4 - Lanes) from W.IA:
crossing Wed 2.850199L
MTSI015
Widening of Harney Lens
$120.000
$120.000
$0
$0
$0
90
So
SO
$120,000
90
(4 - Lenss) from WJA,
crowing East 2.250 feel .
"MTs1018
Wkedng of Harney Lina' .'
$120.000
$120.000
$0
$0
$0
so
so
s0
:120.000
so
(4 - Lanes) from Hutchins'
Sweet to Stockton Street.
MTSI017
Wkfarino of Harney Lane
$147.000
$147.000
$0
$0
$0
SO
s0
5o
$147.000
so
(4 - Lanes) bom Stockton
Street to Cherokee Lane.
Page 2019
TABLE C-1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENTRELATEDCAPITALCOSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project
major Planned
ftow—
impact
Number
F*cWM"
Code
Fee Fund
1991192
1992193
199=4
199485 1995108
1998187
1997-2002
2002-2007
mmis
widening of Hamey Lane
$170.000
$179.000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$D
$0
$0
$178.000
(4 - Lanes) from Lower
Sacramento Road to the
General Plan Boundary.
MTS1019
Highway 12
$90.000
390,000
$90,000
$0
$0
SO
SO
so
so
so
Project Study Report p
MTSIM
Design. constructim.
31,500.008
$1,500.000
$0
$0
$0
SO
to
so
so
S1.1500.000
engineering associated with
widening of Turner Road over
State Route 99.
MTS1021
Restriping of Lodi Avenue
$13,000
$13,000
to
$o
so
$0
$0
so
to
$13,000
(4 - Lanes) from Cherokee
East 3.000 feet.
to MT=n
Reconstruction of Lodi Avenue
$33.000
$33,000
SO
so
so
$0
so
so
$33.000
$0
(4 -tan") from Guild
Avenue West 700 fast.
MTSIM
RestrigIno-of Turner Road
$11,000
$11,000
so
so
so
$o
$0
so
$0
$11.000
(4 - Lanes) from Bas— Road
Eas12.500 lost.
MT$10214
VVidoWng of Tumor Road
$22.000
$22.000
so
so
so
$0
$0
30
so
522.000
(4- Lanes) from Guild Avenue
West 700 feet .1
MT -Q1025
Widening of Coaltury Blvd.
$240.000
$240.000
$0
$0
$D
$0
$240.000
so
so
(4 -Lanes) from Lower
SacramentoRoad east 4.1W
last.
MTS1028
Widening of CanturySlyd.
U1.000
$31,000
to
so
$31.000
so
so
so
so
to
(4 - Lanes) from Stockton
Street to Chickadee Lone.
Page 3019
TABLE 6-1
21-Aug-91
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITAL
COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Protect Major Planned
Program
Impact
Number Facilities
Costa
Fee fund
10902
111111=.4
1993194
1994M
1995!98
1998197
79®7-2002
2002-2007
MT51027 . Wl Loft of Stockton $keen
$91.00
$81,000
$10.500
so
$40,500
so
so
so
$o
s0
(4 -lanes) kom Ksttlsman
vena to Harney Lane.
WS10211Wl o tgofGuIldAvenue
$109.001
$168,000
$20,160
110,080
=10,080
$10,080
$70,080
210,080
$48,720
$18,720
(4 - Lease) kons Lodi .
Avenue to Kettleman Lane.
MTS1029 Wtdenfng of Turner Road
$84.001
$84.000
SO
to
so
So
$42.000
$42.000
s0
s0
(4 - Lanes) from Lower
Sacramento Road West to the .
General Plan Boundary,
MTSlx10 Wideningof Lodi Avenue
$44.0of
584.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
30
SO
SO
$84,000
• p - Lanea) kom Lotwr
Sacramento Road Wast b the
General Plan Boundary. '
f1/ili1031- widMinQMKeIIMnNnLane
$179.00(
$1711,000
s0
so
to
so
so
so
so
$178.000
(4 - Lanes) from Lower
Sacramento Road West to the
General Plan Boundary.
MYS(032:.WWenlnpotLoekebrdSaaet
$1,487,000
$1.267.000
s0
30
30
so
SO
$0
SO
$1.267,000
(4 - Lanes) from Swamemo
Street to Cherokee Lane.
MTSw3 4 Widening o/ •ltctor Ad Hwy 12)
$342.000
$342.000
s0
to
30
30
s0
s0
s0
$342,000
MTS0081 , Mader Plan 1987
$78,187
$76,187
$78.187
so
t0
so
so
s0
$0
s0
MTS0o02 Master Plan and
$20.000
$20.000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$20.000
SD
SO
C.I.P. Update -1997
`.MTS0003 5You MasterPtan'
$20.000
$20.000
SO
so
30
30
so.
$0
$20.000
s0
'and C.LP Update - 2002
Page 4 of 9 -
'
r" I. -'., f .....-.1
ro",
010.0 010.0%
TABLE 6-1
21-Aug-91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITALCOSTS AND
PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
projed
Major planned
Program
Impact
Number
Facilities
Cods
Fee Fund
1981/92 1982M 1983194 1994M
1995198
1996!97
t997-2002
20� 2007
MTS001
Installation of traffic
$95.000
$95.000
SO SO $95.000
30
$0
$0
s0
SO
signal located at the int. of
Lower Sacramento Road and
Turnor Road.
MTS002
Installation of traffic
595.000
$95.000
SO $0 SO
So
SO
$0
SO
$95.000
signal located at the Int. of
Turner Road and the State
Route 99 Southbound Ramp.
MTS003
Installation of traffic signal
$95.000
$47.500
$47.50D SO $9
SO
SO
SO
SO
located at the Int. of Victor
Road and CIuH Avenue. (50%)
MTf9004
Installation of traffic
$95.000
$47.500
$47.500 SO SO
8o
so
8o
SO
SO
signal located at the Int, of
y
Lodi Avenue and Lower
Sacramento Road. (So%)
MTS005
Installation of traffic signal
$95.000
$47.500
$0 $0 $0
3o
SO
SO
$47.500
SO
located at the int. of Lodi
Avenue and Mills Avenue. (50%)
MTS005
tndanation of traffic
$90.000
$45.000
SO 50 SO
SO
SO
SO
$45,0D0
30
signal located at the Int. of
Lower Sacramento Road and Vine
Street (50%)
MTS007
Installation of traffic
$95.000
$47.500
$47+500 SO SO
30
SO
go
30
SO
signal located at the Int of
Kettieman Lane and Mills
Avenue. '(50%) .
MTSt108 .
Installation of traffic,
$95.000
$95.000
SO SO $0
SO
$95.000
SO
SO
SO
signal located at Qts Int of
Kettleman Lane and IM State
Route 99 SoulhbwM Ramp.
Pape 5 of e
..�.:...-sP.:.r..-,n.^n. �+�.n' +r^-z��� ...m+.,� �w+,it - a ;•ay - - � �...;.. s;<_-..: y. t;,r>�
.
TABLE 6-1
21-Au"l
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITALCOSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project
w)or Pl.mood
program
ImPect
�►
FastMtlee
Cosh
Fee Fund
199IN2
199M
1993M
1994M
1885196
1996797
1887-2002
2o02-2007
MTS00o
. 419909211006(trafRc
$95.690
$95.000
so
so
so
$0
$0
W.0o0
so
dgnal located the Int. d. of
so
KegNman Lane and Heckman
Road.
UTS016
' ,Instapwoa of tram-$s5690 -
s95.000
so
30
SO
SO
W5,000.000
SO
SO
spud located a dwint of
SO
Lower SaerwMnto Road and
Harney lana.
MTMI
lastallationaltrallb
$90.000
$90.000
30
30
30
SD
SO
SO
$90.000
stand locoed a tit» M L of
so
:..Harney Lane and Mi9s Avenw.
1479012 •
.Instaltation of traffb
$90.000
$90.000
SO
SO
30
SD
30
30
SO
$90.000
e>t
ap
ripnd located a the Int. d
HuneyLane and Hain Lam. .
AfTS013
Indapationoftrafflc
$90.000
$45,000
$0
$45.000
SO
SD
$0
30
$O
net located a the InL of .,
Sp
Flamey.Lans and Stockton
h1TS014
Instdla" of traffic
$90.000
$45.000
$45.000
$0
W
�
SO
$o
SD
elates! located at the W. of
W
ENI sued and Lower Sacramento
LITS015
Installation of traffic
$90,000
$45.000
30
signal located at Lha NL of
30
30
$x5,000
SD
SO
SO
s0
Lockvford Street and Stockton
AITSolo
nstapadonoftnflb
$90.000
$45.000
$45.000
$0
30
stand tocated a the Md o1-
SO
SD
$0
SO
$9
Turner Road and Stockton
Stre.*L (66-A) ..:.
Page 6 of 9
':��i+`;%'i;d �,.. _'....K .. .. n. -.;t. �.,.i.-:-..... ,. .. ....'. ..f .'.;: ;�.:.... > .r.. � .......+F,� .. �•.:.i4F- � - ... _.. .. .�,.,s...,..�s;x„�r�+w. _:u.s e..:;� .,�'�`�—•"'"
e to L 9584 '
:e11S„v IPO -1
to tpnos teal o9£'t -xoiddv
Psou 01— —s --I Stale
Of
of
o00'98Zs
o$
of
of
of
of
000'98Z$
o00'98Zf
u&MnO xog OVA 10 ouluePIM
MOM '
(%09)'WAS wO Pull Waal
ee310ietto 107ul"I* pet"m
Ot
o0B'Z94
os
OS
of
of
of
of
009'Z95
000'90tt
pu8p0ms410u0Dvkslsul
*ZOSln
(%09)'PNg Aintuep Pus
earl weN 10 It" an W pe1e001
M
009'L*S
of
of
of
of
of
0!
009'11S :.
000'965
.. leuOp oweAlo u"vi"m
CZoSln
_ .
(9609) -Wqs em Dur suvy
eallwego so w sip w pep001
Of
009'm
Of
o$
Of
of
Of
Of
0091Z9S
000'sotf
Pop *Weil 10u0pep"ul
ZMJL"
(%o9Yo—v spin Dur leans wt3
to'" an to pepxtl [UUCP
Of
of
00015*9
of
Of
of
of
of--. -
oo9m
000'06!
opleatowavue3sul
'taosin
(%o9) -so—V
p>lus0 Dur earl uawomell
10" " Ir pomm pu01s
-
. Ot
o$
000'9*$
Of
Of
0
of
o$ -
000'96!
000'06$
mvia t0 uopelpisul
oZOSln
Wes)-D00sw43 pus P"
3euml 10 7u1 etp le Peleoq
of
o$
000'9*!
Of
Of
Of
Of
Of
0009*$
o0o'oef
puepowsitlo-pe0spul
'stosin
(%OS)'enussv ston Pus P"
lewn110'lul"p DeteO01
Of
Of
Of
0009*!
Of
of
o$
Of
000'913
000'06s
pulp mvil so uopvppaul
slosin
(%os) Teens u0Dp01s pug
is"10'ttq 8101* Pe1B001
Of
of
Of
Ot
Of
000'm
of
os
0OVS-14
000'08$
pucisommmo-peppstq
Ltosln
Loot -9m
ZOOZ-L88t
LOMML
9&Mt
96/ML
tem"t
cefml
zwt80t
Dunt ooj
9000
somparzi
Joq=N
3osduq
um0okl
Pvwield i01rn
30e10id
SOVOU (INV S133Hl.S
JNISVNd ONV S1S001V1)dVO
O31V1381NMd013Am
la-env-tz
t-9 318V1.
':��i+`;%'i;d �,.. _'....K .. .. n. -.;t. �.,.i.-:-..... ,. .. ....'. ..f .'.;: ;�.:.... > .r.. � .......+F,� .. �•.:.i4F- � - ... _.. .. .�,.,s...,..�s;x„�r�+w. _:u.s e..:;� .,�'�`�—•"'"
__r;"M%%GV�T�Y'S: �:�A�:i'_'hZ 4Q?"?'X. :" :. -:_ ��;�� � ... F,++-... .
- .;::!% _ .-nT-�' .:✓'.: �M'-K-
f.i•
/:r
-.. n =4
TABLE 6-1
21 -Aug -91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project Major Planned
Number Facilities
Program
Coda
Impact
Fee Fund
1861!62
1992/09
1993M
1984= 1995198
1998/87
1997-2002
2002-2._/
M110002 WldelftofWIDSolt Culvert
$150.000
$75.000
s0
s0
s0
so
s0
s0
$75.000
so
Wong Turner Road ap;rox.
2,400 Net West of Lower
Sacramento Road. (W% SJ Co.)
MBCO03 Widening of WID eox culvert
$141,000
$141,00
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
$0
$141,000
S0
along MiGs Avenue approx.
1001eet South of Royal
Crest wve.
.� M00004 Widening of WID Box Culvert
$216.000
$218.001
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
$218,000
S0
along Hanley Lane approx.
3.900 feet Wed of Hutchins .
r ;MFn=l Widening of S.P. rallrom
$202,000
$101.000
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
so
$101.000
rn
C crossinpa LaverSacramento
Road 1.40011 North of Turner
Road. (509 S.J. Co.)
'MRFtX004Widening andupgrade of
$202.000
$202.000
to
so
sos0
SO
s0
s0
5202.000
protection devices of the
railroad crossing at the int
of l ockelord Sired and Gl Rd
_Avenue:::
:.MFtFDM. WWenirtF of Central California
5222,000
$222.000
s0
s0
s0
so
s0
s0
$0
$222,000
Traction Co. crossing on Victor
Rd. (Fury 12)1,350 h. East of
GuNid Avenue.
MRRX000 WkWft and upgraded
$227.000
$227.000
s0
s0
s0
$0
$0
s0
$227.000
so
protection devices of the
ranroed crossing at the Intersection
of Becionart Road and Lodi
MRRX007 construction of railroad
$215.000
$215.000
s0
$0
s0
so
s0
s0
$215,000
to
crossing at int, of Lodi
Avenue and Guild Ave.
,
Page a of g
TABLE 6-1
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
21 -Aug -91
Project Major Planned
Program
Imped
Number Facilities
Code
Fee Fund
199IN2 1992/93
199304 1994M
1995/96 1998187
1997-2002
2002-2007
URRX008 Construction of railroad
$199.000
$199.000
so S 0
so so
$0 so
$189.000
so
crossing at Int. of Cluff
Avenue and Thunnan, Street
Umme Widening and upgrade of
$215.000
$215,000
so so
so so
so so
$0
$215.000
protection devices of Central
Calif. Traction Co. X-ino on
Kettleman Ln. 1.350 IL East of
Guild Ave.
IARF=10 Widening of SP railroad crossing
$202.000
5202.000
so $0
so $D
so so
$202.000
so
on Harney Ln. 1.390 IL East of
Hutchins Street.
Upgrades to Usting Facilities
$20.580.000
so
$0 so
so so
so so
so
so
Now Developtnent Share of Existing
Facilitleas
a.,. Hutchins St. WkfenkV-
Tokay to Lodl M%)
$41.4126
Is. Hutchins St. Wkjon!ng-
FUfnby to Vine (58%)
$151,458
r Lockeford St. VMenIng-
Pleasant to SPRR (W%)
$59.938
d.. cheroksorentury later -
section Widening (100%)
$46.373
e. CariveryiWID Box Culvert (86%)
$109.651
L Stockton SL Widening-
Ketdwn&n to Vine (100%)
$483.597
9. Stockton St. Widening -
Vine toTokay(100%)
$82.235
h, Turnor/Clutl Intersection
_ Widening (100%)
$138.835
NEW DEVELOPMENT SHARE SUBTOTAL
31,594.500
31.094.000
588.375 $U.375
$68.376 .375
M
5611.375 568.375
5341.975
5341,875
11110*'
- - - - - - - - - -
STREETS AND ROADWAY COST
$45.100.937 1$15.290.687
Page 9 019
Signal lights, bridge crossings, and freeway interchanges are not privately
.., constructed facilities and are completely funded by the City through
development impact fees and other funding sources such as Federal, State,
County and Measure K.
Street and Road Improvements
A listing of the street and 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
p^ right-of-way and iniprovements 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 feeprogram. At locations where minimum CalTrans signal
�+ warrants have already been met, 50 percent of the improvement cost has been
allocated to the Impact Fee Fund.
Freeway Improvements
r° Measure K identified the SR 99/12 interchange as a funded project in the
amount of 5700,000. 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.
62 RPW».,
As recommended by TJWA, 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.
r° Measure K identified the SR 99/12 interchange as a funded project in the
amount of 5700,000. 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.
62 RPW».,
■
fight-Ot-Way IR/W) 68'
Face of Curb to Face of Curb IF -F) 52'
2.5�G rISymmetrical) 2.5 2. CdS� 2.5' I+- _
---
Vertical C,G&S.
MAJOR COLLECTOR
TWO LANE
MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION BY DEVELOPER
FIGURE
6-1
TYPICAL
STREET
SECTION
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
In Table 6-1, a summary of the street projects and develo ment impact fee
funding is presented. Estimated costs are referenced to The Engineering News
Record 20 Cities Construction Cost Index for January I, 1990 of 4673. Roadway
improvement costs reflect only the City's funding responsibility per the
proposed City Reimbursement Policy and do not reflect the total estimated
construction cost.
In preparing the estimates of construction cost, the developer obligation,
City obligation and development impact fee funding for the projects, the
following factors were considered. The City obligation for funding of
projects includes everything not required of the developer including special
medians, landscaping, and right-of-way.
Phasing of the improvements is based upon the Forecast of Units Constructed
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 I, 1991 are shown in the current year
(1991/92). Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to the
January 1, 1990 dollar reference.
F Lower Sacramento Road is also included in the list of projects funded, in
part, by Measure K. Based upon discussion with the City, the funding of Lower
Sacramento Road improvements are divided amongst the City fee program,
developer and Measure K. Obligations of the developer have been discussed.
For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that Measure K funds will pa
for 2 lanes (one each direction). Therefore, the obligation of the City Fee
Program is for 2 lanes and the center median and curbs.
Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between the fees use and the
type of development on which the fee is imposed. In order to establish this
relationship, we must first demonstrate that the type of development upon
which the fee is to be charged will, in fact, use, be served by, or benefit
from the public facilities to be financed.
Each and every land use will benefit from the streets and road facilities
ib, within the community. Residents use the streets to get to and from work,
shopping, and entertainment. Commerce and industry use the streets for
�3 deliveries, customers, and employees. Each and every land use in the Proposed
General Plan will benefit from the facilities constructed as part of the
capital improvements program and, therefore, is appropriately part of the fee
program.
65 PPM33.8
4"a
m,
P4
L
ti
•`j
Relationship of Streets and Roads Projects to Land Uses
Once the relationship between the facilities to be constructed and the land
uses has been established, the burden of financing is to be distributed to
each land use in proportion to its use of, or benefit from, the improvements.
This is accomplished through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates the relative responsibility to pay for
improvements for each land use category in relation to the single family
detached residential category. 4
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.. she PAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship
between the cost of streets d roads projects and the financing burden placed
on each land use as based -up 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 Faciliti ee is shown in Table 6-2. The total fee is
$5,470 per low density residential acre.
Regional Facilities
The fee program presented in this report does not include funding for
improvements to roads outside the City of Lodi General Plan boundaries. The 4
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
R"03"
rn
TABLE 6-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
STREETS AND ROADS
Use Categories Unit RAE Fee
rt
_
RESIDENTILL
Low. Density ......;.
Acre
1.00
$5,470
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$10,720
High Density
Acre
3.05
$16,680
East Side Residential
Acre
1.00
$5,470
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$5,470
Medium Density.
Acre
1.96
$10,720
Highbensity
Acre
3.05
$16,680
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
1.90
$10,390
General Commercial
Acre
3.82
$20,900
Downtown Commercial
Acre
1.90
$10,390
Office, Commercial
Acre
3.0
$17,890
INDUSTRIA
Light Industrial
Acre
2.00
$10,940
Heavy Industrial
Acre
1.27
$6,950
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald Ussociates.
67
CHAPTER 7
POLICE
OVERVIEW
Level of Service
rr
Target for emergency response time is 3 minutes anywhere in the City.
Currently, emergency response times are under this goal. There were a total
of 65 sworn personnel and 33 non -sworn personnel authorized in 1988/89. These
figures reveal a service standard of 0.95 sworn personnel and 0.47 non -sworn
personnel per 1,000 persons served. Currently, the department is understaffed
relative to the standard described above by 11 sworn and 5 non -sworn
personnel.
The service level that is typically espoused for Police is so -many officers
per 1,000 residents. This service standard does not account for employees,
shoppers, tourists and 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.
4' 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
;3 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
r� 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
RPW3s•e
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 1s 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.
5 _ -
`` 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
f" 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.
w�
F
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
In Table 7-2, a summary of the Police Facilityand estimated costs to serve
the future City of Lodi is presented. Estimaed 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.
«a
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 RP0033-5
n
E
TABLE 7-1
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
� r
POLICE
r,
21 -Aug -91
Description of Item Sere ce Future Future
Population Additions Total
Burden on New and Existing Development 3.7%
y
Cost of New Facilities
Note: Fee amounts shown are for riscal year 199111992.
Sources Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald 8 Associates
�i
70
max -
96.3% 100.000/0
GENERAL GOV. PERSONS SERVED
81,478
35,796
117,274
M.
SERVICE CAPACITY
Police Employees
98.0
43.0
141.0
W
Police Facilites(Sq. Ft)
21,571
10,000
31,571
SERVICE STANDARD
Currant Service Standard:
+
Police Employees Per
1.20
1,OOOPersons Served
BuildingSq. Ft. Per Employee
220.1
tom+
Target Service Standard
Police Employees Per
1.20
x
1, OOOPersons Sewed
Building Sq. Ft. Per Employee
223.9
`i.t..
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRED
Additional Employees
0.0
43.0
43.0
`IN
Additional Building Area (Sq. Ft)
For Existing Employees
372
372
! }
For New Employees
0
9,618
9,618
w
Total
372
9,618
9,990'
Burden on New and Existing Development 3.7%
y
Cost of New Facilities
Note: Fee amounts shown are for riscal year 199111992.
Sources Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald 8 Associates
�i
70
max -
96.3% 100.000/0
; n g��^' ,,: '7+ca� - "art ... .. � .. ;:':• --;-, . h...: <'.. ..: c� s. --. ,.,,., .,:: - .... ,.._.. - - . - _�*'�,+- �p t
a ... .... ... ._....- ��_. rte.. r.,..
TABLE 7 - 2 21-/u "l
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
POLICE
prq.a
prow•m
Iffivad
-
Number
Cwt
Fos
11891/112
loom
.1993194
1994M
1995196
1988197
1987 2082 2002-2007
unmi ftke oration a waadon -
S2.000.000
_ . - SI.M.009 -
- - so
$0
so
so
so
392.800
- -. S1.t18:t,100 -
so
maw 18AW square kret
LP0002 Jaiaxpwrdonmadd
3275.000.
$275.000so
to
30
to
$0
$27.500
3247.600
to
tO new w9s
...-.U-0008 - M9aa9aMouswlety
141.000
- -$41.000
- - $3.000 -
$3.000-
X3.000
$3.000
$3.000
$3.000
$13.000
313,000
6"Ooma for"ofters-
LPDM Atoms! eorbd truck
323.000
$23.000
to
s0
to
to
to
to
to
523.000
and equipment
v
WOODS_2pickup tnwksaguipped
338.000
$38.000
to
to
to
s0
so
s0
$36.000to
w81r radios mad omu
LPD006 ElpMpwoiws
8144.000
5144,000
$18,000
to
$18,000
so
$18.000
so
$36.000
$54.000
mid equipment
00007 'Ien portable radfw:
$26.000
$28.000
50
$3.000
to
39.000
60
$3.000
$9.000
$8.000
00006 F1W Work dJd1W .
$20.000
$20.000
to
$4.000
to
to
$4.000
to
$4.000
$8.000
LiWW Fkvcomp" termkrals.
$0000
$8.000
to
51,600
to
$1,600
s0
to
52600
32.600
TOTAL POLICE DEPARTMENT
$
2
.,< Ulm
:.3z:oa
2)
PAGE 1OF1
DEVELOPMENT IHPACT FEE
Relationship of Police Projects to lav Development
The relationship between existing deficiencies, unproved service standards and
capacity for new development was summarized in Table 7-1. Only the portion of
f the police facilities whose derrorld was generated by rev development was
included in the Development Impact Fee program.
Relationship of Police Projects to 1.7,M Uses
The; RAE sct e for police facilities that is shown in Table 7-2 was
developed data supplied by the Lodi Police Department. The schedule is
based on tt elative number of calls for service from each land use category.
The Police Facil�'ties fee is shown in Table 7-3. The total fee is 81,118
1 ov ,lp„Sity resr entra acre.
�. _
r�
lar
♦..i - 72 RPW33-6
r"1 -
r�
1xa
r
TABLE 7-3 21-Aug-91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
POLICE
[Land Use Categories
Unit
RAE
Fee
R
a
RESIDENTIAL
Iow Density
Acre
1.00
$1,110
Medium Density
Acre
1.77
$1,960
High Density
Acre
4.72
$5,240
East Side Residential
Acre
1.09
$1,210
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$1,110
Medium Density
Acre
1.77
$1,960
High Density
Acre
4.72
$5,240
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
4.28
$4,750
General Commercial
Acre
2.59
$2,870
Downtown Commercial
Acre
4.28
$4,750
Cffice Commercial
Acre
3.72
$4,130
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Acre
0.30
$330
L
Heavy Industrial
Acre
0.19
$210
I fSources:
Note: Fee amounts shown ar3 for fiscal year 199111992.
w.i
Nolte 8 Associates and Angus McDonald
8 Associates.
i#
t�
s t
73
CHAPTER 8
p -
FIRE
OVERVIEW
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
s� 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
1€
6i
i
tom++
6.
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. Mayor 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 RPW33.8
TABLE 8 —1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
FIRE
GENERALWY PROJECTPH►SING
Estimated
Construction impact
Nbet �t Coat Fee
Moot Nsw Westside statlan construction $475.000 $475,000
(04), furnishings and equipment. .
New tool ladder, truck and $475,000 $475,000
..' LFD002.
equipment.
$430,000
L.FD003 Two sedans.
so So
cn LFDOp; 7wominWans,
530.000
LF0005 Five computers..
$18,000
so
$13,000
LFD00e pro fighting Safety peer
so
for 23 empioyees.
to
So
St8,000
LFDO07. 12 sdf-convened breathing
so
- apparatus.
so
LFDm Station rt. ConstroatOnlremodeL
$18.000
Equipment Replacement
$1,080.000
TMALRRE .
52.155.000
S1,(
so
page 1 of t
so
$20.000
$30.000
$16,000
$13,000
$18,000
$18,000
$0
So $45.000
$430,000
so
so So
So
$475,000
s0 to
so
so
so so
so
so
s0 to
to
So
$0 so
$0
so
so So
so
5o
so so
so
t0
$0 $0
So
$0
21 -Aug -91
go 1995W 1997-2002
so
so
so
so
so
to
$0
so
So
$0
$10,000
$10,000 -
50
$15,000
go
$15,000
to
53.000
$8.000
$7.000
$0
$13,000
so
so
to
$18.000
so
so
so
so
518.000
so
projects can be characterized as upgrading of existing facilities and purchase
r.. 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. No personnel are included.
r
t�
ESTIMATED COST AND PPASING
�.. 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 4673.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Fire Projects to New Development
3 As noted previously, existing deficiencies were not included in the
Development Impact Fee program. Only those projects, or portions of projects,
that serve.:new de' elopment were financed from Development Impact Fees.
64 Relationship of .fire Projects to::tand Use
The RAE schedule or fire facilities that is shown in Table 8-2 was developed
j from data supplied by the Lodi Fire Department. The RAE schedule considers
relative`numfer of fire calls and Emergency Medial Service (EMS) calls
generated..by each land use category. Calls involving automobile accidents and
r fires were spread back to the land use categories based on the streets and
W roads RAE factors.
Recommended Fees
The summary Fire Facilities fee is shown in Table 8-2. The total fee is $520
i�, per low density residential acre.
TABLE 8-2 21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FIRE
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
High. Density. .
East Side Residential
PLANNED_ RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density -
COMMERCIAL,
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Downtown Commercial
Office Commercial
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Acre
1.00
$520
Acre
1.96
$1,020
Acre
4.32
$2,250
Acre
1.10
$570
Acre
1.00
$520
Acre
1.96
$1,020
Acre
4.32
$2,250
Acre
2.77
$1,440
Acre
1.93
$1,000
Acre
2.77
$1,440
Acre
2.46
$1,280
Acre
Acre
0.64 $330
0.61 $320
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 1991/1992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
77
r
CHAPTER 9
PARKS AND RECREATION
1 -r
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 3.3 acres per 1,000 Park and Recreation Persons Served and .
the current level of service for community center building space is
approximately 1,765 square feet per 1,000 Park and Recreation Persons Served.
i`3 The City has adopted standards of 3.4 acres per 1,000 persons served and 1,800
64 square feet of community center space per 1,000 persons served.
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
Table 9-1provides a summary of the existing park acreage in the City of Lodi.
In the table, the most important number is the 177.8 acres of Standard Park
area. It is this acreage that is used to compute the existing standard for
park acreage. Based upon an estimated current usage of 53,713 park and
recreation persons served, the existing standard for parks and recreation
acreage is 3.3 acres per 1,000 persons served. Based upon an estimated current
building space inventory of 94,800 square feet in community center buildings,
the existing space standard is 1,765 square feet per 1,000 persons served. A
summary of existing park facilities provided by the City and is presented in
Table 9-2.
The adopted standards are slightly higher than what the City is currently
providing. As a result, a small percentage of the new facilities will be paid
for from funds generated outside of the fee program. This calculation is
shown in Table 9-3.
The level of Parks and Recreation services is often expressed in terms of
acres per 1,000 population. This service standard must be interpreted
carefully. Employees, shoppers, tourists and other persons present during the
day may use the park and recreation facilities in addition to residents of
Lodi. The concept "Persons Served" considers all persons who may use these
facilities so that the service standard also captures the burden these other
participants will place on the facilities. A weighting factor is estimated
that accounts for various categories of persons served in accordance with the
78
RPM)"
TABLE 9-1
INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARK AND RECREATION ACREAGE
1 Oescription
Existing Park Facilitizs
Total Standard
Acres Park Basin School
Future Parks
Total
Acres
1. Armory
3.2
3.2
f�
2. Beckman
16.6
0.8
15.8
j
3. Blakely
9.0
9.0
4. Kandy Kane
0.2
0.2
S. Century (1)
2.5
2.5
6. Emerson
7. English Oaks Commons
2.0
3.7
2.0
3.7
8. G -Basin
0.0
9. Henry Glaves
12.6
3.0
9.6
10. Grape Bowl
15.0
15.0
11. Hale
2.6
2.6
12. Hutchins Street Square
10.0
10.0
13. Kofu
10.0
10.0
14. Lawrence/Zupo Hardball
18.0
10.0
8.0
m
15. Legion:
16. Lodi Lake
5.6
101.0
5.6
101.0
17. Maple Square
1.0
1.0
18. Park (C-1 Basin)
17.0
17.0
,Pixley
19. Salas Park
21.0
1.0
20.0
20. Softball Complex
7.6
7.6
21. Van Buskirk
1.0
1.0
22. Vinewood
14.0
0.8
11.2
2.0
23. Westgate
6.0
0.3
5.7
24. Washington School
5.1
5.1
25. Lakewood School
5.0
5.0
26. Reese School
6.0
6.0
27. Nichols School
5.8
5.8
28. Heritage School
2.0
2.0
29. Woodbridge Schooi
5.0
5.0
3
30. Sr. Elementary
12.0
12.0
31. Lodi High School
25.0
25.0
32. Tokay High School
21.0
21.0
33. Needham School
2.0
2.0
Westgate Expansion
13.4
0.6
G -Basin
50,0
1.0
F -Basin
24.0
1.0
I -Basin
24.0
1.0
C -Basin Expansion
8.0
1.0
Park Area #1
3.0
Park Area 13
3.0
Park Area 16
10.0
Park Area /4
10.0
Park Area 15
8.0
Park Area 17
10.0
Eastside Park
2.0
East Side Softball Complex
19.4
Lodi Lake - Expansion
13.0
Total Acreage
368.5
180.3
208.7
98.9
83.0
Total Acreage for Standard (1)
177.8
Source: City of Lodi.
(1) Century Park is a temporary park and is
not included in standards.
�-•'
7
/ 9
RP00318
relative frequency with which they are expected to use park and recreation
facilities.
Existing Deficiencies
Calculation of existing deficiencies is based upon the current standard
relative to the future standard forarks and recreation acreage and
,A community building space. In Table 9-3, results of the existing deficiency
analysis are presented.
rn
The findings indicate the following. First, the added park acreage in the
"* Proposed Fee Program matches the acreage standard from 3.3/1,000 persons
served . As a result the added park acreage can be allocated to new
development. Second, the added community building space will match the
41 existing space standard of 1,800/1,000 person served.
rl Existing deficienciesare 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 PAM AND RECREATION FACILITIES
PARK FACILITY EXISTING STANDARD
Park Acreage 3.3/1,000 persons served
Community Building Area 1,765 sq ft/1,000
persons served
fi Restrooms 1/park over 3.0 acres
Lighted Baseball Diamonds 11 Total
Tot lot 1/park
Lighted Tennis Courts 11 Total
Swimming Pools 4 Total
Source: Nolte and Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates
PLANNED BARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
A summary of the Parks and Recreation Facility Projects is presented in Table
9-4. Estimated costs are referenced to the Engineering News Record 20 Cities
Construction Cost Index for January 1990 of 4673. Project descriptions played
an important role in preparing the project estimates and were developed in
80 RPW33.8
TABLE 9-3 21 -Aug -91
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
PARKS AND RECREATION
Existing Future Future
Description of Item Conditions Additions Total
PARK PERSONS SERVED
80.6
SERVICE CAPACITY
1,870
Park Acreage
45.100
Community Center Buildings(Sq. Ft)
97.0%
1.
Hutchins Street Square Cafeteria
6.400
2.
Camp Hutchins Room
6,000
3.
Hutchins Street Square N. Complex
19,600
4.
Hutchins Street Square Pool Area
5,400
5.
Hutchins Street Square Fine Arts Bldg.
8,700
6.
Recreation Annex, N Stockton St.
3,500
7.
Kofu Park Building
1,800
8.
Lee Jones Building (@ Leigion Park)
900
a
Grape Festival Pavilion
32,000
10.
Grape Festival ChablisHal
9,600
11.
Recreation Office Meeting Room
900
Total All Buildings:
SERVICE STANDARD
Current Service Standard:
Park Acres Per 1,000 Persons Served
Community Center Sq. Ft. Per 1,000 Persons Served
Target Service Standard
Park Acres Per 1,000 Persons Served
Community Center Sq. Ft. Per 1,000 Persons Served
ADMIONAL SERVICE CAPACII V REWIFIED
110 -ai ' Acres
1 Community Center F1
RUlRDEN ON 'AND : 1 ING ELOF
Additional a Acres
Additional 'Wo.m..4—fou-nil-ty, inter SgFt
Note. Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald& Associates.
81
53,713 24,020 77,733
177.8 83.0 260.8
94,800 45,100 139,900
3.3
1,765
3.4
1,800.
2.4
80.6
83.0
1,870
43,230
45.100
3.0%
97.0%
100.0P6
4.0%
96.0%
100.0P6
pis � �r Fri �4 /�nrrl /�11�aM
TABLE 9.4
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKSAND RECREATION
21-Au"l
Project Descdptlon Program Impact
Number Cost Fee 1991M 1982193 1983M 1994185 1995M 190=7 1097-2002 2002-2007
MPR001
Parke end RecreNbn
550.000
$50.009
$50,000
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
$0
massw Plan.
MPROW:
AdmWWalton
$2.884.000
$1.289,000
so
s0
s0
S128.900
$1.180.100
s0
s0
s0
-p—l-atcorporatlon yard.
MPFWU .
UrWuprourldWtkwpleoement
$37.000
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
so
so
s0
s0
MIPR004
Lodi LWw C qW Park ' .
$888.000
s0
s0
so
s0
s0
s0
so
s0
s0
MPR005'
: Lo4 !ala pentnwrla
$375.000
50
s0
s0
50
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
MPROW
Lodi lakeexpanAcnto13scre
$1.818,000
$1,818,000
so
s0
s0
s0
s0
$181,800
$1.834.400
s0
westdde area.
MPR007:
Lodi take sm retnosaL
SM.000
so
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
so
s0
s0
MPRo08
Lodi Laky TwnM Road
$158.000
s0
s0
$0
s0
so
s0
so
s0
s0
patainkp.WAIL
MPR00Y
Lod LWO tllRyt bdemlm
$133,000
s0
s0
s0
s0
so
so
so
50
s0
M.PRo10
SokWOeamptaXCanaaion.
$79.000
s0
s0
So
s0
s0
s0
' s 0
s0
s0
IAPA011...
8oftw Complex repisananl of
owmesion pend.
$107.000
s0
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
IYIPR012.
8o11bA0OSompleXshade
stntc4rre...
$12.000
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
MPRM3
SbkbaM cemplsx pawns.
$11.000
$0
so
so
so
so
sa
so
so
so
MPR014
..8DOA canpleX upotub
$81.000
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
`.
aportsNOMb�O.
Page 1 of
.
,.�lY'_C .K"�'.. .+e�-`�. per• - ".an - .
�A ��� P��l� � �1 f IiiWW{ M�W� A�� IYYy i�ua W�at�r �ralrr� ��� �i.�q ]t�f ilO➢�
� • r 1
TABLE 9-4
DEVELOPMENTRELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
PARKSAND RECREATION
21-Aus-M
Project Do*- pilon Program Impact
Number Cost Fee 1991192 1992193 1903184 1894MS 1995199 199sw 1997-2002 2002-2007
MPR015
Stadlen► Electrkal d Sports
Lighting.
$122.000
Mpnois
Stadium Press Boot
$44.000
i` M17 .
Stadkmr Pa l ft Lot Landecspa
$81.000
so
6 Ll�hgn0
so
MPR018-
StediumReturt3Drakmgs
$136.000
MPAo19
Stadhtm Additional Scaling
$82.000
' UPF1020
Kokr Park War" Bleacher Area
$2$.000
UPPA21
Kokt Park New P9aypt0und
$25.000
so
Equip wnt .
so
MPR022
Kola Park Pe mwwd SWAMP
$8.000
MPR023
Kola Park Group Picnic
$7.000
so
Faclild"
so so
MPRO24
Kola Park Entrance Impraisments
$13.000
MPF=5
Armory Park Parking Lot
$126.000
MPR02t1
Armory ParkPress Box & Bleacher
$27.000
so
Wes
so
Lipm 7
Mnoty Park Upgrade Electrical
$20.000
MPR02a
Zupo, Field Replacement of wood
mats.
$26.000
s0 s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0 so
so $o
so
so
so
so
so
so so
so so
so
so
so
so
so
so $0
so so
so
so
so
so
so
so so
so $0
so
so
so
so
so
so so
so so
so
so
so
so
so
so so
so so
so
so
so
so
so
so so
so so
so
so
so
so
$0
so so
s0 s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0 s0
s0 s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
$0
s0 s0
s0 s0
s0
$0
s0
s0
s0
s0 $o
s0 s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
m s0
s0 $0
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
so s0
s0 s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0 s0
. _ � verve w�.a r+s m..rr � aror smww rrraay � 1
TABLE 9-4
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITALCOSTS AND PHASING
PARKS AND RECREATION
21-Au0-91
Project Description Program Impact
Wimber Cost Fee 1991/92 1932,'9;3 1993194 1994M 1995!96 19M7 1997-2002 2002-2007
MpFdM
2upo ReldUpgrade Eleddcai a
$61.000
so
so
sports Lighting
so
so
MpR031
Hak Park General Improvements
5298,000
s0
MMM
Cw=mityI%Mdkrgs(Cky-W lej
54,610.000
$4.329.800
MPR034
. BM* Perk Upgrade Lighting
$22.000
s0
MPR096
Salve Perk Pro active Shade
Structures
$61000
s0
o :' MpfA36
also Perk Fenced Diamond Area
$9.000
$0
MPR037..
Emerson Park Restroom
$178.000
s0
MPR038
PbcetyPark (C-Sadn)
$485.000
$465.000
So
General Improvements
s0
SO
MPR039
Westgate Pads Improvements
$363.000
$353.000
UPR040
Arm#I Padc(3ac.)
$459.000
$459.000
MPRO41
Area #3Park 6Pool (3ac,)
$712,000
$712,000
MPR042
Area 04 Park
$1,462,000
$1,462,000
MPR043
Area 16 Pwk Improvements
$1,377,000
$1,377,000
MPP044
Area Is Pak Improvements
$1.148.000
$1.148,000
MPR045
Area 17Petk lmprovemenk
51,680.000
$1,880,000
MPRO46
Eastside Pwk General Park
$307,000
5307,000
s0
Improvements.
SO
SO
Page 3 d 4
so
$0
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
SO
$288.640
$288.640
$288,640
$288,640
$288,640
$1.443,200
$1.443.200
SO
s0
s0
s0
So
s0
s0
$1
$0
to
s0
so
So
s0
s0
SO
s0
s0
So
So
SO
s7
SO
SO
SO
s0
SO
So
s0
SO
SO
SO
SO
s0
SO
So
s0
SO
SO
$465,000
SO
s0
s0
SO
SO
$353.000
s0
SO
s0
s0
SO
SO
SO
SO
$459.000
s0
SO
s0
SO
SO
SO
s0
s0
$712,000
SO
SO
SO
s0
s0
s0
to
$1,462,000
SO
s0
s0
s0
so
s0
$888.600
$688.500
SO
s0
so
$400,000
$400,000
$38.000
$313.000
so
SO
SO
$168,000
$0
$1.494.000
s0
s0
SO
SO
s0
SO
$0
s0
so
$307.000
SO
iImpact
Numhet Cast Fee 1991192 1092A3 1983184 1801195 1995196 1006187 190--2M 1002 M7
min"
"1 -Basin inprovenwMe Pe
mPF4M2
'G-Bisla Perk knpm"-
M.PRM
' Hutchtlu Spume Catedni
Klschi6-
ter+ MPn o0 4
Hutchins!
1APFl055
Hutchins Square Child G
Center
" MpFi058 '
Hutchins Square Connecta
Waprraye:. "
uPH057
Hutchins SquareAudhod—
Remodel
TOTAL PARKS AND REC." .
Page 4 of 4
$4.000.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 50 $0 50 50
),191.000
..
r
VIA . .
8
concert with City staff. Project numbers listed in Table 9-4 are used to
identify project locations in Figure 9-1. The Parks and Recreation Master
Plan is scheduled early in the program to refine details and costs of the new
parks.
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
p-
Improvement and land acquisition costs for parks and recreation facilities are
based upon information provided by City staff and the City Capital Improvement
Plan. Land costs were determined to be $100,000 per acre. In cases where
land for parks expansion is already owned by the City, the proposed fee
program does not pay or reimburse the City for land costs. The fee
calculation methodology did not consider different cost increase factors for
land acquisition versus construction.
A number of the projects identified by the City are not attributable to new
development and more accurately fall into the category of maintenance and
repair. These projects are easily identified because no cost has been
i' allocated to the impact fee fund.
I^ 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.
ke 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.
i" Examples of non-residential demand include lunch time use, company picnics and
►wi company team participation in sports leagues.
The RAE schedule was based on the relative amount of time available to
low 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
$11,980 per low density residential acre.
87 R0».s
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992
Sources. Nolte &.Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
88
TABLE 9-5
21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
PARKS AND RECREATION
Categories
Unit RAE
Fees
rotiii
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$11,980
Medium Density
Acre
1.43
$17,130
High Density
Acre
2.80
$33,540
East Side Residential
Acre
1.10
$1 3180
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992
Sources. Nolte &.Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
88
TABLE 9-5
21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
PARKS AND RECREATION
Categories
Unit RAE
Fees
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$11,980
Medium Density
Acre
1.43
$17,130
High Density
Acre
2.80
$33,540
East Side Residential
Acre
1.10
$1 3180
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$11,980
Medium Density
Acre
1.43
$17,130
High Density.
Acre
2.80
$33,540
COMMERCIAL
-Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
0.32
$3,830
General Commercial
Acre
0.32
$3,830
DovimtowriCommercial
Acre
0.32
$3,830
Office Commercial
Acre
0.54
$6,470
INDUSTRIAL
Ught industrial
Light
Acre
0.23
$2,760
Heavy Industrial
Acre
0.33
$3,950
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992
Sources. Nolte &.Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
88
r
CHAPTER 10
F' GENERAL QTY FACII.IiTIES
r, OVERVIEW
Level of Service
r' The current staffing level -of service provided by the City of Lodi for general
1 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
r 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
j 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
p" 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.
There 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 my developments.
Existing Deficiencies
WW
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 QTY FACIIIIM
In Table 10-2, a listing of General City Facilities Projects 1 s provided.
Included in the listing are those capital improvements and expenditures
identified by City Department heads in their budget forecasts for 2006/7.
F, ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
A summaty 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 RM)"
06
selsloossy R pig -toll snbuy pu* samaossV 4 OWN :sOmog i
V9, tbZ
ZL'Z L
36'8ZZ
(31 A) GoAoldw3 Jed e0JV
:pjulmlS eaedS
6 t'0
93' l
P9ni9S s,uosJed 000't Jed S,314
pb t
0`61
%OOt
:Pjeptms Buw83S
OL6'V6
b90'0E
906'V9
perueS SuosJed PnOl
SOL'££
81+�'fyl
LS9'8t
19ed elenbS esjV 8ulppe
O'LE t
5.55
S. t8
smun 1e101
t6-BnV-tZ
S3111110VJ 11VH )1113
SISJIIVNV S31ON310I33a JNIISIX3
L-0 l 318VI
Li .
0.83
0.6
0`61
%OOt
31A
S)poMoll4nd
0'6
0'17
0'S
%00t
31.E
(aaa) Buluueid
8Z
6
6l
0'9
0'9
%00 t
31A
Woo) BulPiinB
g
su0sJ9d
0'8t
0'Et
0'9
%OOt
31d
BuISS=Jd e3Ea
i
0'0
5'0-
5'0
%05
31A
(1.d) Bulsegoind
Buissmid ilea
S
0.8
0'8
0'S
%001
313
(l d) Bulsetpind
8
E
07170,17t
su0sJ9d
0'8Z
°h001
3 L -i
(Bulseya. nd o/s)9oueubi
82:
0' LZ
0'8 `
0'E t
°x600 t
31.E
uoIIUASIuIWPV
1J
t6-BnV-tZ
S3111110VJ 11VH )1113
SISJIIVNV S31ON310I33a JNIISIX3
L-0 l 318VI
Li .
mile„ N
L£ t
55
Z8
8Z
6
6l
su0SJ9d
s)ljoM ollgnd
6
b
g
su0sJ9d
(ciao) Buluueid
l
S
9
Su0SJ9d
(aaa) Bu+lpllne
t
81
E t
5
su0sJ8d
Buissmid ilea
,
0
t_
t
su0SJ9d
(1.d) BulseybmdLi
8
E
su0sJ9d
W) Bumetpind
zy
vl
82:
su0SJ9d
(BuisByomd 0lm)aou8uld
tZ
8
E t
su0s�9d
uon8�lslulu�pV
t6-BnV-tZ
S3111110VJ 11VH )1113
SISJIIVNV S31ON310I33a JNIISIX3
L-0 l 318VI
w
TABLE 10-1
(Cont.)
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
3 CITY HALL FACWTIES
;:
t"i Population
Pi [Description of Item
64,906
81.5
18,657
1.3
228.9
12.1
1,037
2,931
3,968
27.5%
91
21 -Aug -91
Future Future
Additions Total
30,064
55.5
14,44E
43.4
10,480
10,480
72.5%
94.970
137.0
33,105
1.4
241.6
55.5
1,037
13.411
14,448
100.09
PW
GMERAL GOVERNMENT PERSONS SERVE])
SERVICE CAPACITY
General Government EmF loyees (Full
Time Equivalent (FTEs))
General Government Buildings (Sq. Ft.)
SERVICE STANDARD
Current Service Standard
General Government Employees Pei
1,000 Persons Served
Building Sq. Ft. Per Employee
Target service Standard
General Government Employees Per
1,000 Persons Served
Building Sq. Ft. Per Employee
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRED
Additional Employees (Full Time
Equivalent (FTE))
Additional Building Area (Sq. Ft.)
For Existing Employees
For New Employees...
Total
Burden on New and Existing Development
Cost of New Facilities x
Source: Nolte 8 Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates
x
!
Ib:
64,906
81.5
18,657
1.3
228.9
12.1
1,037
2,931
3,968
27.5%
91
21 -Aug -91
Future Future
Additions Total
30,064
55.5
14,44E
43.4
10,480
10,480
72.5%
94.970
137.0
33,105
1.4
241.6
55.5
1,037
13.411
14,448
100.09
Page 1 d 1
TABLE 10 - 2
2110&91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL COSTS AND PHASING
GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
Project
Location
Program
impact
Number
Code
Fee
1991/02
1982193
1993194
1994195
1995M
1986707
1007-2002
2002-2007
GCFto01COY
tiaU Remodel and Addition
$4.215.000
$3,055,875
SO
$700.000
5700.000
$0
5o
$0
$1.655,975
$p
GCF1002
Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion
$141,000
$141,000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$141,000
$0
$p
13 N. Church.
GCf1006
Propertyacquldtlon,
$213.000
$213,000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$213,000
217 E Lockelord.
GCFI000
Puking Lot Improvements.
$70,000
$70,000
SO
SO
SO
$0
SO
SO
SO
$70,000
NE corner d Lockelord and
Stockton.
to GCF1010
Ubrary Expansion
$2.900.000
$2.900,000
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$2.900.000
$p
GCF1011
Public Works`-Trucks '
$750.000
$750.000
$46.875
S46,875
548.875
546.875
$46.875
$46.875
$234.375
$234,375
GCF1012 "
Public Works -Pickups and Sedans
$715,000
$715,000
544,698
$44,689
$44,588
$44.688
514,688
$44.688
$223,438
$223,438
GCFI013
Public Works - Air Compreseors
$90.000
$90.000
$5.625$5.625
$5.625
„g5,625
„55,625
„g5,625
$28.125
$29.125
GCF1014
Public Works -Mlec.Otfice Equipment
565.500
$65.600
$4.094
$4.094
$4,094
$4.094
$4.094
$4.094
$20.469
$20.469
GCF1015
Finance- Misc.Office Equipment
$181.700
$.81.700
511,350
$11,356
$11,356
$11.356
$11,356
$11,356
556,731
356,781
GCF1016
Finance Computer (AS 400 Upgrade)
$72.000
$72.000
$4.500
$4.500
$4,500
$4.500
$4.500
$4.500
$22.500
$22.500
GCFI017
Fee Program Monitoring
$2.560.000
$2,560.000
$100.000
$100.000
$160.000
$160.000
$160.000
$180.000
$800.000
$800.000
COOV001
General Pian Update 1987
$411,109
$411.109
5411.108
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
$0
COOV002 '
General Plan Update 1997
$250.000
$250.000
SO
SO
to
SO
SO
$250.000
so
so
CODVO03
General Plan Update 2002
$250.000
$250.000
SO
SO
SO
So
$0
SO
$250,000
$p
u...
TOTAL CITY
FACILITIES
$12.884.309
511.725.184
;�698.247�
Page 1 d 1
E,
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 on 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 $6,380 per low density residential acre.
a tzc':
93
RPM33.e
94
TABLE 10-3
21 -Aug -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT EMPACT FEES
GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
LI.:aw use categoRes
Unit RAE
Fee
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$6,380
Medium Density
Acre
1.43
$9,120
High Density
Acre
2.80
$17,860
Last Side Residential
Acre
1.10
$7,020
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
.
Acre
1.00
$6,380
Medil um Density
Acre
1.43
$9,120
Density
Acre
2.80
$17,860
...High
NeighborhoodCommercial
Acre
0.89
$5,680
General Commercial
Acre
0.89
$5,680
Downtown Commercial
Office.Commercia
Acre
Acre
0.89
1.53
$5,680
$9,760
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Acre
0.64
$4,080
Heavy industrial
Acre
0.93
$5,930
Note: Fee amounts shown are for fiscal year 199111992.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
r
94
APPENDIX A
FORECAST OF MAPPED ACREAGE FOR
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
95
RP003"
i'
1
r
1�
P!
P
Z.
:a
a
�Y•
�y
L;
1 �
z
5
i
r
f.
i
APPENDIX A
FORECAST OF MAPPED ACREAGE FOR
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
95
RP003"
TABLE A-1
GENERAL PLAN ACREAGE GROWTH FORECAST
'CITY OF LODI PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
raw"
M" P=q Pte! PME4 pm"
"M" !moi iii � ,Tim
TABLE A-1
GENERAL PLAN ACREAGE GROWTH FORECAST
'CITY OF LODI PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
1997
2002
Total
Land Use Categories
Units
1991/92 1992/93
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
/2002
/2007
Forecast
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acres
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
17
Medium Density
Acres
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
High Density
Acres
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
5
East Side Residential
Acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
PR -Low. Density
Acres
74
82
14
61
66
61
267
288
973
PR - Medium Density
Acres
5
5
5
4
4
4
17
18
62
'PR - High Density
Acres
6 .
7
6
5
5
5
21
23
78
n Total Residential
89
97
88
74
78
74
310
333
1.143
.'COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood
Acres
15
15
6
6
6
6
25
26
105
General
Acres
0
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
11
Downtown
Acres
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
3
Office
Acres
2
- 2
2
2
2
2
11
11
34
Total Commercial
17
18
9
9
10
9
40
41
153
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Acres
26
17
22
22
22
22
139
165
435
Heavy Industrial
Acres
10
7
9
9
9
9
56
66
175
Total Industrial
36
24
31
31
31
31
195
231
610
Source: City of Lodi
Public Weis Department.