HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 18, 2023 H-01 PH40
, 01
co Z,
r
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA ITEM ko I
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to consider a Resolution Adopting and Implementing the Collection of San
Joaquin County Facilities Fees, CEQA Determination: Exempt per Section 15061(b)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines, 2022.
MEETING DATE: January 18, 2023
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Public Hearing to consider a resolution adopting San Joaquin County's
("County") County Facilities Fees ("CFF") findings and 2022-2023 CFF fee
schedule for future development within the City of Lodi ("City") and approving
City collection of the CFF as authorized under Lodi Municipal Code ("LMC")Chapter 15.66.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2003, San Joaquin County published the initial CFF Nexus Report, which
documented the relationship (nexus) between new development in San
Joaquin County and the need for region -serving facilities and improvements.
In order to mitigate impacts caused by new development within San Joaquin County, the countywide collection of CFF
by the County and cities within the County, including Lodi, began on August 15, 2005.
However, the City ceased collection of CFF in June 2012, when the Master Annexation Agreement between the City
and the County expired. With the recent update of the City's Municipal Service Review ("MSR") and Sphere of
Influence ("SOI") the City has begun negotiating terms for a new Annexation Agreement with the County which would
require that the City reestablish collection of CFF and reenact LMC Chapter 15.66, which authorizes the collection.
On March 20, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors approved the most recent CFF Nexus Study Update
documenting the relationship between new development and the need for additional or larger County facilities
and authorized implementation of a revised fee schedule, effective April 2, 2018. The Nexus Study findings and
the CFF fee schedule rates are review annually as required by the CFF Program. Most recently, on October 18,
2022, the County completed its annual review of CFF program and approved an update to the 2022-2023 CFF fee
schedule to take effect January 1, 2023.
As shown below, the County's 2023 CFF fee per single family residential unit is $3,249. Multi -family residential is
$2,408 per unit. Retail commercial is $0.54 per square foot. Commercial office is $0.80 per square foot. Industrial is
$0.15 per square foot.
CFF Categories
Incorporated
Areas
Residential
Single Family (per unit
$3,249
Multi -Family (per unit
$2,408
Non -Residential
Retail/Commercial(per square foot
$0.54
Office(per square foot
$0.80
Industrial/Other(per square foot
$0.15
APPROVED: /I
Stephen Schwabauer, City Manager
Fees collected from the CFF Program can be used to offset only the growth -related portion of the cost of County public
facilities. The CFF cannot be used for the operation of these facilities, and is limited to their initial construction only.
Examples of capital facilities that can be funded by the CFF include:
1) Regional Projects — Expansion of San Joaquin County Jail Facilities, Probation/Juvenile Hall Expansion,
Law and Justice Facilities, General Government Facilities (County Administration Building); and
2) Unincorporated Projects — San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office expansion, including Animal Services, San
Joaquin County Public Works expansion, and San Joaquin County Community Development Department
expansion.
CURRENT CFF FEE:
The 2022-2023 CFF fee schedule was last adopted in October and is effective January 1, 2023. The CFF fee schedule
is automatically adjusted for inflation, based on changes to the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI), which is
published by the California Department of General Services.
Annual inflationary adjustments are to ensure CFF fees collected are adequate to offset the costs of future growth -
related facility needs. The building cost index produced by Engineering News Record provides the basis for the CCCI
and reflects cost trends for construction trade labor and materials in the California market. Over the prior year, the
CCCI changed from 7712 to 8604, an 11.57% increase. This is a significant increase, especially when compared to
the average annual increase for the preceding five-year period of 4.38% and is reflective of costs impacted by the
increase in demand for construction services and supply chain disruptions related to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic.
The County's recommended adjustments to the fiscal year 2022-2023 CFF schedule are shown in the following table.
Regional and Unincorporated Fees
Residential
Single Family
Multi Family
Non- Residential
Retail Commercial
Commercial Office
Industrial
CFF -
Regional
CFF - Unincorporated
County
Total
Current
Adjusted
Current Adjusted
Current
_
Adjusted
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
$2,911
$3,249
$1,431
$1,597
$4,342
$4,846
$2,158
$2,408
$1,063
$1,186
$3,221
$3,594
Per SgFt
Per SgFt
Per SgFt
$0.48
$0.54
$0.22
$0.24
$0.70
$0.78
$0.72
$0.80
$0.36
$0.40
$1.08
$1.20
$0.13
$0.15
$0.07
$0.08
$0.20
$0.23
Per agreements for the administration of the CFF program, cities in the county are requested to approve the revised
fee schedule that will take effect on January 1, 2023, and annually each year following. Government Code Section
66018 requires local agencies to hold a public hearing, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of
a regularly scheduled meeting prior to approving an increase in an existing fee, and to publish notice of the time and
place of the meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
The City's authority to collect the CFF will become effective the 31St day following City Council adoption of the
Ordinance reenacting LMC Chapter 15.66. Once LMC Chapter 15.66 is effective,,the City will once again be able to
collect CFF fees before issuance of building permits, or at approval of any discretionary permit if no building permit is
required.
Therefore, an approval of this Resolution finding a reasonable relationship between the CFF uses and the type of
region -serving capital facilities in which the fees are imposed, and adoption of the County's 2022-2023 CFF fee
schedule, will take effect concurrently with the effective date of the ordinance reenacting LMC Chapter 15.66.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The project is Categorically Exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15061 (b) (3). This is
the "Common Sense" exemption, which applies to projects as follows:
"The activity is covered by the "Common Sense" exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. " [CEQA 15061(b)(3)]
The proposed resolution would allow the collection of CFF fees, each project would be separately analyzed for
their potential environmental impacts. Because no significant environmental impacts from the collection of fees
alone are anticipated, the so-called "common-sense" exemption can be used.
FISCAL IMPACT: With the acceptance of the County's CFF Program schedule and adoption and
implementation of the CFF Program schedule, revenues collected at the
issuance of building and/or discretionary permits will be passed on to
development applicants. Per State law, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) of
less than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet are exempt from CFF Program
fees. No direct fiscal impact on the City.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: None required.
John q. Della Monica, Jr.
Community Development Dire or
Attachments:
1) 2018 CFF Audit Report
2) 2018 CFF Nexus Study Update
3) 2022 SJC Annual CFF Public Hearing and Report Letter
4) 2022 SJC Resolution Approving CFF Program Fees
-R �i
San Joaquin County
County Facilities Fees Program
Compliance Audit
For the Period:
July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017
Report Date: December 13, 2017
Issue Date: February 1, 2018
Jerome C. Wilverding
Auditor -Controller
San Joaquin County
County Facilities Fees Program
Compliance Audit
For the Period
July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017
Internal Auditor's Report
Table of Contents
Contents
Summary......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Findings and Recommendations............................................................................................................
7
I. GENERAL.................................................................................................................................................7
a. Limited Review of Building Permits........................................................................................................7
II. CITY OF LATHROP....................................................................................................................................7
a. Non -Compliance with Annual Reporting................................................................................................7
b. Non -Compliance with Quarterly Remittance.........................................................................................8
III. CITY OF MANTECA..................................................................................................................................9
a. Non -Compliance with Annual Reporting................................................................................................9
IV. CITY OF STOCKTON.................................................................................................................................9
a. Non -Compliance with Annual Reporting................................................................................................9
b. Non -Compliance with Quarterly Remittance......................................................................................
10
c. Non -Compliance with Fee Credit.........................................................................................................
10
V. COUNTY CDD........................................................................................................................................
11
a. Non -Compliance with Annual Reporting.............................................................................................
11
Supplemental Information....................................................................................................................12
I. Statement of Net Position...................................................................................................................
12
II. Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Net Position ..................................................
13
County Facilities Fee Program 2 1 P a g e
Summary
Background
In accordance with Government Code Section 66000 et seq, the San Joaquin County (County) Board
of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 4252 and Resolution No. R-05-314 establishing the County
Facilities Fee Program. Under this program, County Facilities Fees (CFF) are to be collected upon
each new residential or non-residential building permit issued within San Joaquin County for the
purpose of providing funds for the construction of countywide public capital facilities. Each of the
cities in the County also adopted their own ordinance and resolution establishing the CFF program
and collecting CFF within their respective jurisdictions in accordance with the Agreement for the
Administration of the County Facilities Fee Program (Agreements) with the County.
In October 2003, Economic & Planning Systems published the CFF Nexus Report which
documented the nexus between new development in San Joaquin County and the need for the
county regional and unincorporated area facilities and improvements. The regional and
unincorporated area capital facilities identified by this Nexus Report are presented below:
Regional: General Government Facilities
County Jail Expansion
Probation/Juvenile Hall Expansion
County General Hospital Expansion
Metropolitan Airport Extension
Unincorporated: Sheriff Department Facilities
Community Development (CDD) Facilities
Public Works Facilities
Motor Pool Facilities
General Government Facilities
The CFF schedule established by resolution of the Board of Supervisors shall be automatically
adjusted annually by an amount determined by the prior year's increase in the Engineering
Construction Cost Index as published by the Engineering News Record. The following is the
adjusted fee schedule effective July 1, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016:
County Facilities Fee Program 3 1 P a g e
FY 2012-13
FY2013-14
FY 2014-15
FY2015-16
FY 2016-17
Regional
Unincorp
Regional
Unincorp
Regional
Unincorp
Regional
Unincorp
Regional
Unincorp
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Land Use
Fee
Fee
Fee
Fee
Fee
Fee
Fee
Fee
Fee
Fee
Residential (Per Unit)
Single Family
$ 1,826
$ 2,296
$
1,839
$ 2,312
$
1,890
$ 2,376
$ 1,926
$ 2,421
$ 1,981
$ 2,490
Multi Family
$ 1,564
$ 1,968
$
1,575
$ 1,982
$
1,620
$ 2,038
$ 1,651
$ 2,078
$ 1,698
$ 2,137
Non -Residential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Commercial -Retail
$ 0.42
$ 0.51
$
0.42
$ 0.51
$
0.43
$ 0.53
$ 0.4
$ 0.55
$ 0.45
$ 0.56
Commercial -Office
$ 0.38
$ 0.47
$
0.38
$ 0.47
$
0.38
$ 0.47
$ 0.39
$ 0.49
$ 0.40
$ 0.50
Industrial
$ 0.21
$ 0.26
$
0.21
$ 0.26
$
0.22
$ 0.27
$ 0.22
$ 0.28
$ 0.23
$ 0.29
County Facilities Fee Program 3 1 P a g e
If necessary, the County may also conduct a review of the projects within the CFF Program and
update the Nexus Report. If a higher or lower funding requirement is identified, the County may
formally request that cities amend the fee schedule consistent with the Nexus Report.
The County Administrator's Office (CAO) takes the administration and accounting responsibility in
administering the program. The responsibilities include the annual appropriation of fees,
maintenance of the countywide regional facilities model, and preparation of annual reviews and
periodic updates.
The County has also established a trust fund (Fund No. 21094) in the County Treasury to account
for the financial activities of the CFF program.
Objectives
The main objective of this audit was to determine if the participating cities of Escalon, Lathrop,
Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy and County CDD were in full compliance with the terms of
the Agreement for the Administration of the County Facilities Fee (CFF) Program. To achieve this
objective, the following was verified:
Appropriate County Facilities Fees (CFF) were collected on all building permits issued
that are subject to CFF.
2. Quarterly remittances of CFF collections to the County Treasurer were accurate and
timely.
3. Annual collection reports submitted by the cities and the County CDD were in agreement
with the actual quarterly remittances made to the County Treasurer.
The secondary objective of this audit was to determine the amount of CFF that could have been
collected from the City of Lodi during the audit period had it continued participating in the CFF
Program.
Scope & Methodology
Our audit scope was limited to the collection and remittance of the County facilities fees made
by the cities and the County CDD for the period July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017. However,
the Agreement for the Administration of the County Facilities Fee (CFF) Program states that
"audits shall be conducted at City and shall occur within 180 days of the date that City provides
County with an annual statement of collections." We, therefore, limited the period of review for
objective item #1 listed above to July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. The period of review for
objective item #2 and #3 was from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017, consistent with the
requested scope of work. However, should the County and cities agree to change the CFF
Administration Agreement program time frame to conduct audits from 180 days to a longer time
period such as three to five years, it would provide flexibility for more comprehensive audits of
building permit collections in the future rather than just the immediate past fiscal year.
County Facilities Fee Program 4 1 P a g e
We performed field visits at the Cities of Lathrop, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton and Tracy and the
County CDD. We did not perform a field visit at the City of Escalon, as it had very minimal CFF
collected for FY 2016-17. Prior to or during field visits, the following were performed:
Interview of fiscal personnel responsible for the CFF Program fee collections, accounting,
remittance, and reporting to obtain assurance that control over the CFF Program fees was
adequate;
2. Review of the daily and monthly financial records to ensure accuracy of quarterly
remittances and annual reports submitted to the County; and
3. Review of building permits issued for applicable CFF assessment and collections for the
period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017.
For all the other cities and the County CDD, the accuracy of quarterly remittances posted to the
County Accounting & Personnel System (CAPS) was verified against the annual reports
submitted to the County Auditor -Controller's Office (ACO). In addition, the timeliness in
submitting the quarterly and annual reports was determined by the ACO's "date received" stamp
on those reports.
Results
Except as reported in the "Findings and Recommendations" section:
CFF has been collected on all building permits issued during the period July 1, 2016
through June 30, 2017 that were subject to CFF;
2. Quarterly remittances of CFF collections to the County Treasurer were submitted timely;
and
3. Annual reports are accurate and were submitted to the ACO timely.
To provide an overview of the CFF accounted for in Fund No. 21094, we have included this fund's
financial statements for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, in the
"Supplemental Information" section.
Based on information obtained, had the City of Lodi continued participating in the CFF Program,
the County could have received $1,370,843.68 during the five-year period of fiscal years 2012-
13 through 2016-17. See the amounts per fiscal year below:
County Facilities Fee Program 5 1 P a g e
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
FY 15-16
FY 16-17
Total
SFD
14,608.00
31,263.00
64,260.00
227,268.00
396,200.00
733,599.00
MFD
-
-
-
135,382.00
278,472.00
413,854.00
RET
-
-
1,158.85
93,649.16
1,449.90
96,257.91
OFF
-
-
-
-
-
-
IND 1
94,504.83 1
336.00 1
440.66 1
25,270.52 1
6,580.76 1
127,132.77
Total 1
109,112.83 1
31,599.00 1
65,859.51 1
481,569.68 1
682,702.66 1
1,370,843.68
County Facilities Fee Program 5 1 P a g e
Conclusion
Based on our audit, the cities in the County and the County CDD are substantially in compliance
with their contract agreements with the County regarding the administration of the County
Facilities Fee Program. Please see the "Findings and Recommendations" section for further
information.
County Facilities Fee Program 6 1 P a g e
Findings and Recommendations
I. GENERAL
a. Limited Review of Building Permits
Observation
The Agreement for the Administration of the County Facilities Fee (CFF) Program states
that "audits shall be conducted at City and shall occur within 180 days of the date that
City provides County with an annual statement of collections." We, therefore, were
limited to the review of fees collected on building permits issued to the period July 1,
2016 through June 30, 2017.
Recommendation
To ensure a more comprehensive audit and flexibility in future audits, the Agreement
for the Administration of the County Facilities Fee (CFF) Program between the CAO and
the cities should contain a longer time period to conduct audits, such as three to five
years rather than just the immediate past fiscal year.
Il. CITY OF LATHROP
a. Non -Compliance with Annual Reporting
Finding
Per the Annual Fee Adjustments & Statement Memorandum from the County
Administrator's Office (CAO), entities participating in the CFF Program are requested to
file an annual report with County Auditor -Controller within 60 days from fiscal year end
(June 30th). Therefore, when the County Administrator's Office (CAO) disseminates the
new fiscal year CFF rates, the cities are notified of the filing due date of the annual CFF
statement to be submitted to the ACO.
The annual CFF statements for fiscal years ending June 30, 2014, 2016 and 2017 were
submitted late by the City of Lathrop to the ACO as follows:
FY 2013-14 Submitted 09/02/14
FY 2015-16 Submitted 09/05/17
FY 2016-17 Submitted 09/05/17
64 days after 06/30/14
432 days after 06/30/16
67 days after 06/30/17
County Facilities Fee Program 7 1 P a g e
Recommendation
To ensure timely filing of the annual CFF statement, the City of Lathrop may want to
consider including in their reporting schedule the deadline for submission (60 days after
June 30th) of the annual CFF statement to the ACO.
Management's Response
During the period noted above, the City experienced an organizational restructure
transitioning several tasks between new and experienced personnel resulting in the
oversight of the CFF reports. Currently, the City has successfully overcome the challenges
of such transitions with highly eager and trained personnel. The City is cognizant of the
importance of timely reporting and going forward, the timely submittal of CFF reports
will be a priority.
b. Non -Compliance with Quarterly Remittance
Finding
Per the Agreement for the Administration of the County Facilities Fee (CFF) Program, "City
shall remit any CFF proceeds to County no less than once each calendar quarter."
The CFF Program quarterly collections were not remitted to County timely as follows:
Recommendation
The quarterly remittance of CFF collections by the City of Lathrop should be made within
90 days of each quarter -end.
Management's Response
During the period noted above, the City experienced an organizational restructure
transitioning several tasks between new and experienced personnel resulting in the
oversight of the CFF reports. Currently, the City has successfully overcome the challenges
of such transitions with highly eager and trained personnel. The City is cognizant of the
importance of timely reporting and going forward, the timely submittal of CFF
remittances will be a priority.
County Facilities Fee Program 8 1 P a g e
No. of Days from
Date Received by
Quarter End to
Quarter End
Amount
County Treasury
Date Received
09/30/16
$11,869.30
09/05/17
340
12/31/16
$143,280.57
09/05/17
248
03/31/17
$17,656.30
09/05/17
158
Recommendation
The quarterly remittance of CFF collections by the City of Lathrop should be made within
90 days of each quarter -end.
Management's Response
During the period noted above, the City experienced an organizational restructure
transitioning several tasks between new and experienced personnel resulting in the
oversight of the CFF reports. Currently, the City has successfully overcome the challenges
of such transitions with highly eager and trained personnel. The City is cognizant of the
importance of timely reporting and going forward, the timely submittal of CFF
remittances will be a priority.
County Facilities Fee Program 8 1 P a g e
III. CITY OF MANTECA
a. Non -Compliance with Annual Reporting
Finding
(See first paragraph under the City of Lathrop)
The annual CFF statement for fiscal year ending June 30, 2017 was submitted late by the
City of Manteca to the ACO as follows:
FY 2016-17 Submitted 09/27/17 89 days after 06/30/17
Recommendation
To ensure timely filing of the annual CFF statement, the City of Manteca may want to
consider including in their reporting schedule the deadline for submission (60 days after
June 30th) of the annual CFF statement to the ACO.
Management's Response
The City understands the importance of submitting all reports on time to the
County. This report was mistakenly missed during transitions that were occurring
within the department. The City does not anticipate this to be a problem in the future.
IV. CITY OF STOCKTON
a. Non -Compliance with Annual Reporting
Finding
(See first paragraph under the City of Lathrop)
The annual CFF statement for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 was submitted late by the
City of Stockton to the ACO as follows:
FY 2014-15 Submitted 11/16/17 870 days after 06/30/15
Recommendation
To ensure timely filing of the annual CFF statement, the City of Stockton may want to
consider including in their reporting schedule the deadline for submission (60 days after
June 30th) of the annual CFF statement to the ACO.
County Facilities Fee Program 9 1 P a g e
Management's Response
The City agrees that the annual CFF statement must be included in the Administrative
Services Reporting Schedule. This has been done and the appropriate Accounting staff
have been assigned to complete this report annually. In addition, notification of reports
and audits should be addressed to City of Stockton, Accounting Manager.
b. Non -Compliance with Quarterly Remittance
Finding
Per the Agreement for the Administration of the County Facilities Fee (CFF) Program, "City
shall remit any CFF proceeds to County no less than once each calendar quarter."
The CFF Program quarterly collections were not remitted to County timely as follows:
Date Received by
Quarter End Amount County Treasury
No. of Days from
Quarter End to
Date Received
09/30/16 $350,373.25 02/08/17 131
Recommendation
The quarterly remittance of CFF collections by the City of Stockton should be made within
90 days of each quarter -end.
Management's Response
The City agrees and is committed to remitting CFF collections quarterly. During
November 2016 through January 2017, the City's Accounting Division experienced 60%
vacancies causing significant delays in normal operations. For the year before that time,
the vacancy rate ranged between 34% and 50%. Since that time, management has taken
aggressive steps to fill all vacancies within the Accounting Division with qualified
accounting professionals. The City does not expect a reoccurrence of this situation and
expects to make CFF payments quarterly.
c. Non -Compliance with Fee Credit
Finding
Per the Agreement for the Administration of the County Facilities Fee (CFF) Program,
"County must approve any fee credits or reimbursements to be granted to specific
development projects."
The City issued a fee credit for demolition of a building without the approval from the
CAO as follows:
County Facilities Fee Program 10 1 P a g e
Building permit no. BP16-06214 issued on March 14, 2017 was granted a credit in the
amount of $2,615.20 for demolition of 8,410 sq. ft.
Recommendation
Fee credits granted for CFF must be approved by the CAO.
Management's Response
The City of Stockton agrees with this finding. Although the City does have procedures in
place to notify the County of a request for credit towards the County's Facility Fee, in the
specific case noted in this report the documentation was not found after a thorough
internal investigative review. The City will be conducting training for staff to ensure the
proper procedures are followed in the future.
V. COUNTY CDD
a. Non -Compliance with Annual Reporting
Finding
(See first paragraph under the City of Lathrop)
The annual CFF statement for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 was submitted late by SJC
CDD to the ACO as follows:
FY 2014-15 Submitted 09/27/17 820 days after 06/30/15
Recommendation
To ensure timely filing of the annual CFF statement, the SJC CDD may want to consider
including in their reporting schedule the deadline for submission (60 days after June
30th) of the annual CFF statement to the ACO.
Management's Response
Carla Raborn believes that she had submitted the CFF statement in 2015, but was unable
to access e-mail records from that timeframe in order to verify the submission. For the
future, she will utilize her monthly report schedule/check list to add the annual CFF
report to the list to ensure that the report will be submitted in a timely manner.
County Facilities Fee Program 111 P a g e
Supplemental Information
I. Statement of Net Position
County of San Joaquin
County Facilities Fee Program
Statement of Net Position (Accrual Basis)
As of June 30, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017
County Facilities Fee Program 12 1 P a g e
Asof6/30/2013
Asof6/30/2014
Asof6/30/2015
Asof6/30/2016
Asof6/30/2017
Assets
Cash and investments
$ 15,410,195
$ 16,287,548
$ 18,062,831
$ 20,584,252
$ 24,033,137
Accounts Receivable:
County Community
Development Department
$ 60,060
$ 25,432
$ 26,472
$ 66,546
$ 30,869
City of Stockton
73,338
85,260
127,082
338,043
172,169
City of Lodi
-
-
-
-
-
City of Manteca
140,837
285,564
516,057
354,870
412,638
City of Tracy
228,398
75,658
104,490
614,117
206,294
City of Escalon
16,434
29,669
-
3,580
674
City of Ripon
18,149
5,517
82,620
23,112
33,677
City of Lathrop
9,118
167,550
169,454
370,457
Total Accounts Receivable
537,215
516,218
1,024,271
1,569,722
1,226,779
Interest Receivable
9,474
11,009
14,685
31,378
64,566
Total Assets
$15,956,884
$16,814,775
$19,101,787
$ 22,185,352
$ 25,324,482
Liabilities
Accounts Payable
$ 418
$
$
$
3
Total Liabilities
418
-
-
-
Net Position
$15,956,466
$16,814,775
$19,101,787
$ 22,185,352
$ 25,324,482
County Facilities Fee Program 12 1 P a g e
H. Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Net Position
County of San Joaquin
County Facilities Fee Program
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Net Position (Accrual Basis)
For The Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017
Revenues:
County Facilities Fees collected by:
County Community
Development Department
City of Stockton
City of Lodi
City of Manteca
City of Tracy
City of Escalon
City of Ripon
City of Lathrop
CFF -Processing Fees
Total County Facilities Fees
Miscellaneous Revenue
Interest Income
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in (out) to General Fund
Net Position, beginning
Net Position, ending
FY 2012-13
FY 2013-14
FY 2014-15
FY 2015-16
FY 2016-17
(1,413,099)
(1,413,099)
(1,216,324)
(1,412,577)
(1,402,307)
$ 1,642,433
$ 1,021,688
$ 1,064,920
$ 1,237,853
$ 1,123,007
304,379
242,604
400,443
1,021,504
756,924
(3,724)
(1,789)
-
-
-
531,261
686,859
869,693
980,731
1,383,750
228,398
133,996
833,354
976,584
913,441
16,434
93,477
5,965
3,705
13,979
49,191
39,206
107,689
147,385
87,700
5,601
9,168
173,008
5,413
201,003
2,773,973
2,225,210
3,455,072
4,373,174
4,479,804
15,122
26,646
46,198
48,264
122,968
61,633
2,815,741
2,271,408
3,503,336
4,496,142
4,541,437
2,815,741
2,271,408
3,503,336
4,496,142
4,541,437
(1,413,099)
(1,413,099)
(1,216,324)
(1,412,577)
(1,402,307)
14,553,824
15,956,466
16,814,775
19,101,787
22,185,352
$ 15,956,466
$ 16,814,775
$ 19,101,787
$ 22,185,352
$ 25,324,482
County Facilities Fee Program 13 1 P a g e
=°Pau+ ry SAN sisJOAQUIN
COUNTY
c9(jOpe��P Greatness grows here.
March 6, 2018
Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
Stockton, CA 95202
Dear Board Members:
Office of the County Administrator
Monica Nino, County Administrator
Approve County Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Update and
Conduct Public Hearing to Implement Revised Fee Schedule
Effective April 2, 2018
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the County Capital Facilities
Fee Nexus Study Update and conduct a public hearing to implement a revised fee
schedule, effective April 2, 2018.
Reason for Recommendation
Background
On June 14, 2005, the Board of Supervisors enacted an ordinance (#4252) establishing
the County Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) Program and adopted a resolution establishing
fees for new development (R-05-314). The Board also approved agreements with each
City in the County to administer the Program and collect the CFF on behalf of the
County, in conjunction with master annexation agreements providing cities a greater
share of property taxes for annexed properties. The CFF was implemented countywide
in August 2005.
The CFF Program provides a mechanism to fund a portion of the capital cost of facilities
supporting increased County services that are needed as a result of growth. As stated
in the Ordinance, the program is needed to finance County facilities "that are used by
the residents and businesses within each city as well as the unincorporated area and to
assure that new development pays its proportional share for these improvements."
The CFF was supported by a "nexus" study that documented the relationship between
new development and the need for additional or larger County facilities. The study
identified:
➢ Purpose of the fee
➢ How the fee was to be used
r Relationship between use of the fee and the type of projects on which the fee
was to be imposed
44 N. San Joaquin Street, Suite 640 1 Stockton, California 95202 1 T 209 468 3203 1 F 209 468 2875
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and Page 2
Conduct Public Hearing
Relationship between the amount of the fee and portion of the needed facilities to
be funded
Program Overview
CFF revenue must be used only to address the impacts of growth, and not to address
existing space deficiencies or enhancements in service levels. CFF revenue is collected
along with other fees at the time building permits are issued, either by the respective
City Planning Department in which the project is to be located or by the County
Community Development Department for development in unincorporated areas. If the
project is located within City boundaries, only the regional CFF amount is collected to
support facilities needed for growth in countywide services; however, if the project is
located in an unincorporated area, an unincorporated area "surcharge" is also collected.
This surcharge is intended to address facility costs for growth in services that are
provided specifically to unincorporated residents and businesses (e.g., Community
Development, Public Works, and Sheriff -Animal Services), and is therefore not applied
to projects located within incorporated areas.
In addition to location criteria, the CFF is also divided into categories based on the type
of development (e.g., Residential -Single Family and Multi -Family; and Non-Residential-
Retail/Commercial, Office, and Industrial/Other). The CFF is adjusted annually based on
the California Construction Cost Index. As of July 1, 2017, CFF amounts are:
CFF Categories (as of July 1, 2017)
Regional
(incorporated)
Unincorporated
Surcharge
Unincorporated
Residential
Single Family (per unit)
$2,049 +
$527 =
$2,576
Multi Family (per unit)
$1,756 +
$454 =
$2,210
Non -Residential
Retail/Commercial (per square foot)
$0.47 +
$0.12 =
$0.59
Office (per square foot)
$0.41 +
$0.10 =
$0.51
Industrial/Other (per square foot)
$0.23 +
$0.06 =
$0.29
(:FF Fi incl
Consistent with California Government Code Section 66006, CFF funds are held in a
separate, interest-bearing fund (#21094) and the Board annually approves a report
describing fee amounts, revenues, expenditures, and anticipated future uses. In
December 2017, the Board received the CFF annual report for 2016-2017 (B-17-733)
which indicated that as of June 30, 2017, a total of $37,952,657 in CFF revenue and
interest has been collected since implementation, of which $13,803,240 has been used
to offset a portion of debt service payments on the County Administration Building
(29.85% based on the amount of growth space provided when the project was
constructed). To date, CFF funds have not been used to reimburse the County General
Fund for any of the administration or consultant costs, although those costs are also
allowable CFF expenditures.
On June 30, 2017, the County was in the process of refinancing the outstanding debt on
the Administration Building. Based on market conditions at the time, the estimated
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and Page 3
Conduct Public Hearing
remaining debt service totaled $116,015,875, of which $34,630,739 (29.85%)
represented the growth -related portion to be funded by CFF revenue. When the actual
refinancing transaction was completed on August 3, 2017, improved market conditions
allowed a reduction in the remaining growth -related debt amount from $34,630,739 to
$31,244,683, a reduction of $3,386,056.
As of December 31, 2017, the CFF fund balance was $27,735,055. Remaining County
Administration Building debt service payments through 2032 total $103,831,700,
including the growth -related portion of $30,993,762. Since the available fund balance
amount of $27,735,055 is less than the committed outstanding growth -related obligation
of $30,993,762, the remaining balance will be provided from CFF revenue yet to be
collected. Future CFF revenue will also provide a funding source for the growth -related
portion of other County capital facilities projects in the years to come. A countywide
master planning project was initiated in 2017-2018 and will provide further details on
future capital facilities projects and the proportionate share of costs related to growth
that are eligible to be funded by future CFF revenue.
Nexus Study Update
Although CFF amounts are adjusted annually for inflation based on the California
Construction Cost Index, the nexus study has not been updated since the fees were
adopted in 2005. Consequently, the base amount of the fees as related to future
growth -related facility costs has not been adjusted since inception. Over the past
several years, County staff initiated the process of revising the nexus study to reflect
updated population and employee projections, anticipated capital facility needs, and
cost/revenue estimates. The study update was delayed due to: economic changes that
impacted both the overall economy and County capital programming; significant
changes in demand for space, especially at the Jail, Juvenile Hall, and Hospital; and
staffing turnover within the County Administrator's Office. To assist with the update, the
County enlisted the services of Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), the
consulting firm that prepared the initial CFF nexus study. After several discussions
between staff and the consultants regarding study methodology, available facility data,
and practices in other jurisdictions with development fees, the nexus study update was
completed in October 2017.
Methodology
Essentially, the process for analyzing the CFF consisted of:
a) Projecting how much growth will occur through 2035;
b) Estimating how much additional space will be needed to accommodate the
growth in "a";
c) Calculating the cost of providing the additional growth -related space reflected in
«b,,.
d) Deducting the value of currently vacant space that could accommodate some of
the growth in "c"; and
e) Determining how much revenue per unit (i.e., fee amount) over the study period
is needed to offset the net cost of "c" and "d."
Board of Supervisors
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and
Conduct Public Hearing
March 6, 2018
Page 4
The EPS study calculated the ratio of current County space needed per resident in
order to establish a baseline existing service level, and then applied population growth
projections to estimate future facility space needs. Cost estimates were applied to
space projections to determine future costs, which were partially offset by currently
vacant space. Resulting net costs were then apportioned into regional and
unincorporated shares, and combined with household census and employee space
standard data in order to calculate maximum allowable fee amounts for each of the CFF
categories. Methodology highlights include:
• Growth in County population and total number of employees over the 18 -year
period from 2017 to 2035 is estimated at 200,321 (+26.8%) and 56,595
(+23.3%), respectively.
2017 1
2035
Changel
Growth
Population 747,514
947,835
200,321
+26.8%
Employees 243,323
299,918
56,595
+23.3%
• A preliminary space inventory totaling 6,160,975 square feet (sf) of current
County -owned and leased space was compiled using multiple data sources, from
which staff identified 1,482,372 sf that would likely be impacted by growth.
Impacted space was categorized into facilities that provide either "Regional"
services (i.e., countywide) or "Unincorporated Only."
Impacted
Space
%
Regional (countywide) 1,407,848 sf
94.97%
Unincorporated Only 74,524s
5.03%
TOTAL 1,482,372 sf
100.0%
An additional 10,348 sf was identified as "Unallocated" and assumed to be
available for future growth, thus reducing overall costs (see * below).
• Some of the facilities not placed on the growth -impacted list include:
Airport hangars and industrial park
Records storage building
Community centers
Grape Festival facilities
Water well and lift station buildings
Parking garage and lots
Courthouses
Children's shelter
Park buildings
Ferry houses and landfill buildings
In addition, Hospital space and custodial facilities such as Juvenile Hall and the
Jail were excluded from the impacted list for purposes of the current study due to
both specialized space requirements/costs and wide fluctuations in demand.
These facilities, as well as County library space, parking facilities, and health and
mental health space needs will be reevaluated for possible inclusion in the next
nexus study update.
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and Page 5
Conduct Public Hearing
• Using current facility space and population totals, a ratio of 1,983 sf per 1,000
population was calculated. For projection purposes, the ratio was reduced** to
1,905 sf per 1,000 population to account for space types that would not
necessarily increase with growth (e.g., department heads, file/equipment rooms,
etc.) and also in anticipation of increased efficiencies through use of technology.
Using the reduced ratio and projected population growth from 2017 to 2035, an
estimated 323,186 sf of additional space will be needed over the next 18 years.
2017
2035
Change
Space (sf) 1,482,372
1,805,558
323,186
Population 747,514
947,835
200,321
Space Per 1,000 Population 1,983
1,905**
(78)
** Ratio reduced to account for space types that will not necessarily increase
with growth and increased efficiencies due to use of technology.
• Cost to construct the 323,186 sf of growth -related space over the next 18 years
is estimated at $158,361,140, based on a recent consultant cost estimate of
$490/sf for general government facilities. As noted above, some of the future
space need could be offset by currently vacant* space, reducing the net cost to
$153,290,620. As of June 30, 2017, remaining debt service for the Administration
Building totaled $116,015,875, of which $34,630,739 (29.85%) represented the
growth -related portion to be funded with CFF revenue. (Note: the nexus study
update was performed during 2017 while the refinancing effort was occurring, so
debt service amounts reflected in the consultant's report are based on estimates
as of June 30, 2017.) The CFF fund balance of $24,149,416 only partially offsets
the $34,630,739 obligation, leaving a balance of $10,481,323. In total,
$163,771,943 ($10,481,323 + $153,290,620) in CFF revenue will need to be
generated over the next 18 years to address growth -related space needs.
• Based on the current proportions of space allocated for regional services
(94.97%) and unincorporated only services (5.03%), the $163,771,943 in CFF to
be collected is assigned to the regional portion and the unincorporated
surcharge.
Cost
Growth -related Space Needs (323,186 sf @ $490/sf)
$158,361,140
Less: Vacant Space Available 10,348 sf @ $490/sf *
(5,070,520)
Net Space Needs
$153,290,620
Admin. Building Debt Service (growth -related portion only, 06/30/17)
34,630,739
Costs to be Funded by CFF
$187,921,359
Less: CFF Fund Balance (as of 06/30/17)
(24,149,416)
Net Costs to be Funded by CFF 2017-2035)
$163,771,943
• Based on the current proportions of space allocated for regional services
(94.97%) and unincorporated only services (5.03%), the $163,771,943 in CFF to
be collected is assigned to the regional portion and the unincorporated
surcharge.
Allocated Cost
Regional Portion (94.97%)
$155,538,557
Unincorporated Surcharge (5.03%)
8,233,386
Total CFF Generated
$163,771,943
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and Page 6
Conduct Public Hearing
• User equivalents are calculated for both the regional facilities portion and the
unincorporated surcharge based on the estimated growth in population (200,321)
and employees (56,595). The allocation methodology assumes: 1 Resident = 1
User; 1 Employee = 0.25 User (based on a work schedule of 5 out of 7 days a
week, 8.5 hours out of 24 hours a day). The unincorporated surcharge
methodology uses the proportionate share of population and employee growth
projected in the unincorporated area, respectively 10.536% and 13.990%.
Regional Facilities
Equivalent Users
New Residents (populationgrowth)
200,321
New Employees (employee growth x 0.25
14,149
Total Equivalent Regional Facilities Users
214,470
Facilities
E uivalent Users
—Unincorporated
New Residents pop. growth x 10.536% unincorp. growth %
21,106
New Em I. em I. growth x 0.25 x 13.990% unincorp. growth %)
1,980
Total Equivalent Unincorporated Facilities Users
23,086
• Dividing the regional portion and unincorporated surcharge costs by user
equivalents results in allocated costs per user of $725 and $357, respectively.
Allocated Cost Per User
Regional Facilities Portion $155,538,557 / 214,470 $725
—Unincorporated Surcharge $8,233,386 / 23,086) $357
• Maximum allowable CFF amounts for the regional portion and unincorporated
surcharge for the various fee categories were calculated using residential census
data for persons per unit (PPU) and non-residential industry standards for
employees per 1,000 sf of building space (EE/1Ksf) to calculate the allocated
cost per user, plus a nominal 0.5% for administrative costs.
Regional Portion
CFF Categories
PPU or
EE/1 Ksf
Alloc. Cost
per User
Alloc.
Cost
Admin.
Cost
Max.
Amount
Residential
Residential
-Family
3.34 x
$725 =
$2,422 +
$12 =
$2,434
—Single
Multi -Family
2.48 x
$725 =
$1,798 +
$9 =
$1,807
Non -Residential
$885 +
$4 =
$890
Non -Residential
Retail/Commercial
2.22 x
$181 =
$402 +
$2 =
$0.40
Office
3.33 x
$181 =
$603 +
$3 =
$0.61
Industrial/Other
0.63 x
$181 =
$113 +
$1 =
$0.11
Uninc. Surcharge
CFF Categories
PPU or
EE/1 Ksf
Alloc. Cost
per User
Alloc.
Cost
Admin.
Cost
Max.
Amount
Residential
-Family
3.34 x
$357
=
$1,192 +
$6 =
$1,198
—Single
Multi -Family
2.48 x
$357
=
$885 +
$4 =
$890
Non -Residential
Retail/Commercial
2.22 x
$89
=
$198 +
$1 =
$0.20
Office
3.33 x
$89
=
$298 +
$1 =
$0.30
Industrial/Other
0.63 x
$89
=
$56 +
$0 =
$0.06
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and Page 7
Conduct Public Hearing
Max. Allowable Amount
CFF Categories
Regional
(incorporated)
Unincorporated
Surcharge
Unincorporated
Residential
Solano
per unit
$2,434 +
$1,198 =
$3,632
-Single-Family
Multi -Family per unit
$1,807 +
$890 =
$2,697
Non -Residential
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Retail/Commercial per sf
$0.40 +
$0.20 =
$0.60
Office per sf
$0.61 +
$0.30 =
$0.91
Industrial/Other per sf
$0.11 +
$0.06 =
$0.17
Cost Burden Feasibility Analysis
The study includes an analysis of a theoretical residential single-family scenario in each
of the cities within the County and the unincorporated area reflecting the burden from
development fees and incremental CFF impact. Using a general overall infrastructure
burden benchmark of 15-20% of average sales price as a measure of feasibility, only
one of the scenarios was categorized as possibly not financially feasible due to a large
existing bond debt for that particular development. Regarding the CFF, even at the
maximum allowable amount, the change in the fee amount would represent an increase
in the overall infrastructure fee burden of less than 0.3% (except for the City of Lodi
where the percentage increase is higher because they ceased collecting CFF entirely in
2012). Overall, the maximum CFF represents approximately 0.5-0.7% of the average
sales price in each of the scenarios.
Comparison of CFF with Other Counties
EPS researched several other California counties in an effort to compare their
countywide facility fees with San Joaquin County's CFF. Four counties were found to
have both a similar fee and a nexus study available for review (Butte, Fresno, Solano,
and Stanislaus), but one (Fresno) has suspended fee collection since 2010. For the
three remaining counties, the consultants compared both residential and non-residential
scenarios to the study's maximum allowable CFF amount (incorporated and
unincorporated scenarios) and found the San Joaquin County maximum amounts to be
well within range of the comparative scenarios in the other counties as shown below.
Outreach Process
San Joaquin
Butte
Stanislaus
Solano
Incor .
Uninc.
Uninc.
Area 1
Uninc.
Area 2 1
Area 3
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Residential
Single -Family
$2,434
$3,632
$4,966
$4,286
$9,429
$7,559
$7,631
$8,962
$9,316
$7,349
Multifamily
$1,807
$2,697
$3,804
$3,272
$6,203
$4,898
$4,949
$6,726
$7,424
$5,471
Non-residential
Retail
$400
$600
$2,130
$1,930
$3,663
$3,358
$3,358
$859
$983
$859
Office
$610
$910
1 $2,530 1
$2,260 1
$4,598
$4,236
$4,236
$1,430
1 1,637
$519
Industrial
$110
$170
1 $1,270 1
$1,180 1
$2,132
$2,086
$2,086
$181
1 $208
$181
Outreach Process
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and Page 8
Conduct Public Hearing
Following completion of the nexus study update, County staff conducted an
informational meeting in December 2017 with various stakeholders such as City and
County permit agencies and building industry representatives to review the report
methodology and findings, and receive comments for consideration in developing staff
recommendations. Questions/comments from meeting attendees and responses are
attached to this staff report. Stakeholders received a copy of the staff report and
recommendations, and were advised of the scheduled presentation to the Board. Public
notices of the fee hearing were published by the Clerk of the Board as required.
Summary
The nexus study update was prepared using the best available information regarding
County facilities, occupants, estimated growth, and costs. The methodology
summarized above indicates the process by which the consultants and staff analyzed
the CFF and developed maximum allowable amounts for each CFF category. Most of
the maximum amounts represent an increase from the current CFF, but some amounts
decrease. Some of the factors relating to the calculated differences include changes
from the previous nexus study for Persons per Unit and Employees per 1,000 square
feet, and lower projected new growth in residents/employees.
By comparison, the CFF represents a very small portion of the overall amount of
development fees charged to projects and even at the maximum allowable amount is
comparable to or lower than similar fees in other counties. Furthermore, CFF revenue is
an integral component to addressing growth -related facility costs that would otherwise
need to be funded with County General Purpose Revenues or other sources.
The following tables compare the current CFF amounts to the maximum allowable
amounts:
Regional CFF
CFF Categories
Current Amount
(July 1, 2017
Max. Amount
proposed
Increase/
Decrease
%
Residential
Single -Family per unit
$2,049
$2,434
$385
19%
Multi -Family per unit
$1,756
$1,807
$51
3%
Non -Residential
Retail/Commercial per square foot
$0.47
$0.40
$0.07
-15%
Office per square foot
$0.41
$0.61
$0.20
49%
Industrial/Other per square foot
$0.23
$0.11
$0.12
-52%
Unincorporated Surcharge
CFF Categories
Current Amount
(July 1, 2017
Max. Amount
proposed
Increase/
Decrease
%
Residential
Single -Family per unit
$527
$1,198
$671
127%
Multi -Family per unit
$454
$890
$436
96%
Non -Residential
Retail/Commercial per square foot
$0.12
$0.20
$0.08
67%
Office per square foot
$0.10
$0.30
$0.20
200%
Industrial/Other per square foot
$0.06
$0.06
$0.00
0%
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and Page 9
Conduct Public Hearing
Unincorporated CFF
CFF Categories
Current Amount
(July1, 2017
Max. Amount
proposed
Increase/
Decrease
%
Residential
Single -Family per unit
$2,576
$3,632
$1,056
41%
Multi -Family per unit
$2,210
$2,697
$487
22%
Non -Residential
Retail/Commercial per square foot
$0.59
$0.60
$0.01
2%
Office per square foot
$0.51
$0.91
$0.40
78%
Industrial/Other per square foot
$0.29
$0.17
$0.12
-41%
Therefore, staff's recommendation is to accept the nexus study update and conduct a
fee hearing to consider implementing the CFF schedule as presented, both increases
and decreases, effective April 2, 2018. Cost index adjustments would continue to be
implemented annually on July 1. In addition, following completion of the countywide
facility inventory and master plan project currently being performed, staff will update the
nexus study to include revised information, such as current space data, occupant
information, future facility projects/costs, and growth -related proportions, with further
CFF adjustments proposed as appropriate.
Alternatively, if the Board approves the proposed CFF adjustments, but wishes to
provide a transition period for implementation, it may direct that fee increases be
"phased -in" over a multi-year period (e.g., three years). The consultants indicate this
practice is not uncommon and is intended to reduce the immediate impact of fee
changes on pending development projects. In this particular case, incremental
increases could allow time for completion of the master plan project to potentially
coincide with the next nexus study update, tentatively scheduled for 2022. If a phased
approach is preferred by the Board, staff would recommend that only proposed
increases be phased -in, but that fee decreases become effective April 2, 2018 to avoid
collecting fees in excess of the calculated maximum allowable amount.
Fiscal Impact
Based on the nexus study calculations, CFF revenue to be generated over the next 18
years (2017-2035) is projected at $163,771,943, which would be used to offset
remaining growth -related debt service for the County Administration Building and future
growth -related facility needs.
Action To Be Taken Following Approval
The County Administrator's Office (CAO) will distribute the revised fee schedule to
City/County permit agencies with direction to implement beginning April 2, 2018. Fees
will continue to be adjusted annually per the California Construction Cost Index. CAO
staff will update the nexus study following completion of the countywide facility inventory
and master plan project, and propose CFF adjustments as appropriate.
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and Page 10
Conduct Public Hearing
Sincerely,
Monica Nino
County Administrator
LTA I0iiC7:/
Attachments — County CFF Nexus Study Update (10/12/17), Stakeholder Comments
c: County Counsel
Community Development Department
City Building Departments (Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton,
Tracy)
Building Industry Association of the Greater Valley
San Joaquin Partnership
Builders' Exchange of Stockton
Board Clerk for Agenda 03/20/18
:311iX1 1111
Reviewed by County Counsel's Office:
rk YAyIes, County unset 3/12/2018
Before the Board of Supervisors
County of San Joaquin, State of California
B-18-179
MOTION: Miller/Patti 5-0
Approve County Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Update and Conduct Public Hearing to
Implement Revised Fee Schedule Effective April 2, 2018
THIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOES HEREBY approve the County Capital
Facilities Fee Nexus Study Update.
FURTHER, authorizes implementation of a revised fee schedule, effective April 2, 2018.
CFF Categories
Regional
incorporated
Unincorporated
Surcharge
Unincorporated
Residential
Single Family (per unit
$2,434 +
$1,198 =
$3,632
Multi Family per unit
$1,807 +
$890 =
$2,697
Non -Residential
Retail/Commercial (per square foot)
$0.40 +
$0.20 =
$0.60
Office (per square foot)
$0.61 +
$0.30 =
$0.91
Industrial/Other (per square foot)
$0.11 +
$0.06 =
$0.17
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above order was passed and adopted on 03/20/2018 by the
following vote of the Board of Supervisors, to wit:
AYES: Villapudua, Miller, Patti, Winn, Elliott
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Pquly
2.'
C��iFORa`P
MIMI DUZENSKI
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of San Joaquin
State of California
Mind Dl enski
ATTACHMENT 1
Public Review Draft Report
1 San Joaquin County Countywide
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
(Qr
Prepared for:
County of San Joaquin
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
400 Capitol Mall, 28th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
916 649 8010 tel
916 649 2070 fax
Oakland EPS #162056
Sacramento
Denver
Lo: Angeles
www.epsys.corn
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................... 1
Background.............................................................................................................. 1
Purposeof Report ..................................................................................................... 1
Authority................................................................................................................. 1
NexusStudy Review..................................................................................................2
Principles for Establishing the CFF...............................................................................6
Basis for Determining Facilities Required for New Growth...............................................6
Countywide Facilities and Unincorporated Facilities Development Impact Fee ................... 7
NexusMethodology................................................................................................... 7
Summary................................................................................................................. 8
Structureof the Report............................................................................................ 10
2. OVERVIEW: COUNTY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ............................................... 11
Population and Employment Growth Estimates........................................................... 13
3. REGIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND COST ESTIMATES .............................................. 15
Countywide Regional Facilities Service Standards........................................................ 15
4. REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES FACILITY NEXUS ...................................................... 20
Summary of Methodology........................................................................................ 20
Allocation of Countywide Regional Facilities Development Costs .................................... 20
Findings for Countywide Regional Facilities Fee........................................................... 21
FeeCalculation....................................................................................................... 23
5. IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................... 27
Adjustments to the CFF........................................................................................... 27
Fee Reimbursements and Fee Credits........................................................................ 27
LocalImplementation.............................................................................................. 27
Ongoing Administration of the CFF Program............................................................... 27
6. UNINCORPORATED FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT SURCHARGE ................................................ 28
Unincorporated Facilities Development and Cost Estimates ........................................... 28
Allocation to Residential and Nonresidential Development ............................................ 28
FeeCalculation....................................................................................................... 28
7. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF CFF................................................................................ 32
Summary of Infrastructure Cost Burden Feasibility Test ............................................... 32
Appendices:
Appendix A: County Growth Detail
Appendix B: Single -Family Residential Development Infrastructure Burden Cost Detail
List of Tables and Map
Table 1 County Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) Program Survey—Comparison Counties ......... 3
Table 2 Summary of Maximum Justifiable Countywide Capital Facility Fees.....................9
Table 3 Projected New Development Through 2035 ................................................... 14
Table 4 Summary of Countywide Regional Facilities Service -Level Standards to
Serve New Development Through 2035 ........................................................ 16
Table 5 Estimate of Eligible Countywide Regional Facilities to Serve New
Development Through 2035........................................................................ 17
Table 6 Estimate of Regional Development Costs by Category .................................... 18
Table 7 Population per Household Estimate.............................................................. 22
Table 8 Countywide Facilities Development Cost per Facility User ................................ 24
Table
9
CFF Development Impact Fee by Land Use ....................................................
25
Table
10
Unincorporated Facilities Development Cost per Facility User ...........................
29
Table
11
Unincorporated CFF Surcharge by Land Use ..................................................
30
Table
12
Feasibility Summary byJurisdiction..............................................................
34
Table
13
Countywide CFF Comparison—FY 2017-2018 (2 pages) ..................................
37
Map 1 San Joaquin County................................................................................... 12
1, INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The County of San Joaquin (County) approved its first Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) in 2005. This
CFF Nexus Study (Nexus Study Update or Nexus Report Update) updates the 2003 Nexus Study
to reflect changes to the CFF Program resulting from updated facility space requirements and
associated costs for included space needs.
This Nexus Report provides the County with the necessary technical documentation to support
the adoption of the updated CFF Program, which will apply to future development within the
County. This report calculates the maximum justifiable impact fees that may be levied for each
land use based on the proportionate share of the total facility use that each land use represents.
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this Nexus Report is to document the nexus between new development in the
County and the need for county regional and unincorporated area improvements and facilities.
The CFF contributes to the development of critical countywide facilities related to growth in cities
and the unincorporated county. The Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge contributes a
proportionate share of costs related to serving the needs of the unincorporated area.
The current fees were established in the 2003 Nexus Study. The County has requested that a
Nexus Study be completed for the purpose of updating the CFF program that will adequately
fund the required county regional and unincorporated area capital facilities in the County through
2035.
After establishing the nexus, this report calculates the CFF, including the Unincorporated
Facilities Surcharge, to be levied for each land use, based on the estimated proportionate share
of the total facility use for each land use. Annual reports will be prepared on the status of the
CFF program, as has been done in previous years. It is anticipated that periodic reviews of the
assumptions in the Nexus Report and updates of the Nexus Report will be conducted as needed,
or approximately every 5 years.
Authority
The CFF, including the Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge, has been developed in accordance
with the procedural guidelines established in Assembly Bill (AB) 1600, which is codified in the
California Government Code.
Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 1, Section 66000 et. seq. provides that a CFF may be enacted and
imposed on development projects. This code section sets forth the procedural requirements for
establishing and collecting development impact fees. These procedures require that "a
reasonable relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose
of the condition." Specifically, each local agency imposing a fee must:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 =— , ...... .....=-,,ear
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
• Identify the purpose of the fee.
• Identify how the fee is to be used.
• Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee's use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed.
• Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and
the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
• Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of public
facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is
imposed.
CFF findings and recommendations for this Nexus Report are presented in Chapter 4 and
Chapter 6.
Nexus Study Review
EPS reviewed capital or public facility fee nexus studies prepared by or for other counties in
California. The key takeaways for producing a nexus study report were summarized in a
Technical Memorandum prepared in September of 2016. The Technical Memorandum describes
the allowable uses for a CFF, and an overview of nexus methodologies and assumptions. EPS
initially reviewed 17 counties to identify if a countywide CFF is charged. The counties originally
researched by EPS are listed below.
• Alameda
• Butte
• Contra Costa
• EI Dorado
• Fresno
• Kern
• Merced
• Monterey
• Placer
• Sacramento
• Santa Clara
• Solano
• Sonoma
• Stanislaus
• Tulare
• Ventura
• Yolo
Of the 17 counties listed above, only 6 counties charge a countywide CFF, and of those
6 counties, only 4 counties had a nexus study available for review. These 4 counties are Butte
County, Fresno County, Solano County, and Stanislaus County. Table 1 provides a summary of
the counties with an existing CFF, counties which have a supporting nexus study for the fee
program, and a matrix that provides the CFF program components.
Allowable Uses for the CFF
In general, the CFF may be collected to fund the construction of facilities required to serve new
development with a useful life of at least 5 years. "Public facilities" is loosely defined and can be
broadly interpreted. In nexus studies prepared by EPS, it states there is a "reasonable" nexus
between the identified public facilities and the need to charge a CFF to new development.
Depending on the type of public facility, the nexus for reasonableness may be clearer for public
facilities such as administration buildings, libraries, fire station, sheriff's facilities, and animal
services.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 =— , ...... .....=-,,ear
Table 1
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
County Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) Program Survey - Comparison Counties
DRAFT
CFF Program Survey -
Comparison Counties
Item
Existing CFF
Yes No
Available
Nexus
Study
Countywide
Public
Protection
Animal
Services
Behavioral Criminal Emergency
Health Justice Detention Services
Countywide CFF Components [1]
Other
General County
Fire Government Facilities Library
Transportation
Health &
Human
Services
Sheriff
Patrol &
Investigation
Countywide
IT
County
Parks [2]
Admin.
County
Alameda
X
Butte
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
Contra Costa
X
EI Dorado
X
Fresno [3]
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
Kern
X
Merced
X
Monterey
X
Placer
X
X
X
X
X X
X
Sacramento
X
Santa Clara
X
Solano
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
Sonoma
X
Stanislaus
X
X
X
X X X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Tulare
X
Ventura
X
Yolo
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"county_ survey"
Source: Various county departments; EPS.
[1 ] In most cases, many fee categories are not charged to development in incorporated cities within each county, as cities provide such services.
[2] Stanislaus County: Includes neighborhood and regional parks.
[3] Fresno County Board of Supervisors imposed successive temporary suspensions of collecting County facilities impact fees (November 10, 2010 through November 9, 2012; then November 10, 2012 through November 9, 2015;
and then November 10, 2015 through November 9, 2017).
Prepared by EPS 10/11/2017
3
F.IActive Projects11620001162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-171 Task 1 -Prepare CCFF UpdatelModelsII62056 CCFF Model6 10-11-2017
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Overview of Nexus Methodologies and Key Assumptions
The results of a CFF analysis are based on a variety of assumptions regarding population and
employment growth in a municipality, service standards and facility demand, and corresponding
costs. These are key issues that may warrant consideration in conjunction with a CFF nexus
study or update:
• Socio -Economic Data and Projections. Impact fee calculations should be based on
projections related to population and employment in the municipality through a mid-term
forecast (e.g., 20 years), often in connection with a general plan forecast. These growth
assumptions should be developed with input from the client municipality based on a range of
available data sources. Common sources for baseline population and growth projections are
based on average growth rate estimates from various sources, such as growth rate estimates
from a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Regional Transportation Planning Agency
(RTPA), CalTrans, the California Department of Finance (DOF), and other research firms or
organizations that may provide unique insight in the socio-economic data and projections.
Using a combination of sources may be useful in better identifying 20 -year trends in a
geographical region.
• Identify Capital Facility Needs. It is necessary to estimate the type and amount of new
or expanded capital facilities and infrastructure to be provided by the municipality (correlated
to population and employment growth mentioned above) that will be needed either in part or
in whole to accommodate new development. This information shall be provided by client
staff through analysis of existing levels of service and articulated service standards relative
to future growth projections. Service standards relate capital facility or infrastructure
requirements to the development categories that represent the primary source of demand for
the capital facility or infrastructure improvement in question. Alterations in these service
standard assumptions can affect the fee calculation and the allocation of costs between land
use categories.
Trends in the development of public facilities required to serve new development is a
consideration of how technology may reduce space required to house a future county
employee population. Will technology allow employees to be more productive without
increasing the workforce?
New trends in building designs also may make it possible to reduce work space requirements
per employee. Such trends as collaborative work space and flextime scheduling may make it
possible for employees to share less space in future buildings.
• Cost Allocation between New and Existing Development. This analysis allocates the
cost of future capital improvements and facilities between new and existing development, as
required by AB 1600, based on a variety of methodologies (discussed further below).
In cases where new or expanded facilities or infrastructure improvements are determined to
be needed entirely to accommodate new growth (e.g., there are no existing deficiencies),
100 percent of the costs are attributed to future development. In cases where new or
expanded facilities are determined to serve or benefit both existing and new residents or
employees in a relatively proportional manner, the costs are allocated as such. Finally, in
cases where municipal staff or approved planning documents articulate specific service
standards or ratios, such standards are used to allocate costs to new development.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 ...... .....=-,,ear
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
The County Administration Building was built with space to serve future growth. With the
Great Recession, the County had to reduce the workforce. There will need to be a careful
evaluation of the available work space in the building during the CFF update to determine the
reasonable amount of available work space required to service new growth.
• Cost Allocation to Land Use Categories. The cost allocations to various land use
categories (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) are based on the relative demand
or "fair -share" contribution of each land use category to the need for the facilities included.
For example, in many cases, nexus study reports rely on a factor that assumes one employee
has an impact on capital facilities equal to about 25 percent of one resident. For many fee
categories, the facility costs are allocated to residential land uses only, based on the
determination that these facilities primarily are designed to serve residents (i.e., the usage
by nonresident employees is determined to be negligible or incidental).
Nexus Methodologies
Several approaches are used to identify needs and costs to serve new development. The first
step is to identify total facility needs, and then to allocate new development its fair share of
those needs. This section provides common methods for determining new development's fair
share of planned facility costs:
• Existing Facility Level of Service. This method allocates future costs for services based
on a jurisdiction's current Level of Service (LOS) for that service. Under this method, new
development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing
development. This method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing
development. The Existing Facility LOS method often is used when a long-range plan for new
facilities is not available.
• Plan -Based Fee Method. This method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility
costs to demand from new development. This method is appropriate when specific planned
facilities can be identified that only benefit new development, such as new roadways,
interchanges, or an extended sewer trunk line that serves new development. Under this
method, new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used in a master
facility plan.
• System Plan Method. This method considers the value of existing facilities plus the cost of
planned facilities in relation to existing and new development. This method is useful when
planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new
development. The System Plan Method ensures that new development does not pay for
existing deficiencies. Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in
General Plans are higher than existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation
of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy -based
standard. The local agency must secure non -fee funding for that portion of planned facilities
required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the LOS funded
by the impact fee.
This Nexus Study Update identifies new County facility needs and allocates the fair share of
associated costs to new residential and nonresidential development based on the Existing Facility
Level of Service methodology.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
5 --,""I'll, ,o 1—— 1-1 "I'll "
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Principles for Establishing the CFF
The CFF was first implemented in 2005 for the purpose of providing a funding source for the
construction of new County facilities needed to serve residents and employees coming from new
development, in both the cities and unincorporated areas of the County. As part of the
implementation process, County staff met with representatives of the incorporated cities in the
County to explain the fee program and to get feedback from each city. County staff also met
with representatives from the building industry to get feedback before implementing the fee
program.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared the 2003 Nexus Study, which justified the
amount of the development impact fee to be charged to new residential and nonresidential
development. The fee implemented in 2005 has been increased each fiscal year since by the
California Construction Cost Index. In 2012, the County initiated an update of the Facilities
Master Plan and felt it was the appropriate time to review the original principles for establishing
the CFF, to review facility cost assumptions, and update growth projections.
The following principles were used to guide the development of the CFF in 2003, and remain the
principles used to guide the CFF for this Nexus Report Update:
1. Reasonable Amount of Regional Facilities Constructed. The CFF will fund the initial
construction of core regional county facilities to serve new development. An effort was made
to target only major countywide facilities that are central to the health and well-being of all
County residents. Eligible countywide regional facilities are determined by deducting the
existing space deficiencies and increases to the service levels.
2. Required Regional Facilities Benefit Residents and Employees Living and Working in
the County. Residential and nonresidential development should therefore contribute funding
based on relative benefit received.
3. Regional Facilities Funded is Comparable to Those Funded in Other 3urisdictions.
Fee funding of regional county improvements is consistent with the level of development
funded by other jurisdictions, such as Stanislaus County.
4. Maintain Development Feasibility in the County. The level of the CFF has been
considered in the context of all applicable fees in the County to ensure that overall fee levels
do not impinge on development feasibility.
This update was conducted adhering to the same principles to maintain consistency with the
original study.
Basis for Determining Facilities Required for New
Growth
The 2003 Nexus Study used a then -recently completed Capital Facility Master Plan (2003) as the
basis of establishing capital facilities needed to serve new growth through 2035. For this Nexus
Study, current facility capacities were used to determine facility needs per 1,000 population for
General Government facilities. Custodial facilities such as the County Jail and Juvenile Hall, as
well as the County Hospital, have not been included in this Nexus Study due to their specialized
space requirements and recent fluctuation in demand, largely due to legislative changes.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 la , "11=-n ,o, ra=., _1_.1t_'__1s,o=s"I' ll_,,ear
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Facility needs per 1,000 populations were projected through 2035, using population projections
prepared by University of the Pacific Eberhardt School of Business' Center for Business and Policy
Research (Eberhardt), to determine space needed to serve new growth through 2035.
Countywide Facilities and Unincorporated Facilities
Development Impact Fee
The costs of major facilities, discussed further in Chapter 3 are allocated to new development in
the County.
Fees are payable at the time of building permit. No fee is to be collected from existing
development unless the existing development was subject to prior agreements requiring fee
funding for future improvements.
The County and developers may agree to have certain developers build certain facilities
contained in the fee program or to fund County facilities through financing districts. In the case
of an agreement to construct facilities, the County will require and must approve a specific cost
estimate based on the approved design standards for the facilities proposed to be constructed by
the developer. The developer may receive a fee credit or reimbursement based on the portion of
their fee obligation that is met through the direct construction of facilities or through financing
districts. Developers may or may not receive fee credits or reimbursements for constructing
improvements that are beyond the required standards. The CFF, including the Unincorporated
Facilities Surcharge, is based on the best available cost estimates and residential and
nonresidential growth data available at this time. If costs change significantly, or if other
funding to construct the facilities identified in the study becomes available, the fees would be
adjusted accordingly. The County periodically will conduct a review of facility costs and building
trends in the County. Based on these reviews, the County will make necessary adjustments to
its fee programs.
The section below describes the nexus methodology and how EPS calculated each land uses'
allocable share of facility costs for the CFF.
Nexus Methodology
EPS calculated the CFF for each land use based on five key steps, as described below.
1. Estimate New Development. New development, residential and nonresidential, to occur in
the County in the next 18 years is estimated based on data provided by Eberhardt. New
development projections are presented in Chapter 2 of this Nexus Study.
2. Determine the Recommended Levels of Service for Facilities Development. The
recommended levels of service are based on the historical service standards expressed as the
total square footage of countywide regional facilities per 1,000 population in 2017. Eligible
countywide regional facilities are determined by deducting the existing space deficiencies and
increases to the service levels. Levels of service for the countywide regional facilities in the
County are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.
3. Estimate Facilities Development Costs. Facilities included and costs of development are
based on the information provided by the County and research conducted by EPS.
Development costs for regional facilities are presented in Chapter 3 of this report.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 11=-1-o, ,I -1m—t-1--1111=sos,o-„_,,ear
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Development costs for facilities that benefit the unincorporated County region are presented
in Chapter 6 of this Nexus Study.
4. Allocate Facilities Development Cost to New Development. Capital facilities
development costs are allocated to both residential and nonresidential development based on
benefit received from new facilities. The costs are allocated on a per -facility -user basis
(residents and employees). Costs for facilities are allocated to residential users and to
employees based on the estimated amount of facility benefit received by an employee
relative to a resident. Cost allocations for regional facilities are presented in Chapter 4, and
cost allocations for facilities benefiting residents and employees in the unincorporated County
region are presented in Chapter 6.
5. Determine Facilities Fee per Land Use. The cost per facility user for residents and
employees is multiplied by "common use factors" to determine the CFF. For residents, the
common use factor is "persons per household" (PPH). For employees, the common use factor
is the number of employees per 1,000 building square feet by nonresidential use. The CFF for
each residential and nonresidential land use for regional facilities and the Unincorporated
Facilities Surcharge are presented in Chapter 4 and Chapter 6, respectively. The resulting
maximum allowable CFF by land use for new residential and nonresidential development in
the County is provided below. In addition, Table 2 provides a summary of the maximum
allowable CFF by land use and a comparison of the maximum allowable CFF to the existing
Fiscal Year 2017-2018 CFF.
Summary
As new development continues to occur in the County, additional public facilities will be required
to serve future residents and employees. The capital facility costs allocated to new development
reflect public facility improvements that are needed to accommodate future development. This
Nexus Study computes future development's share of future public facility improvement costs
based on level -of -service standards as determined by the County. The CFF will not fund the
construction of capital facility improvements required to cure existing level of service
deficiencies.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 --,--_111—t-11-1111111111 1= 11.11
Unincorporated
Facilities Surcharge
Total CFF for
CFF (Charged to All
(Charged to
Unincorporated
County
Unincorporated
County
Land Use
Development)
Development Only)
Development
Single -Family Residential per Unit
$2,434
$1,198
$3,632
Multifamily Residential per Unit
$1,807
$890
$2,697
Retail/Commercial per Bldg. Sq. Ft.
$0.40
$0.20
$0.60
Office per Bldg. Sq. Ft.
$0.61
$0.30
$0.91
Industrial/Other per Bldg. Sq. Ft.
$0.11
$0.06
$0.17
Summary
As new development continues to occur in the County, additional public facilities will be required
to serve future residents and employees. The capital facility costs allocated to new development
reflect public facility improvements that are needed to accommodate future development. This
Nexus Study computes future development's share of future public facility improvement costs
based on level -of -service standards as determined by the County. The CFF will not fund the
construction of capital facility improvements required to cure existing level of service
deficiencies.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 --,--_111—t-11-1111111111 1= 11.11
0
x1011121
Table 2
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Summary of Maximum Justifiable Countywide Capital Facility Fees
Item
Countywide Capital Facilities Fee (CFF)
(Charged to All County Development)
Maximum
Justifiable Difference
[1] Current Amount Percentage
Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge
(Charged to Unincorporated Development Only)
Maximum
Justifiable Difference
[2] Current Amount Percentage
Total CFF for Unincorporated
County Development
Maximum
Justifiable Difference
[3] Current Amount Percentage
Fee per Unit
FY 2017-18
Single -Family Residential
$2,434
$2,049
$385 19%
$1,198
$527
$671
127%
$3,632
$2,576
$1,056
41%
Multifamily Residential
$1,807
$1,756
$51 3%
$890
$454
$436
96%
$2,697
$2,210
$487
22%
Fee per Bldg. Sq. Ft.
FY 2017-18
Retail/Commercial
$0.40
$0.47
($0.07) -15%
$0.20
$0.12
$0.08
67%
$0.60
$0.59
$0.01
2%
Office
$0.61
$0.41
$0.20 49%
$0.30
$0.10
$0.20
200%
$0.91
$0.51
$0.40
78%
Industrial/Other
$0.11
$0.23
($0.12) -52%
$0.06
$0.06
$0.00
0%
$0.17
$0.29
($0.12)
-41%
"fee summ"
[1] See Table 9.
[2] See Table 11.
[3] New development in the Unincorporated County is charged the Countywide Capital Facilities Fee and the Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge.
Prepared by EPS 10/12/2017 1 Boas, m1s.—l-111.11 .111120 I'll." I. �'ll�1.1.....,,,,�ll-1 1.1s,o-,_21„�„
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Structure of the Report
The Nexus Study has been prepared by EPS in conjunction with the staff from the County
Administrator's Office. The report is divided into seven chapters, including this introduction as
Chapter 1:
• Chapter 2 provides an overview of the countywide facilities development program, as well
as the estimated new population to be served by future facilities development.
• Chapter 3 discusses the countywide regional facilities needed to serve new development and
provides a cost estimate for those facilities.
• Chapter 4 shows the methodology used in calculating the CFF; presents the required
AB 1600 findings, specifically (1) the purpose of the fee, (2) the use of the fee, (3) the
relationship between the use of the fee and type of development, (4) the relationship
between the need for the facility and the type of project, and (5) the relationship between
the amount of the fee and the cost portion attributed to new development; and shows the
fee calculation.
• Chapter 5 discusses how the fee will be implemented, including how the fee should be
annually adjusted, how fee credits and reimbursements will be administered, and how other
administration activities should be implemented.
• Chapter 6 discusses the facilities needed to serve new development that will occur in the
unincorporated area of the County and the resulting development impact fee surcharge.
• Chapter 7 discusses the impacts the maximum justifiable CFF has on the overall
infrastructure cost burden, and how those impacts may affect the development feasibility of
various land uses. In addition, this section compares the maximum justifiable CFF to other
countywide facility fees in nearby counties that may be in competition for residential and
nonresidential development projects.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 =— , ...... .....=-,,ear
2, OVERVIEW; COUNTY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The County has been providing countywide regional services to its citizens since 1850. The
County covers an area of more than 1,400 square miles and is the 15th most populous county in
California, with a 2017 population estimate of 747,514 residents, according to information
produced by Eberhardt. The County is governed by a 5 -member Board that sets policy, enacts
ordinances and regulations, and oversees activities of County departments. The role of county
government, as a political subdivision of the state, is to deliver the services mandated by the
State and federal governments. San Joaquin County government consists of about
21 departments or major divisions, from the Agricultural Commissioner to the Treasurer -Tax
Collector, and approximately 7,000 full-time equivalent employees.
The County is organized into seven incorporated cities and the unincorporated region, as shown
in Map 1. Substantial population and employment growth will occur throughout the
incorporated cities and the unincorporated County over the 18 -year period from 2017 to 2035.
Population growth is forecasted by Eberhardt to grow from 747,514 to approximately 947,835,
representing an increase of approximately 27 percent. Eberhardt estimates countywide
employment will grow from approximately 243,323 in 2017 to approximately 299,918 in 2035,
representing an increase of 23 percent.'
The County provides the following primary regional governmental services equally to all residents
and employees of the County, regardless of whether they are located either in the
seven incorporated cities or in the unincorporated County region:
• Countywide Governance
• Elections
• Property Tax Administration
• Water Resources/Flood Protection
• Parks and Recreation
• Regional Planning
• Health Services
• Human Services
• District Attorney
• Public Defender
• Adult and Juvenile Detention
• Adult and Juvenile Probation
• Sheriff -Coroner -Public Administrator
The County also provides the following primary governmental services to all residents and
employees of the unincorporated County region:
• Community Development and Code Enforcement
• Road Construction/Maintenance and Utility Services
• Animal Control
Given the level of expected population and employment growth over the next 18 years, the CFF
must be established to enable the County to develop the required regional and unincorporated
facilities to serve new development.
1 San Joaquin County Forecast Summary. University of the Pacific Eberhardt School of Business,
Center for Business and Policy Research. July 7, 2016.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. ...... .....=_,,°or
Map 1
San Joaquin County
Legend.,
County Limit
c�p City Limit
Miles
Street 0 0.5 1 2s 3 4
Water
.. .... 1:120,000
'J� 1 inch = 10,000 feet
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY BASE MAP
----- - - - - - -
12
lig
IN
s-
m"Milli �;!
Stock
IS
Alm
* AlOW
at W,
Legend.,
County Limit
c�p City Limit
Miles
Street 0 0.5 1 2s 3 4
Water
.. .... 1:120,000
'J� 1 inch = 10,000 feet
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY BASE MAP
----- - - - - - -
12
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
The nexus findings for the CFF, including the Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge, are based on
the direct benefit new development receives from the new countywide regional facilities and the
unincorporated area facilities during the 18 -year period from 2017 to 2035.
Based on the population projections prepared by Eberhardt, the County is expected to grow by
approximately 200,321 persons during the 18 -year period from 2017 to 2035. The increase in
population will require development of new regional government service facilities and
improvements to service the demand stemming from new growth.
Based on the projected growth, future County facilities will need to provide for the construction
of approximately 323,000 square feet of building space. The estimated cost of $490 per net
square foot is derived by reviewing the Solano County Master Plan construction costs estimates
for administrative buildings, prepared in April 2016.
Population and Employment Growth Estimates
Table 3 identifies the projected population increase, as well as new employees projected for the
County by 2035. According to data produced by Eberhardt, the County's 2017 population is
estimated to be 747,514. This population is estimated by Eberhardt to increase by 200,321
persons by 2035, to realize an estimated total population of 947,835.
As one of the San Joaquin Valley's important regional centers for employment, employees are
significant users of the County's regional facilities, so the Nexus Study allocates a portion of the
costs of future development to new employees projected over the next 18 years. Based on data
provided by Eberhardt, EPS estimates that 243,323 persons are employed in the County in
2017.2 This number is projected to reach 299,918 by 2035, representing an increase of
approximately 56,595 employees.
The 2003 study used a projection of new residential units and an assumed "persons per
household" (PPH) to estimate the projected population. This Nexus Study uses data provided by
the US Census Bureau for population by housing unit type, and the number of households by unit
type to estimate the PPH, as shown in Chapter 4.
The 2003 study made similar assumptions regarding increases in nonresidential growth, on an
employee "per -square -foot" basis, to project new employees. This Nexus Study will not translate
estimated increases in nonresidential uses to project new employees through 2035, but rather,
will use the 56,595 projected new employees to determine facility requirements to serve new
employees through 2035.
2 Ibid.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 1—- - ra=., s,o_„_l ear
DRAFT
Table 3
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Projected New Development Through 2035
[1 ] Eberhardt provides population and employee data in 5 -year increments. The population and employee estimate for 2017 is calculated by adding
the annual average growth between 2015 and 2020 to establish a 2017 baseline figure.
Population: 2015-2020 Annual Average Growth - 9,435
Employment: 2015-2020 Annual Average Growth - 4,232
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017
Total Est. Growth
Population/Employees
(2017-2035)
Land Use 2015 2017 [1]
2020 2025 2030 2035
Amount Percentage
Residential Development (New Residents)
County Population 728,644 747,514
775,819 829,426 883,484 947,835
200,321 26.8%
Nonresidential Development (New Employees)
Employees 234,859 243,323
256,019 270,185 285,072 299,918
56,595 23.3%
"growth"
Source: "San Joaquin County Forecast Summary," University of the Pacific
Eberhardt School of
Business - Center for Business and Policy Research, July 7, 2016.
[1 ] Eberhardt provides population and employee data in 5 -year increments. The population and employee estimate for 2017 is calculated by adding
the annual average growth between 2015 and 2020 to establish a 2017 baseline figure.
Population: 2015-2020 Annual Average Growth - 9,435
Employment: 2015-2020 Annual Average Growth - 4,232
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017
3. REGIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND COST ESTIMATES
This chapter discusses the need for additional regional facilities to meet the needs of new
population and employee growth in the County. It also discusses the estimated costs associated
with the County's development of these regional facilities through 2035.
Countywide Regional Facilities Service Standards
Service standards are expressed as the total square footage per 1,000 population, based on
current population estimates and existing facilities.
Based on the projected population and employment growth covered in Chapter 2 of this Nexus
Study, and historical service standards per 1,000 population, expansion requirements for
regional facilities needed by 2035 are calculated in Table 4.
The ratio of square feet per 1,000 population was determined by using 2017 population
assumptions and current space used for major General Government facilities to develop an
assumed 1,983 square foot per 1,000 population for major General Government facilities. This
ratio is reduced slowly through 2035 to account for facilities that may be constructed. A factor of
0.99 is used to approximate the impacts of new technologies and service delivery efficiencies
that are anticipated to occur over the study period, reducing future staffing projection levels and
associated space that would be needed.
Table 5 shows eligible countywide regional facilities to be funded through the CFF. Total new
space for General Government services required to serve new development is 323,186 square
feet. County staff has identified 10,348 square feet of existing space surplus that can be used to
house employees required to serve new development. Using an assumed per square foot cost
for new building space, General Government facilities costs are approximately $158.4 million.
The associated cost of the existing space is used to reduce required facilities costs. These are
facilities that would be otherwise constructed if surplus space were not available for housing new
employees. This reduces General Government facilities costs by $5.1 million. The net costs of
constructing new General Government facilities are reduced to $153.3 million.
The County issued Certificates of Participation (COPs) to build the County Administration
Building. The total remaining debt service payments for the COPS is approximately
$116.0 million. County staff has determined that approximately 29.85 percent of the debt
service is attributable to new development, with the remainder of the debt service benefiting
existing development. Therefore, approximately $34.6 million of the remaining debt service is
assigned to new development. The total new facility construction costs and existing debt service
for the Administration Building attributable to new development is approximately $187.9 million
(see Table 5 for details).
Table 6 shows the costs developed in Table S. There is an existing fund balance as of June 30,
2017, in the CFF Fund of approximately $24.1 million. These fees have been collected to
construct facilities required to serve new development, but have not been expended to date.
They should be used to reduce the total costs of providing new facilities required to serve new
development. This reduces the costs to be funded by the CFF to approximately $163.8 million.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 =— , ...... .....=-,,ear
Table 4
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Summary of Countywide Regional Facilities Service Level Standards
to Serve New Development Through 2035
Item
County Population Estimates [1]
Major General Government Facilities
Required Net Square Footage [2]
Ratio of Sq. Ft. per 1,000 Population [3]
2017 2020
747,514 775,819
2025 2030
829,426 883,484
2035
947,835
1,482,372 1,523,118 1,612,077 1,699,973 1,805,558
1,983 1,963 1,944 1,924 1,905
DRAFT
"nexus facilities"
[1] Source: "San Joaquin County Forecast Summary", Eberhardt School of Business -
Center for Business and Policy Research, July 7, 2016.
[2] 2017 total existing square footage for major general government facilities likely impacted by new growth.
[3] Current square footage to per 1,000 population ratio. This is assumed to be the required new general
government facility space per 1,000 population. The ratio is reduced over the study period to account for space
types within the existing facility inventory that will not necessarily increase with growth (e.g., department head,
file/equipment rooms, etc.) and increased use of technology that could alleviate the need for additional staff.
The proposed ratio is 0.99 over the study period.
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017
r
v
DRAFT
Table 5
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Estimate of Eligible Countywide Regional Facilities to Serve New Development Through 2035 (2017$)
Facility Cost Components (2016$)
Major General Government Facilities (Square Feet)
Administration Building Debt Service [4]
Estimated New Facility Construction Costs/Existing Debt Service
Total Estimated
Unit Cost [3] Cost --New Space Estimated Construction Cost
$490 $158,361,140 ($5,070,520) $153,290,620
n/a $116,015,875 ($81,385,136) $34,630,739
$274,377,015 ($86,455,656) $187,921,359
"CCF costs"
[1 ] See Table 4.
[2] Existing space surplus provided by County staff, as of August 2017.
[3] Major general government facilities costs based on the Solano County Master Plan construction cost estimates for administrative buildings,
prepared April 22, 2016.
[4] Administration Building debt service allocable to new development provided by County staff.
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017
Space
Total
Needed To
Space
Total
Existing
Service
Requirements
Existing
New
Space
New
Facilities Space Component 2035
Space
Space
Surplus
Development
[1]
[1l
[2]
Major General Government Facilities (Square Feet) 1,805,558
1,482,372
323,186
(10,348)
312,838
Facility Cost Components (2016$)
Major General Government Facilities (Square Feet)
Administration Building Debt Service [4]
Estimated New Facility Construction Costs/Existing Debt Service
Total Estimated
Unit Cost [3] Cost --New Space Estimated Construction Cost
$490 $158,361,140 ($5,070,520) $153,290,620
n/a $116,015,875 ($81,385,136) $34,630,739
$274,377,015 ($86,455,656) $187,921,359
"CCF costs"
[1 ] See Table 4.
[2] Existing space surplus provided by County staff, as of August 2017.
[3] Major general government facilities costs based on the Solano County Master Plan construction cost estimates for administrative buildings,
prepared April 22, 2016.
[4] Administration Building debt service allocable to new development provided by County staff.
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017
DRAFT
Table 6
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Estimate of Regional Development Costs by Category (2017$)
Total Net Costs Funded by CFF $163,771,943
r
00 CFF Cost Allocation to Regional Fees [3] 94.97% $155,538,557
CFF Cost Allocation to Unincorporated Fees 5.03% $8,233,386
Estimated Funding Sources
CFF Current Fund Balance [2]
County General Purpose Revenues
Development Impact Fees
Total Funding Sources
$24,149,416 $0 $24,149,416
$86,455,656 $86,455,656
$163,771,943 $0 $163,771,943
$274,377,015 $86,455,656 $187,921,359
"nexus costs"
[1 ] See Table 5.
[2] Reflects the current CFF fund balance as of June 30, 2017.
[3] Percentages apply to the current county facility space occupied by staff that provide primarily regional and unincorporated -
related services (rounded).
Prepared by EPS 10/11/2017 162056 CCFF Mode16 10-11-2017
Total
Allocated Construction Cost
Estimated
Existing
Service
Cost --New
Space
New
Regional Facility Cost Components
Space
Deficiency
Development
[i]
Major General Government Facilities
$158,361,140
($5,070,520)
$153,290,620
Administration Building Debt Service
$116,015,875
($81,385,136)
$34,630,739
Total Estimated New Facility Construction Costs/Existing Debt Service
$274,377,015
($86,455,656)
$187,921,359
Less Current CFF Fund Balance [2]
($24,149,416)
Total Net Costs Funded by CFF $163,771,943
r
00 CFF Cost Allocation to Regional Fees [3] 94.97% $155,538,557
CFF Cost Allocation to Unincorporated Fees 5.03% $8,233,386
Estimated Funding Sources
CFF Current Fund Balance [2]
County General Purpose Revenues
Development Impact Fees
Total Funding Sources
$24,149,416 $0 $24,149,416
$86,455,656 $86,455,656
$163,771,943 $0 $163,771,943
$274,377,015 $86,455,656 $187,921,359
"nexus costs"
[1 ] See Table 5.
[2] Reflects the current CFF fund balance as of June 30, 2017.
[3] Percentages apply to the current county facility space occupied by staff that provide primarily regional and unincorporated -
related services (rounded).
Prepared by EPS 10/11/2017 162056 CCFF Mode16 10-11-2017
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
The $163.8 million new facility costs (and debt service on the Administration Building) will
construct facilities for departments providing countywide services and departments that provide
services almost exclusively to the unincorporated areas of the County. The County identified the
existing space housing functions providing countywide and unincorporated services.
Approximately 95 percent of the space provides countywide services and 5 percent provides
unincorporated services. The $163.8 million is allocated to regional fees and unincorporated fees
based upon these percentages. The total costs assigned to regional fees are approximately
$155.5 million and to unincorporated fees are approximately $8.2 million (see Table 6 for
details).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 =— , ...... .....=-,,ear
4, REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES FACILITY NEXUS
This chapter describes nexus methodologies and findings required to establish the CFF and
calculate the fee by land use, building on the previous regional facilities development discussion.
Summary of Methodology
The methodology used to determine the recommended CFF is as follows:
• Estimate New Development. New development, residential and nonresidential, to occur in
the County in the next 18 years is estimated based on data provided by the County and
Eberhardt. New development projections were presented in Chapter 2 of this Nexus Study.
• Determine the Recommended Levels of Service for Regional Facilities Development.
The recommended levels of service are based on the historical service standards expressed
as the total square footage of countywide regional facilities per 1,000 population in 2017.
Eligible countywide regional facilities are determined by deducting the existing space
surpluses discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.
• Estimate Regional Facilities Development Costs. Facilities included are based on the
information provided by the County. Development costs were presented in Chapter 3 of this
report.
• Allocate Regional Facilities Development Cost to New Development. Countywide
regional facilities development costs are allocated to both residential and nonresidential
development based on benefit received from new facilities. The costs are allocated on a per -
regional -facility -user basis (residents and employees). Costs for regional facilities are
allocated to residential users and to employees based on the estimated amount of facility
benefit received by an employee relative to a resident, as presented in this chapter.
• Determine Regional Facilities Fee. The cost per regional facility user for residents and
employees is multiplied by "common use factors" to determine the CFF. For residents, the
common use factor is PPH. For employees, the common use factor is the number of
employees per 1,000 building square feet by nonresidential land use. Nonresidential
employees per 1,000 square feet were provided by EPS based on internal data and
professional judgment.
Allocation of Countywide Regional Facilities
Development Costs
Residential vs. Nonresidential Allocations
Countywide facility development costs are allocated to land uses based on their projected use of
the facilities. While residents are the primary beneficiaries of countywide regional facilities,
businesses also benefit from the use of these regional facilities. For example, employees in the
County benefit from access to regional facilities.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 la—o , ,111 1 "I'll_,,.ear
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Because detailed service records associated with regional facilities were not available to guide
the cost allocations among new residential and nonresidential uses, the relative time an
employee is present at the work site is applied as a proxy to estimate benefits received by
businesses. Specifically, this methodology is based on an assumed typical employee work week:
5 days out of 7 and 8.5 hours3 out of 24: (5/7)*(8.5/24) = 0.25. Using this logic, each worker
receives approximately 25 percent of the benefit received by a resident. This weighting factor of
25 percent is applied to the total new employment projection of 56,595 through 2035 to produce
a pro -rata allocation of benefits to 14,149 employees during the period. Total countywide
equivalent facility users represent the sum of new population growth through 2035, plus
25 percent of projected new employees through the same period.
Allocation in Land Uses
Once the countywide regional facilities development cost per user is determined, it is applied to
the appropriate common use factor to determine the CFF by land use. For residential land uses,
the common use factor is the PPH for each single-family and multifamily unit (including duplexes
and mobile homes). The estimated PPH per unit is based on the data from US Census Bureau.
Based on the data provided in Table 7, EPS applied PPH factors of 3.34 for single-family uses
and 2.48 for multifamily uses.
The density of employees in each nonresidential land use is used to determine the relative level
of benefits among businesses from countywide facilities. For nonresidential development, the
common use factor is based on the estimated average building square feet per employee. These
factors are used by EPS based on employee density analyses prepared by the Energy
Information Administration, Institute of Transportation Engineers, the San Diego Association of
Governments, and the US Department of Energy. The assumptions by land use are shown
below:
• Retail/Commercial: 450 square feet per employee
• Office: 300 square feet per employee
• Industrial: 1,600 square feet per employee
Findings for Countywide Regional Facilities Fee
This section of the Nexus Study presents the findings necessary to establish the CFF in
accordance with AB 1600. The findings state (1) the purpose of the fee, (2) the use of the fee,
(3) the relationship between the use of the fee and type of development, (4) the relationship
between the need for the facility and the type of project, and (5) the relationship between the
amount of the fee and the cost portion attributed to new development.
The Nexus Study provides a basis for CFF funding of both regional facilities and program
administration costs, including the expenses associated with Nexus Study preparation. Specific
findings are as follows:
3 The estimated employee hours at the work site includes a factor for break -time or lunch.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 =— , ...... .....=-,,ear
N
N
DRAFT
Table 7
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Population per Household Estimate
Persons
Population Number of Units per
Owner Renter Owner Renter Household
Unit Type [1] Occupied Occupied Total Occupied Occupied Total [2]
Single Unit (Attached or Detached)
Multi -Unit
2 to 4 Units
5+ Units
Subtotal Multi -Unit
Total
372,083
206,711
578,794
117,901
55,636
173,537
3.34
1,511
34,338
35,849
688
12,090
12,778
2.81
1,599
56,485
58,084
722
24,357
25,079
2.32
3,110
90,823
93,933
1,410
36,447
37,857
2.48
375,193
297,534
672,727
119,311
92,083
211,394
3.18
Source: US Census - Total Population in Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and Units in Structure, ACS 2011-2015.
[1] Analysis excludes Mobile Homes, Boats, RVs, and Cars as residential units.
[2] Rounded to the nearest hundredth.
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017
,pph,1
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
• Purpose of Fee: Develop countywide regional facilities to meet the needs of the new
residential and employee population in the County.
• Use of Fee: The fee will be used to construct various eligible countywide regional facilities
as shown in Table 6. The fee also will fund the studies and administration to support the
development of countywide regional facilities.
• Relationship between Use of Fee and Type of Development: The development of new
residential and nonresidential land uses in the County will generate additional need for
countywide regional facilities. The fees will be used to develop the user capacity for
countywide regional facilities to serve new residential and nonresidential development.
• Relationship between Need for Facility and Type of Project: Each new residential and
nonresidential development project will generate additional demand for countywide regional
facilities. Under the County's historical countywide regional facilities construction program, a
service standard expressed as the total square footage per 1,000 population has been set.
• Relationship between Amount of Fee and Cost of Portion of Facility Attributed to
New Development: This criterion requires that the fee amount to be charged to new
development be proportional to the cost of facilities needed to maintain service standards
and avoid adverse impacts. Fees cannot be used to improve existing service standards or
meet current service deficiencies.
Fee Calculation
Table 8 summarizes the countywide regional facilities development cost per regional facility
user. The total new facility construction costs of approximately $155.5 million, calculated in
Table 6, are divided by the sum of projected new residents through 2035 (200,321) and
25 percent of new employees (14,149) to derive the cost for new facilities needed to serve new
development per regional facilities user. This cost per facilities user is $725 (rounded to the
nearest dollar).
Table 9 calculates the CFF per land use. The CFF for a single-family residential unit is
$2,434 per unit and $1,807 for a multifamily unit (rounded to the nearest dollar). The CFF is
calculated by multiplying the equivalent facility use factor for residential uses (3.34 PPH for
single family and 2.48 PPH for multifamily) discussed previously by the cost per facilities user
($725 per user).
The nonresidential CFF land use categories are based on the County Zoning Code for
retail/commercial, office, and industrial land uses. As shown in Table 9, the CFF is $0.40 per
building square foot for retail/commercial, $0.61 per building square foot for office, and
$0.11 per building square foot for industrial/other development (rounded to the nearest cent). If
a building has more than one land use, such as retail/commercial and office, the CFF will be pro-
rated based on the building square footage of each land use.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 --,""I'll ",111,000nos_,,,.a= _-1--t-__1 "I'll"
DRAFT
Table 8
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Countywide Facilities Development Cost per Facility User (2017$)
Item Amount
Estimated Total Eligible Regional Facilities Development Costs [1] a $155,538,557
Estimated Total New Regional Facilities Users
New Residents [2] b 200,321
Total New Employees [2] C 56,595
25% of Employees [3] d = c *25% 14,149
ry Total Equivalent Countywide Regional Facilities Users e = b + d 214,470
Development Cost per Equivalent Facility User (Rounded) [4] f=ale $725
"nexus user fee"
[1] See Table 6.
[2] See Table 3.
[3] New employees may have opportunities for potential County facility usage during regular work hours.
This study estimates that time opportunity for facility usage is 25% of the regular work week.
[4] Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017
DRAFT
Table 9
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
CFF Development Impact Fee by Land Use (2017$)
Land Use Category
Persons
per Unit or
1,000 SF
[1]
Cost per
Equivalent
Facility User
[2]
Facilities
Cost per Unit or
1,000 SF
Admin. Cost
per Unit or
1,000 SF
[3]
CFF Impact
Fee per Unit or
per SF
[4]
Residential Development
a
b
c= a' b
d= c" 0.5%
e= c+ d
per unit
Single -Family Residential
3.34
$725
$2,422
$12
$2,434
Multifamily Residential
2.48
$725
$1,798
$9
$1,807
Nonresidential Development
f
g = b *25%
h = f "g
i = h . 0.5%
j = (h + i)/1, 000
Ln
[5]
per bldg. sq. ft.
Retail/Commercial
2.22
$181
$402
$2
$0.40
Office
3.33
$181
$603
$3
$0.61
Industrial/Other
0.63
$181
$113
$1
$0.11
"nexus fee"
[1] See Table 7 for persons per unit assumptions.
[2] See Table 8.
[3] 0.5 percent of the facilities cost per unit/building sq. ft. is the cost of administering the fee program.
[4] Residential: Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
Nonresidential: Rounded to the nearest whole cent.
[5] Based on EPS analyses and supported by standards used by sources such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
US Department of Energy, and the San Diego Association of Governments.
Analysis assumes the following building square footage per employee.
Retail: 450
Office: 300
Industrial: 1,600
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
The CFF program includes the cost of preparing the Nexus Study, periodic updates, and funding
of the administrative costs such as the costs of accounting and audits, investing, and planning.
The administrative component of the CFF is calculated at 0.5 percent of eligible CFF facility costs.
The fees are payable at the time of building permit issuance for new development. No fees are
to be collected from existing development unless the existing development was subject to prior
agreements requiring fee funding for future improvements.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 =— , ...... .....=-,,ear
5. IMPLEMENTATION
Adjustments to the CFF
The CFF is based on the best development cost estimate and land use information available at
this time. If costs change significantly, or if other funding becomes available, the fees should be
adjusted periodically.
The cost estimates presented in this report are in 2017 dollars. Each year the County applies an
appropriate inflation adjustment factor to the CFF (California Construction Cost Index prepared
by the California Department of General Services) to reflect changes in construction costs.
Fee Reimbursements and Fee Credits
The County and developers may agree to have certain developers build certain facilities
contained in the fee program or to fund County facilities through financing districts (e.g., Mello -
Roos Community Facilities Districts). In the case of an agreement to construct facilities, the
County will require, and must approve, a specific cost estimate based on the approved design
standards for the facilities proposed to be constructed by the developer. Based on negotiated
agreements, the developer may receive a fee credit or reimbursement based on the portion of
their fee obligation that is met through the direct construction of facilities or through financing
districts. Developers may or may not receive fee credits or reimbursements for constructing
improvements that are beyond the required standards.
Local Implementation
The CFF is implemented through adoption of ordinances by the individual city councils and the
Board of Supervisors.
Ongoing Administration of the CFF Program
The County is responsible for ongoing administration of the CFF program, including annual
appropriation of fees, maintaining the countywide regional facilities model, preparing annual
reviews, and providing periodic updates. An administrative charge is included in the fee amount
to fund this ongoing administrative activity.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 1-1111111111111"a',o ,111 1 -,..... ....„_,,ear
6. UNINCORPORATED FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT SURCHARGE
There may be several required County facilities that are needed solely to service unincorporated
growth in the County. To assist in funding these facilities, a surcharge will continue to be
administered to new development that occurs in the unincorporated areas of the County. This
chapter provides an overview of the facilities in this category, nexus findings, and the resulting
surcharge to the CFF to be paid by unincorporated development. Unless otherwise specified, the
principles and methodologies applied in this section are the same as those described in the
preceding sections.
Unincorporated Facilities Development and Cost
Estimates
Table 10 shows the estimated eligible County unincorporated facilities costs from Table 6. The
total cost of $8.2 million, is calculated in Table 6. These costs are to be applied only to new
development in the unincorporated areas of the County.
Allocation to Residential and Nonresidential
Development
The cost of constructing new public facilities required to serve new residents and employees
living or working in the unincorporated areas of the County will be divided by the total facility
users to be added between 2017 and 2035. Table 10 shows that 21,106 new residents will live
in the unincorporated area of the County by 2035. In addition to the new residents, there will be
1,980 employee facility users by 2035. The total cost of new public facilities needed to serve
unincorporated facility users is divided by the sum of new resident and employee facility users to
determine the development cost per equivalent unincorporated facility user in Table 10. Total
costs are $8.2 million. Total unincorporated facility users are 23,086. The development cost per
equivalent unincorporated facility user is $357, rounded to the nearest dollar.
Fee Calculation
Based on the findings, costs, and calculations discussed in this study, the unincorporated CFF
Development Impact Fee surcharge for each land use in the County has been calculated using
the methodology described at the beginning of this chapter.
Table 10 summarizes the County unincorporated facilities development cost per equivalent
facility user, and Table 11 calculates the unincorporated CFF Development Impact Fee
surcharge per land use. The unincorporated CFF Development Impact Fee surcharge for a
single-family residential unit is $1,198 per unit and $890 for a multifamily unit (rounded to the
nearest dollar). The fees shown include a 0.5 percent allowance for the cost of administering the
fee program.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 =— ,...... .....=_,,°or
N
Table 10
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Unincorporated Facilities Development Cost per Facility User (2017$)
Item
Estimated Total Eligible Unincorporated Facilities Development Costs [1]
Estimated Total New Unincorporated Facilities Users
Total New Residents in County [2]
New Residents Residing in Unincorporated Areas [3] [4] [5]
Total New Employees in County [2]
New Employees Working in Unincorporated Areas [3] [4] [5]
25% of New Employees Working in Unincorporated Areas [4]
Total Equivalent Unincorporated Facilities Users
Development Cost per Equivalent Unincorporated Facility User [4]
DRAFT
Amount
a $8,233,386
b
200,321
c=b*10.536%
21,106
d
56,595
e = d * 13.990%
7,918
f = e 25.00%
1,980
g = C + f
23,086
h = a /g
$357
"unincorp_nexus_user fee"
[1] See Table 6.
[2] See Table 3.
[3] Based on the percentage of total growth in the unincorporated areas of County from 2015 to 2035.
See Table A-1 for details.
[4] Rounded to the nearest whole number.
[5] Allocation factors not rounded.
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017
W
0
DRAFT
Table 11
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Unincorporated CFF Surcharge by Land Use (2017$)
Persons
Cost per
Facilities Admin. Cost
CFF Impact
per Unit or
Equivalent
Cost per Unit or per Unit or
Fee per Unit or
Land Use Category 1,000 SF
Facility User
1,000 SF 1,000 SF
per SF
[11
[21
[31
[41
Residential Development
a
b
c= a' b
d= c' 0.5/
e= c+ d
per unit
Single -Family Residential
3.34
$357
$1,192
$6
$1,198
Multifamily Residential
2.48
$357
$885
$4
$890
Nonresidential Development
f
g =b *25%
h = f "g
i = h *0.5%
j = (h + i)/1,000
[5]
per bldg. sq. ft.
Retail/Commercial
2.22
$89
$198
$1
$0.20
Office
3.33
$89
$298
$1
$0.30
Industrial/Other
0.63
$89
$56
$0
$0.06
"unincorp_nexus_fee"
[1] See Table 7 for persons per unit assumptions.
[2] See Table 10.
[3] 0.5 percent of the facilities cost per unit/building sq. ft. is the cost of administering the fee program.
[4] Residential: Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
Nonresidential: Rounded to the nearest whole cent.
[5] Based on EPS analyses and supported by standards used by sources such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
US Department of Energy, and the San Diego Association of Governments.
Analysis assumes the following building square footage per employee.
Retail: 450
Office: 300
Industrial: 1,600
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
As shown in Table 11, the unincorporated CFF Development Impact Fee surcharge is $0.20 per
building square foot for retail/commercial, $0.30 per building square foot for office development
and $0.06 per building square foot for industrial/other development (rounded to the nearest
cent).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 s,o_„_,,ear
7, FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF CFF
The CFF has a direct impact on the feasibility of new residential and nonresidential development.
The CFF, along with development fees imposed by each incorporated city and other public
agencies such as school districts, typically range from 10 percent to 20 percent of the total
development costs of a project.
New development in incorporated cities and unincorporated County communities, such as
Mountain House, is competitive with other development projects in the Central Valley. Impact
fees in the County must remain competitive and not create a financial burden that causes
projects to be infeasible. This section analyzes the financial feasibility of a range of new
development project prototypes, given the current development impact fees in incorporated
cities and unincorporated communities in the County.
The financial feasibility of a development project to home builders and nonresidential commercial
builders can be assessed by examining the total infrastructure burden for each developable land
use. The Infrastructure Cost Burden Feasibility Tests are tools to determine the maximum
financial burden a development can carry and potentially maintain profitability.
Summary of Infrastructure Cost Burden Feasibility
Test
EPS has developed an infrastructure cost burden test for single-family residential projects.
Similar types of feasibility tests could be developed for commercial and industrial product types;
however, developing feasibility models for such a broad spectrum of projects is difficult,
considering the sensitivity of fees exacted on a development at plan detail. While this analysis
highly scrutinizes the Infrastructure Cost Burden Feasibility of single-family residential
development, this analysis also illustrates how the maximum justifiable CFF compares to
countywide facilities fees charged by competitive jurisdictions for retail, office, and industrial
development prototypes.
Single -Family Residential Infrastructure Cost Burden Test
The infrastructure cost burden to a project developer/builder can be used to assess the financial
feasibility for development of the finished products of a project. The total infrastructure cost
burden consists of all backbone infrastructure and public facilities costs allocated to the
development plus applicable fees, including building permit processing fees, County and regional
fees, and school district fees.
EPS uses the Infrastructure Cost Burden Feasibility Test as a performance indicator of project
feasibility for single-family residential development. In general, for each residential land use, if
the total cost burden per dwelling unit is less than 15 percent of the finished home price, then a
project is considered to be financially feasible:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 o„s,""I'll,' o- 1-"111-11-1 '11,11 ou„s,o_„_,,ear
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
• Residential units with a cost burden percentage below 15 percent clearly are financially
feasible.
• Residential units with a cost burden percentage between 15 and 20 percent may be
financially feasible.
• Residential units with a cost burden percentage above 20 percent may not be financially
feasible.
These feasibility benchmarks are based on EPS's experience in conducting financial feasibility
analyses for numerous projects throughout the Central Valley and Sacramento Region over the
last 2 decades. The 15 to 20 percent test is merely a tool that can be used—along with other
tools—as a general measure of financial feasibility.
This measure should not be taken to mean that if the threshold is exceeded, the project
definitely is infeasible. There are ways in which a development project can mitigate against a
high cost burden, such as reallocating some of the cost burden to other land uses. In addition,
the infrastructure costs will be fine-tuned and possibly reduced as engineering studies are
completed closer to actual construction. Also, future development projects could be required to
contribute to funding off-site costs currently assigned to a project, thus reducing that project's
obligation.
The analytical framework used to evaluate feasibility is based on the assumption a homebuilder
is able to generate a 10 percent return on total development costs, which EPS considers the
minimum threshold for feasibility. If the infrastructure burden is greater than 20 percent, it is
unlikely the builder will generate the required 10 percent to make the project feasible, unless
major cost reductions can be made in the land acquisition price or the cost of unit construction.
Similar feasibility tests can be performed for commercial and industrial product types, although
developing feasibility models for the many different types of commercial and industrial projects is
difficult. For these types of projects, EPS compares the maximum justifiable CFF to countywide
facility fees for nearby counties.
Single -Family Residential Infrastructure Burden Test Results
Table 12 demonstrates the impacts of the maximum justifiable CFF on new single-family
residential development in the County. This analysis is based on the infrastructure burden costs
to develop a 2,000 -square -foot, 3 -bedroom, 2 -bathroom home with a 450 -square -foot garage in
new development areas in the County.4
4 This analysis compares the feasibility of the net impacts of the maximum justifiable CFF. All
development areas in the County included in this analysis, except the City of Lodi, collect the current
CFF. This analysis is based on the assumption the maximum justifiable CFF will be collected on
development projects in all areas of the County.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33 o„s,""I'll,1 o- , ra ««<„,o.:,s,o=sos,o_„_l ear
W
Prepared by EPS 12/7/2017
Table 12
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Single -Family Residential Infrastructure Cost Burden Comparison
2,000 Sq. Ft. Home, 450 Sq. Ft. Garage, 3 Bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms, 8.0 Units per Net Acre
Feasibility Summary by Jurisdiction
Item
Escalon
Citywide
Lathrop
Stanford
Crossing
Lodi
Citywide
San Joaquin County
Manteca Ripon
Citywide Citywide
Stockton
Westside
Project A
Tracy
Plan C
Unincorporated
Mountain
House
Infrastructure Fee Burden [1]
City/County/Agency Fees per Unit
$54,162
$26,542
$16,119
$36,660
$63,624
$51,518
$54,060
$35,479
School District Mitigation per Unit
$6,720
$23,479
$6,720
$6,720
$6,720
$6,720
$15,724
$5,954
Estimated Bond Debt Infrastructure per Unit [2]
-
$57,168
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Existing Infrastructure Burden Costs per Unit
$60,882
$107,189
$22,839
$43,380
$70,344
$58,238
$69,784
$41,433
Net San Joaquin County CFF Increase per Unit
$385
$385
$2,434
$385
$385
$385
$385
$1,056
Potential Total Infrastructure Burden per Unit
$61,267
$107,574
$25,273
$43,765
$70,729
$58,623
$70,169
$42,489
Average New Home Sales Price [3]
$350,000
$405,000
$397,500
$387,500
$420,000
$337,500
$455,000
$515,000
Fee Burden as a % of Home Price (Existing)
7.4%
26.5%
5.M16.7
%
1 7.3 %
15.3%
8.0%
Fee Burden as a / of Home Price (Max. Justified CFF)
1 17.5 %
26.6 %
6.4 %
16.8 %
17.4 %
Key: Feasible - May Be Feasible
May Not Be Feasible
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
r
c
y $60,000
a
m
IL
$40,000
$20,000
$0
111iiiiiCity/County/Agency Fees per Unit 11iiiiiiSchool District Mitigation per Unit
ttiiiiii Estimated Bond Debt Infrastructure per Unit we Max. Justfiable San Joaquin CFF Net Increase
-4i--Fees as a % of Sales Price (Max. Justified CFF)
[1 ] This analysis evaluated potential Plan Area Development Impact Fees that may be applicable to the development areas shown above. Research concluded that none of the development
areas included in this analysis are subject to Plan Area Fees.
[2] Stanford Crossing: Estimated bond debt for infrastructure includes costs that overlap with City fees that lower the net bond debt per unit, but cannot be reconciled at this time.
[3] Data compiled from new home sales information attained from home builders sites, Gregory Group, and Zillow for homes built since 2015, and between 1,800 to 2,200 square feet in size.
"sfr sum"
28.0%
26.0%
24.0%
22.0%
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
DRAFT
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Detailed calculations of the information presented in Table 12 can be found in Appendix B of
this Nexus Study.
As shown in Table 12, the maximum justifiable CFF does not significantly impact the feasibility
of new residential development in the County. Depending on jurisdiction, the maximum
justifiable CFF has the potential to increase overall development impact fee burdens up to
approximately 0.6 percentage points. In addition, this analysis shows that the increase in
infrastructure burden caused by the maximum justifiable CFF is unlikely to make new single-
family residential development infeasible. These results are highly influenced by factors that are
described below:
• Proximity to Tri -Valley Area Valuation: In general, this analysis shows a correlation
between the proximity and access to the Tri -Valley area and Silicon Valley with higher home
sales prices. Development areas closer to the Interstate 580 corridor, with greater access to
job centers such as Livermore and the East Bay Area, demand a higher home sales price, as
shown in Tracy and Mountain House.
• New Home Pricing: This analysis is based on new home sales for homes constructed and
sold since 2015 for each analyzed development area. -5 Home sales prices in the analyzed
communities and throughout California have consistently been on the rise in the past
3 years. The results of the Infrastructure Cost Burden Feasibility test are reliant on new
home sales prices. These outcomes are sensitive to market forces that may reduce or
increase home sales prices.
Countywide Facility Fee Comparison
EPS compared the current and maximum justifiable CFF for single-family residential, multifamily
residential, retail, office, and industrial development in the County to countywide facility fees
charged by other counties in California. EPS's initial research included the counties listed below.
• Alameda
• Butte
• Contra Costa
• EI Dorado
• Fresno
• Kern
• Merced
• Monterey
• Placer
• Sacramento
• Santa Clara
• Solano
• Sonoma
• Stanislaus
• Tulare
• Ventura
• Yolo
5 New home sales information was retrieved in December 2016 from The Gregory Group—a real
estate research company that specializes in new home sales in California and other western US
states—residential real estate Web sites such as Zillow and Redfin, and new home community sales
Web sites.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 35
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
EPS only compared the existing and maximum justified CFF to other county capital/public facility
fees for those counties that had a similar fee that is justified by a nexus study. Of all the counties
shown above, only Butte, Stanislaus, and Solano Counties collect a countywide impact fee for
public or capital facilities that is based on a supportable nexus study.6
Table 13 compares the existing and maximum justified CFF to development areas in Butte,
Stanislaus and Solano counties. As shown in Table 13, the maximum justifiable CFF is well
within range of competitive locations for residential, retail, office, and industrial development.
Compared to the areas included in this analysis, the impacts of the maximum justifiable CFF may
not significantly impact development siting in the County.
6 Fresno County temporarily suspended the collection of its Countywide Public Facilities Impact Fee for
a three-year period from November 2012 to November 2015. Fresno County has passed year-to-year
resolutions that have continued to suspend the collection of such fees, and therefore has been
excluded from this comparison.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36 =— , ...... .....=-,,ear
Table 13
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Countywide CFF Comparison - FY 2017-2018
DRAFT
Page 1 of 2
San Joaquin County
Butte County
Stanislaus County
Solano County
Incorporated Cities
Unincorporated
Area
Unincorp.
EI Medio Fire
Fee Area 1
Fee Area 2
Fee Area 3
Fee Area 1
Fee Area 2
Fee Area 3
Maximum
Maximum
County [1]
District [2]
Fee per Unit Current Justified
Current
Justified
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Single -Family Residential $2,049 $2,434
$2,576
$3,632
$4,966
$4,286
$9,429
$7,559
$7,631
$8,962
$9,316
$7,349
Multifamily Residential $1,756 $1,807
$2,210
$2,697
$3,804
$3,272
$6,203
$4,898
$4,949
$6,726
$7,424
$5,471
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000 -
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
Incorp. Cities - Incorp. Cities - Unincorp. Area - Unincorp. Area - Unincorp. EI Medio Fire F
Current Max. Justified Current Max. Justified County [1] District [2]
San Joaquin San Joaquin San Joaquin San Joaquin Butte County Butte County
County County County County
■ Single -Family Residential ■ Multifamily Residential
Fee Area 1 Fee Area 2 Fee Area 3 Fee Area 1 Fee Area 2 Fee Area 3
[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Stanislaus Stanislaus Stanislaus Solano Solano Solano
County County County County County County
Footnotes on Page 2.
37
Prepared by EPS 9/6/2017
Footnotes on Page 2.
37
Prepared by EPS 9/6/2017
Table 13
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Countywide CFF Comparison - FY 2017-2018
DRAFT
Page 2 of 2
San Joaquin County Butte County Stanislaus County Solano County
Incorporated Cities Unincorporated Area Unincorp. EI Medio Fire Fee Area 1 Fee Area 2 Fee Area 3 Fee Area 1 Fee Area 2 Fee Area 3
Maximum Maximum County [1] District [2]
Fee per 1,000 Bldg. Sq. Ft. Current Justified Current Justified [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Retail [9]
$470
$400
$590
$600
$2,130
$1,930
$3,663
$3,358
$3,358
$859
$983
$859
Office
$410
$610
$510
$910
$2,530
$2,260
$4,598
$4,236
$4,236
$1,430
$1,637
$519
Industrial [10]
$230
$110
$290
$170
$1,270
$1,180
$2,132
$2,086
$2,086
$181
$208
$181
$5,000
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
Incorp. Cities -
Incorp. Cities - Unincorp. Area -
Unincorp. Area - Unincorp.
EI Medio Fire
Fee Area 1 Fee Area 2
Fee Area 3
Fee Area 1
Fee Area 2 Fee Area 3
Current
Max. Justified Current
Max. Justified County [1]
District [2]
[3] [4]
[5]
[6]
[7] [8]
San Joaquin
San Joaquin San Joaquin
San Joaquin Butte County
Butte County
Stanislaus Stanislaus
Stanislaus
Solano
Solano Solano
County
County County
County
County County
County
County
County County
■ Retail ■ Office Industrial
Source: San Joaquin County; Butte County; Stanislaus County; Solano County; EPS.
[1] Butte County does not collect fees for countywide facilities from development within the five incorporated cities in the County.
[2] Unincorporated Butte County development in EI Medio Fire District does not pay fees for Butte County Fire Department facilities, which is reflected by a lower PFF for this area.
[3] Includes unincorporated area of Stanislaus County.
[4] Includes cities of Turlock, Oakdale, Newman, and Riverbank.
[5] Includes cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Patterson and Waterford.
[6] Includes incorporated and unincorporated areas of Solano, excluding the City of Benicia and areas within the Dixon Public Library District, which includes City of Dixon.
[7] Includes the unincorporated area of Solano County within Dixon Public Library District and City of Dixon.
[8] Includes the City of Benicia.
[9] Stanislaus County: Commercial Shopping Center rate.
[10] Stanislaus County: Industrial Distribution rate.
Solano County: Industrial Warehouse/Distribution rate.
Prepared by EPS 9/6/2017
� �oew�n counH recn swuuKFvm+o-+nrexx,. vrepere ���
"cff comp"
38
APPENDICES:
Appendix A: County Growth Detail
Appendix B: Single -Family Residential
—� Development Infrastructure
Burden Cost Detail
�� ' ' 1 , ��
County Growth Detail
Table A-1 County Growth by Community.........................................A-1
■
DRAFT
Table A-1
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
County Growth by Community
Item
2015
2035
Growth
Percentage
Amount of Total
Population
Incorporated Cities
Escalon
7,369
8,501
1,132
0.5%
Lathrop
23,107
50,007
26,900
12.3%
Lodi
65,543
82,626
17,083
7.8%
Manteca
71,831
95,930
24,099
11.0%
Ripon
15,359
20,777
5,418
2.5%
Stockton
309,919
401,961
92,042
42.0%
Tracy
88,707
118,130
29,423
13.4%
Subtotal Incorporated Cities
581,835
777,932
196,097
89.5%
Unincorporated Communities
146,809
169,903
23,094
10.5%
Total
728,644
947,835
219,191
100.0%
Employment
Incorporated Cities
Escalon
1,838
2,255
417
0.6%
Lathrop
5,984
10,756
4,772
7.3%
Lodi
23,605
29,858
6,253
9.6%
Manteca
16,231
20,968
4,737
7.3%
Ripon
3,653
4,802
1,149
1.8%
Stockton
112,225
144,228
32,003
49.2%
Tracy
21,702
28,328
6,626
10.2%
Subtotal Incorporated Cities
185,238
241,195
55,957
86.0%
Unincorporated Communities
49,621
58,723
9,102
14.0%
Total
234,859
299,918
65,059
100.0%
"unincorp_growth"
Source: Eberhardt.
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017
A-1
�Wff , rol M ;3
Single -Family Residential Development
Infrastructure Burden Cost Detail
Table B-1 City/County/Agency Development Impact Fees (2 pages) .... B-1
(to, Table B-2 School Impact Fees ........................................................ B-3
Table B-3 Special Taxes and Assessments per Unit ............................ B-4
Table B-1
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Single -Family Residential Infrastructure Cost Burden Comparison
2,000 Sq. Ft. Home, 450 Sq. Ft. Garage, 3 Bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms, 8.0 Units per Net Acre
City/County/Agency Development Impact Fees [1]
DRAFT
Page 1 of 2
City/County/Agency Development Impact Fees
per Unit: These are fees charged by the City, County, or
Other Agency and do not include fees for a special plan area.
Escalon
Citywide
Lathrop
Stanford
Crossing
Lodi
Citywide
San Joaquin County
Manteca Ripon
Citywide Citywide
Stockton
Westside
Project A
Tracy
Plan C
Unincorporated
Mountain
House
Current as of
Sep -16
Sep -16
Sep -16
Sep -16
Sep -16
Sep -16
Sep -16
Sep -16
CITY/COUNTY/AGENCY FEES PER UNIT [2]
Processing Fees per Unit
Building Permit [3]
$2,046
$1,652
$2,821
$1,084
$1,602
$2,050
$2,289
$2,824
Plan Check [3]
$1,178
$1,156
$1,693
$171
$1,041
$861
$1,488
$1,836
Energy Plan Check
$160
$413
$282
-
-
-
-
$424
Technology Surcharge
-
-
-
$158
$154
-
$169
Seismic/Strong Motion
$32
$32
$32
$32
$32
$32
$36
$32
California Building Standards Commission Fee
$10
$10
$10
$10
$10
$10
$11
$10
Fire Review Fee [3]
$762
$1,695
$1,128
$518
-
$528
$370
$1,836
Disabled Access Plan Check
-
$248
$282
-
-
-
-
Other Building Permit or Processing Fees
-
-
-
$963
-
$1,222
-
$603
Total Processing Fees per Unit
$4,188
$5,205
$89248
$29777
$2,843
$4,855
$4,194
$7,733
Development Impact Fees per Unit
Sewer [4]
$5,998
-
$1,152
$7,370
$4,127
$5,486
$9,132
-
Water
$9,391
$6,854
$1,563
$7,600
$9,957
$11,759
$11,998
$796
Traffic
$6,170
$3,597
$289
$2,723
$7,088
$13,803
$5,186
$8,678
Regional Traffic
$3,223
$3,223
$3,223
$3,223
$3,223
$3,336
$3,223
$3,223
Transit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Drainage [5]
$3,804
$942
$2,638
$4,469
Parks - Neighborhood
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Parks - Citywide
$11,569
$5,805
$1,584
$2,447
$14,174
$2,896
$7,557
$6,360
Library
$525
-
-
-
$471
$934
-
$825
Fire
-
$620
$157
$540
$2,942
$808
-
-
Police
$2,011
-
$307
-
$540
$612
$1,349
$1,979
In -Lieu Flood Protection
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Habitat/Greenbelt Preservation [6]
$976
-
$976
$976
$976
$1,950
$1,950
$1,950
Agricultural Land Mitigation
-
$485
-
$330
-
$1,857
-
$1,084
Affordable Housing
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Public Facilities/Capital Facilities
$1,697
$3,236
$251
$4,433
$2,660
$981
$2,953
-
Other General Fees/One-Time Taxes
$2,562
-
$369
$1,250
$9,935
$194
-
$275
Countywide Fees [7]
$2,049
$2,049
-
$2,049
$2,049
$2,049
$2,049
$2,576
City of Lathrop CFF Creditable Costs [8]
-
($4,532)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Development Impact Fees per Unit
$49,975
$21,337
$9,871
$33,883
$605781
$46,662
$49,866
$275746
TOTAL CITY/COUNTY/AGENCY FEES PER UNIT
$54,162
$26,542
$165119
$36,660
$635624
$515518
$54,060
$355479
Prepared by EPS 12/7/2017
Table B-1
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Single -Family Residential Infrastructure Cost Burden Comparison
2,000 Sq. Ft. Home, 450 Sq. Ft. Garage, 3 Bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms, 8.0 Units per Net Acre
City/County/Agency Development Impact Fees [1]
DRAFT
Page 2 of 2
San Joaquin County
City/County/Agency Development Impact Fees Escalon Lathrop Lodi Manteca Ripon Stockton Tracy
per Unit: These are fees charged by the City, County, or Stanford Westside
Other Agency and do not include fees for a special plan area. Citywide Crossing Citywide Citywide Citywide Project A Plan C
Unincorporated
Mountain
House
Plan Area Fees per Unit - - - - - - -
-
School District Fees per Unit $6,720 $23,479 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $15,724
$5,954
Estimated Bond Debt (Infrastructure) per Unit - $57,168 - - - - -
-
Total Infrastructure Burden (City, County, Schools and
Plan Area Fees, and Estimated Bond Debt) per Unit $60,882 $107,189 $22,839 $43,380 $70,344 $58,238 $69,784
$41,433
"sfr impact"
[1] Amounts shown in this table are not rounded, therefore, totals may not sum as a result.
[2] Processing fees exclude mechanical, electrical, plumbing and other similar review fees.
[3] Escalon: Building permit, plan check, and fire review fees could not be obtained from City staff. This analysis assumes these fees to be the average of all other comparison areas.
[4] Manteca: Assumes Sewer Zone 24.
N Mountain House: Capital reimbursement to developer may be required based upon size of site acquired.
Tracy: Assumes east conveyance.
[5] Escalon: Assumes Drainage Area 11 -Future.
Manteca: Assumes Storm Drainage Zone 36.
Lodi: Drainage facilities in new growth area are to be funded by the developer. No fee is established in new growth areas.
Mountain House: Capital reimbursement to developer may be required based upon size of site acquired.
Tracy: Assumes South MacArthur Sub -Basin.
[6] Lathrop: San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) Mitigation Fee has been paid.
Escalon, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon: SJMSCP collected at Multi -Purpose Open Space rate ($7,807 per acre).
Stockton, Tracy and Mountain House: SJMSCP collected at Agricultural rate ($15,596 per acre).
All San Joaquin County Projects: Assumes "Natural" habitat type for San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan Development Fee.
[7] The Countywide Fee is for FY 2017-18. All other fees in this table are for FY 2016-17. Lodi: The City of Lodi does not collect the County of San Joaquin CFF.
[8] Reflects the allocation of City of Lathrop CFF creditable costs for facility improvements by land use, per the Central Lathrop Specific Plan (Stanford Crossing development area)
Development Agreement, dated December 6, 2016.
Prepared by EPS 12/7/2017
Table B-2
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Single -Family Residential Infrastructure Cost Burden Comparison
21000 Sq. Ft. Home, 450 Sq. Ft. Garage, 3 Bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms, 8.0 Units per Net Acre
School Impact Fees
Estimated School Mitigation per Unit
Current as of
School District
A. Annual School Mello -Roos CFD Taxes
B. Present Value of School CFD Tax
C. School Fee per Sq. Ft.:
Level 1 Fees
w Level 2 (or 3) SB50 Fee
Mitigation Agreement
D. Total School Fee
Stirling Fee
Level 2 (or 3) SB50 Fee
Mitigation Agreement
DRAFT
$6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 - -
- - - - - - $15,724 $5,954
E. Total School Mitigation (B+D) $6,720 $23,479 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $15,724 $5,954
"sfr school"
Prepared by EPS 812312017
San Joaquin County
Escalon
Lathrop
Lodi
Manteca
Ripon
Stockton
Tracy
Unincorporated
Stanford
Westside
Mountain
Citywide
Crossing
Citywide
Citywide
Citywide
Project A
Plan C
House
Sep -16
Sep -16
Sep -16
Sep -16
Sep -16
Sep -16
Sep -16
Sep -16
Escalon
Manteca
Lodi
Manteca
Ripon
Lodi
Tracy
Lammersville
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
$1,638
$16,759
$3.36
$3.36
$3.36
$3.36
$3.36
$3.36
$6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 - -
- - - - - - $15,724 $5,954
E. Total School Mitigation (B+D) $6,720 $23,479 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $15,724 $5,954
"sfr school"
Prepared by EPS 812312017
DRAFT
Table B-3
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Single -Family Residential Infrastructure Cost Burden Comparison
21000 Sq. Ft. Home, 450 Sq. Ft. Garage, 3 Bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms, 8.0 Units per Net Acre
Special Taxes and Assessments per Unit
San Joaquin County
Escalon
Lathrop Lodi Manteca Ripon Stockton
Tracy Unincorporated
Special Taxes and Assessments per Unit
Stanford Westside
Mountain
for Infrastructure [1] Citywide
Crossing Citywide Citywide Citywide Project A
Plan C House
Current as of
Annual Special Taxes and Assessments per Unit
Infrastructure CFD
$4,876
Infrastructure Assessment District
-
Total Annual Taxes and Assessments -
$4,876 - - - -
- -
Estimated Bond Debt of Special Taxes
and Assessments
Infrastructure CFD
$57,168
Infrastructure Assessment District
-
Total Estimated Bond Debt -
$57,168 - - - -
- -
"sfr tax"
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017
ATTACHMENT 2
Comments/Responses from CFF Nexus Study Meeting —12/11/17
Attendees: City of Lathrop (Sandra Frias, Vanessa Portillo), City of Stockton (Ariana Ayala), BIA (John
Beckman), SJ Partnership (Brad Ecker), Mountain House CSD (Ed Pattison, Sarah Ragsdale), CAO (Rod
Kawano, Sandy Regalo, Les Tyler).
Question/Comment: Countywide average Persons Per Unit (PPU) of 3.34 for residential -single
family seems high. The group discussed how PPU probably differs between the different
communities. For example, Mountain House Community Services District (MHCSD) uses a PPU
figure of about 4 for its development fees.
Response: PPU was not developed for each city/community as part of this study. Attached for
reference (Attachment A) is Census info used by EPS to determine PPU.
Question/Comment: MHCSD cost burden comparison amount is probably low as it doesn't
include the various utility infrastructure costs.
Response: Acknowledged. There will be differences between communities depending on specific
infrastructure funding mechanisms that may not be reflected in the study.
Question/Comment: How are other counties without facility fees able to pay for the growth -
related portion of facilities?
Response: Undetermined. Some of the counties that do not have such fees may not be
anticipating significant growth, so facility projects could be based more on replacement needs
than growth -related. As a result, they may be using County discretionary revenue or program -
specific funds such as Federal, State, or grant funds.
Question/Comment: MHCSD pays County departments to provide certain services. By charging
projects within their jurisdiction the unincorporated surcharge, are the projects being "double -
charged"?
Response: Based on inquiries with the County departments (Public Works, Community
Development), it appears the services provided to MHCSD are generally consistent with those
provided to other unincorporated areas, although occasionally there may be specific requests
that are handled on a case-by-case basis.
Following is a summary breakdown of the unincorporated surcharge methodology described on
attached slides 13-15 (Attachment B):
1) Unincorporated Surcharge Portion of Overall CFF = $8,233,386 (5.03% of $163,771,943)
2) Unincorporated Facilities Users = 23,086 (new residents x 10.536% unincorporated resident
growth % = 21,106 + new employees x 0.25 x 13.990% unincorporated employee growth % _
1,980)
3) Allocated Cost Per User = $357 ($8,233,386/23,086)
4) Maximum Allowable CFF calculation on Slide 15 shows PPU or Employee per 1,000 square feet
multiplied by $357 or $89 ($357 x 0.25), plus 0.5% admin fee
Question/Comment: Why do the maximum amounts reflect such a large change in the non-
residential categories? The group discussed that it might be a result of differences in the
employee space standard amounts between the initial nexus study and the current update.
Response: Correct, the large differences in the non-residential amounts are primarily based on
changes in the employee space standards that have occurred since the initial nexus study was
completed. The employee per 1,000 square feet standards were based on EPS' experience and
analysis of applicable rates for San Joaquin County.
Question/Comment: In Appendix A-1, what proportion of the unincorporated growth reflects
Mountain House vs the rest of the unincorporated area?
Response: Unknown. A breakdown of unincorporated growth by community was not available
for the study.
Attachment A
f isXinder
B25032 I TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Universe: Occupied housing units
2011-2015 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates
Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey
website in the Data and Documentation section.
Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community
Survey website in the Methodology section.
Tell us what you think. Provide feedback to help make American Community Survey data more useful for you.
Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population
Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and
estimates of housing units for states and counties.
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is
represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted
roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of
error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to
nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these
tables.
While the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the
1 of 2 01/09/2018
San Joaquin County, California
Estimate Margin of Error
Total:
219,073
+/-1,110
Owner -occupied housing units:
124,087
+/-1,583
1, detached
114,860
+/-1,455
1, attached
3,041
+/-290
2
276
+/-149
3 or 4
412
+/-147
5 to 9
.371
+/-141
10 to 19
93
+/-36
20 to 49
71
+/-44
50 or more
187
+/-67
Mobile home
4,486
+/-402
Boat, RV, van, etc.
290
+/-92
Renter -occupied housing units:
94,986
+/-1,600
1, detached
47,382
+/-1,276
1, attached
8,254
+/-500
2
3,772
+/-404
3 or 4
8,318
+/-645
5 to 9
8,275
+/-601
10 to 19
5,582
+/-529
20 to 49
3,988
+/-384
50 or more
6,512
+/-463
Mobile home
2,827
+/-402
Boat, RV, van, etc.
76
+/-55
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is
represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted
roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of
error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to
nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these
tables.
While the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the
1 of 2 01/09/2018
principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities.
Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As
a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates
Explanation of Symbols:
1. An'**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to
compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.
2. An -' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an
estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an
open-ended distribution.
3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.
4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.
5. An'***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A
statistical test is not appropriate.
6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.
7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of
sample cases is too small.
8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.
i t
ac-tFi*nder _ -�, i
rh11SL
B25033 I TOTAL POPULATION IN OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Universe: Total population in occupied housing units
2011-2015 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates
Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey
website in the Data and Documentation section.
Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community
Survey website in the Methodology section.
Tell us what you think. Provide feedback to help make American Community Survey data more useful for you.
Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population
Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and
estimates of housing units for states and counties.
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is
represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted
roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of
error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to
nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these
tables.
While the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in
ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities.
Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As
a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates
Explanation of Symbols:
1 of 2 01/09/2018
San Joaquin „County,
Estimate
California,
Margin of Error
I
Total:
- --------- -
693,001
+/-1,085
Owner occupied.
386,119,�+1-5,716
N
i 1 detached or attached
372,083
+/-5,381
2 to 4
1,511
+/-574
5 or more
1,599
+/-582
Mobile home
10,462
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,�,,,�,,,�,,,,,,,,,,,,_„�.v�.�.,,,,,,,,,,�,,,,,�.,,,F,,,,,,,,,,_„_,,,,,,,,,�,,,,,,,.,,,�
Boat, RV, �van, etc.
464,_+/-161
Renter occupied:
306,882
+/-5,738 }
1, detached or attached
,,,,,,,,,,.,------,,,,,,.,,..,.,..,,,.,,._,
206,711
+/-4,994
2 to 4
34,338
! +/-2,536
5 or more
567485
+/-2,634
Mobile home9,162
i +/-1,399
Boat,„RV�„van, etc.,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,I,,,,,,,..-.,,,.,,,,,,,-----------,,.,,,,,,,,_,,,,,186,,..h+/-160
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is
represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted
roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of
error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to
nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these
tables.
While the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in
ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities.
Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As
a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates
Explanation of Symbols:
1 of 2 01/09/2018
1. An'**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to
compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.
2. An -' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an
estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an
open-ended distribution.
3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.
4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.
5. An***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A
statistical test is not appropriate.
6. An'*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.
7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of
sample cases is too small.
8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.
El
N i
O O
_ x N
s s
O O
L L _
O LL
O =
O
Q •cm
Q
v N I.L
cn
O _O
NW E •�
cr
W A +:
Z Z LO
r
0
o s
s O
0
t
L
O
•� O
O
o p�
tD �
M
O X
r Ln
K N
s O
X
O
En O
Q
O
Q
`r Q
E
CD
N
NW E
i2� W
Z
L
cu
LL
ice+
L
L
V
D
W
m
4-1
c� o
MIT o0
N r
69)- 649�
LO LO
N N
60.69-
xx
Nr 00
Cv? 4'
N
Q r r
� Q r
0 00
6e)- 44)-
11 II II
N M V-
N m m
Q Q r
Nt(D TM
61% 60 -
II II II
r � r
Oo Co Oo
qr-"T� qr�
619� 60- 60-
x x
N CY3 C')
N C1r3 t4
N C6 6
c
0
0L
om
O
LO
M
LL
LM
LL
am
O y
o
o 0
0
G Q
2
c� o
MIT o0
N r
69)- 649�
LO LO
N N
60.69-
xx
Nr 00
Cv? 4'
N
Q r r
� Q r
0 00
6e)- 44)-
11 II II
N M V-
N m m
Q Q r
Nt(D TM
61% 60 -
II II II
r � r
Oo Co Oo
qr-"T� qr�
619� 60- 60-
x x
N CY3 C')
N C1r3 t4
N C6 6
a
0o0 0 QW
mm N M o
0o 0 040
0
ta to
c� d- +o
60- 60 - 60- 60- 6c) -
N LO 0o 00 w
M 0o m o LO
,rmm 00 � N �
r to!) -to)-
Q9.
11 II II II II
r4.__ 1'1.�m 0) 0)
�LO 00 0000 �
co co 6c)-
09�-
xx
x
x
x -
00N
mco
C"?
qq�
N
Cl?
(R
to
N
N
co
U
O'
Q z
o �
Z U
Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
Stockton, CA
Dear Board Members:
9:00 a.m. — Public Hearing to Consider Adjustment of the County Facilities Fee
Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and Accept Report for Fiscal Year 2021-2022
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Conduct a public hearing to consider the annual adjustment of the County
Facilities Fee (CFF) schedule for fiscal year 2022-2023; and
2. Accept and file the CFF Program Annual Report for fiscal year 2021-2022.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
On June 14, 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted the CFF Program (Ordinance No.
4252 and Resolution No. R-05-314) in conformance with Government Code Section
66000 et seq. The primary purpose of the CFF is to "finance region -serving capital
facilities located throughout the County that are used by the residents and businesses
within each city as well as the unincorporated area and to assure that new development
pays its proportional share for these improvements." In addition, in the unincorporated
County, a fee surcharge is collected that will "contribute to the development of vital
County facilities serving the needs of the unincorporated area only."
Fees collected from the CFF Program can be used to offset only the growth -related
portion of the cost of County regional and unincorporated area public facilities. Some of
the examples of capital facilities that could fall into the broad categories include:
1) Regional Projects — Expansion of Jail Facilities, Probation/Juvenile Hall Expansion,
Law and Justice Facilities, General Government Facilities (Administration Building); and
2) Unincorporated Projects — Sheriff's Office expansion, including Animal Services,
Public Works expansion, and Community Development Department expansion.
CFF Program fees are collected in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit by
the County and those cities with current Master Annexation Agreements listed in the
following table along with the corresponding agreement expiration date. The City of Lodi
ceased collection of the fees in June 2012, with the expiration of the Master Annexation
Agreement.
Master Annexation Agreements
(City/Expiration Date)
Escalon
July 2026
Ripon
October 2036
Lathrop
July 2029
Stockton
July 2025
Manteca
December 2028
Tracy
July 2026
CFF Schedule - Annual Adjustment
The Countywide collection of CFF Program fees began on August 15, 2005. On
March 20, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved the CFF Nexus Study Update
documenting the relationship between new development and the need for additional or
larger County facilities and authorized implementation of a revised fee schedule,
effective April 2, 2018 (B-18-179). Although CFF amounts automatically adjust for
inflation annually based on the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI), the Nexus
Study had not been updated since the fees were originally adopted in 2005.
Annual inflationary adjustments are to ensure CFF fees collected are adequate to offset
the costs of future growth -related facility needs. The building cost index produced by
Engineering News Record provides the basis for the CCCI and reflects cost trends for
construction trade labor and materials in the California market. Over the prior year, the
CCCI changed from 7712 to 8604, an 11.57% increase. This is a significant increase,
especially when compared to the average annual increase for the preceding five-year
period of 4.38% and is reflective of costs impacted by the increase in demand for
construction services and supply chain disruptions related to the 2019 Novel
Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
The recommended adjustments to the fiscal year 2022-2023 CFF schedule are shown
in the following table.
Regional and Unincorporated Fees
Residential
Single Family
Multi Family
Non- Residential
Retail Commercial
Commercial Office
Industrial
Count
CFF - Regional CFF - Unincorporated County Total
Current Adjusted Current Adjusted Current Adjusted
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit
$2,911 $3,249 $1,431 $1,597 $4,342 $4,846
$2,158 $2,408 $1,063 $1,186 $3,221 $3,594
Per SgFt Per SgFt Per SgFt
$0.48 $0.54 $0.22 $0.24 $0.70 $0.78
$0.72 $0.80 $0.36 $0.40 $1.08 $1.20
$0.13 $0.15 $0.07 $0.08 $0.20 $0.23
CFF Program - Annual Report
A specific requirement of the enabling legislation is the publication and review of an
annual report. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, the CFF Program Annual
Report for 2021-2022 was filed with the Clerk of the Board for public review on October
3, 2022, at least 15 days prior to today's Board meeting, as required (attached).
Revenues and interest posted to the CFF Program fund during the current reporting
period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 totaled $9,313,085.18 and $191,822,
respectively. In 2021-2022, there was an inter -fund transfer totaling $1,017,466 for the
portion of debt service payments related to growth for the County Administration
Building project allocated to the CFF Program that will continue through 2032. The net
increase in fund balance for the current reporting period was $8,487,441.
The table below displays total revenues and total expenses for the CFF Program from
2005-2006 through 2021-2022.
County Facilities Fee Program Revenues and Expenses
Fiscal
Fee
Total
Expenses/
Revenues Over
Year
Collection
Interest
Revenues
Transfers
Expenses
2005-06
$3,939,717
$31,218
$3,970,935
$0
$3,970,935
2006-07
4,912,044
261,952
5,173,996
0
5,173,996
2007-08
3,883,512
503,117
4,386,629
(1,322,675)
3,063,954
2008-09
2,247,743
312,228
2,559,971
(1,413,099)
1,146,872
2009-10
1,468,720
104,839
1,573,559
(1,362,156)
211,403
2010-11
1,678,134
81,589
1,759,723
(1,413,099)
346,624
2011-12
1,669,505
51,058
1,720,563
(1,434,805)
285,758
2012-13
2,812,770
36,993
2,849,763
(1,413,099)
1,436,664
2013-14
2,017,391
40,488
2,057,879
(1,413,099)
644,780
2014-15
2,947,019
46,888
2,993,907
(1,216,324)
1,777,583
2015-16
3,827,723
92,213
3,919,936
(1,412,577)
2,507,359
2016-17
4,822,748
163,048
4,985,796
(1,402,307)
3,583,488
2017-18
7,931,465
330,754
8,262,219
(1,467,695)
6,794,524
2018-19
8,183,659
632,654
8,816,313
(1,411,383)
7,404,930
2019-20
8,132,776
806,500
8,939,276
(1,715,043)
7,224,233
2020-21
10,529,768
360,376
10,890,144
(1,624,869)
9,265,275
2021-22
9,313,085
191,822
9,504,907
(1,017,466)
8,487,441
Total
$80,317,779
$4,047,737
$84,365,516
($21,039,696)
$63,325,820
The fund balance as of June 30, 2022 was $63,325,820. The Annual Report includes a
priority project list as of fiscal year 2022-2023.
FISCAL IMPACT
Annual inflationary adjustments to the CFF fee schedule ensure CFF revenues
collected are sufficient to offset the growth -related facility needs of the County.
The acceptance of the 2021-2022 Annual Report has no fiscal impact beyond staff time
for preparation of this report.
Since the inception of the Program in 2005-2006, revenues, interest, and
expenditures/transfers through 2021-2022, totaling $84,365,516, $4,047,737, and
$21,039,696, respectively, have been posted to the CFF fund.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING APPROVAL
In accordance with Government Code Section 66019, the fee increase shall be effective
no earlier than 60 days following the final action of the Board of Supervisors. The
County Administrator's Office will forward copies of the fiscal year 2021-2022 CFF
Annual Report and the adjusted fiscal year 2022-2023 CFF fee schedule, to become
effective January 1, 2023, to each of the cities in San Joaquin County and the Building
Industry Association (BIA) of the Greater Valley.
Very truly yours,
Jerome C. Wilverding
County Administrator
JW:AB
Attachment: County Facilities Fee Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2021-2022
c: Auditor -Controller
Community Development
County Counsel
General Services
City Managers
BIA of the Greater Valley
Board Clerk for Agenda 10/18/22
BL10-03
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION
R-22-186
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY
FACILITIES FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2023
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted the County Facilities
Fee (CFF) Program (Ordinance No. 4252 and Resolution No. R-05-314) in conformance with
Government Code Section 66000 et seq;
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the CFF is to "finance region -serving capital
facilities located throughout the County that are used by the residents and businesses within each
city as well as the unincorporated area and to assure that new development pays its proportional
share for these improvements." In addition, in the unincorporated County, a fee surcharge is
collected that will "contribute to the development of vital County facilities serving the needs of
the unincorporated area only;"
WHEREAS, fees collected from the CFF Program can be used to offset only the growth -
related portion of the cost of County regional and unincorporated area public facilities;
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved the CFF Nexus
Study Update documenting the relationship between new development and the need for
additional or larger County facilities and authorized implementation of a revised fee schedule,
effective April 2, 2018 (B-18-179);
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Ordinance, the CFF fee schedule is to be automatically
adjusted for inflation annually, based upon changes to the California Construction Cost Index;
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66018 requires local agencies to hold a public
hearing, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled
meeting prior to approving an increase in an existing fee, and to publish notice of the time and
place of the meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2022, the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing
to consider the annual adjustment of the CFF fee schedule, effective January 1, 2023;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of
San Joaquin hereby authorizes implementation of a revised CFF fee schedule, effective January
1, 2023, as follows:
Resolution Template 12/2020
CFF Categories
Regional
(incorporated)
Unincorporated
Surcharge
Unincorporated
Residential
Single Family per unit
$3,249 +
$1,597 =
$4,846
Multi -Family (per unit
$2,408 +
$1,186 =
$3,594
Non -Residential
Retail/Commercial(per square foot
$0.54 +
$0.24 =
$0.78
Office(per square foot
$0.80 +
$0.40 =
$1.20
Industrial/Other(per square foot
$0.15 +
$0.08 =
$0.23
PASSED AND ADOPTED October 18, 2022 , by the following vote of the
Board of Supervisors, to wit:
AYES: Villapudua, Miller, Patti, Rickman, Winn
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: RACHEL DeBORD
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of San Joaquin Pqu�M
State of California = i
Q:
By - che"1 D B rd
Resolution Template 12/2020
Charles Winn
CHARLES WINN
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of San Joaquin
State of California
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING
THE COLLECTION OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY FACILITIES FEES
WHEREAS, in 2005, the City Council of the City of Lodi adopted Chapter 15.66 of the
Lodi Municipal Code ("LMC"), which established the authority for collection of County Facilities
Fees for new development pursuant to the San Joaquin County ("County") Facilities Fee ("CFF")
Schedule within the City of Lodi; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2005, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors adopted
the CFF Program in conformance with Government Code Section 66000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the CFF Program is to "finance region -serving capital
facilities located throughout the County that are used by the residents and businesses within
each city as well as the unincorporated area and to assure that new development pays its
proportional share for these improvements;" and
WHEREAS, fees collected from the CFF Program can be used to offset only the growth -
related portion of the cost of County regional and unincorporated area public facilities; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors approved the CFF
Nexus Study Update documenting the relationship between new development and the need for
additional or larger County facilities and authorized implementation of a revised fee schedule,
effective April 2, 2018; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2022, the County Board of Supervisors reviewed and
approved the County's 2021-2022 CFF Annual Report and adjusted the 2022-2023 CFF fee
schedule, to become effective January 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City's authority to collect the CFF granted in LMC Chapter 15.66 was
repealed when the prior Master Annexation Agreement between the City and the County
expired in June 2012; and
WHEREAS, because of the recent update to the City's Municipal Service Review
("MSR") and Sphere of Influence ("SOI"), the City has renegotiated an agreement with the
County regarding annexations which was approved on January 4, 2023, and these actions led
the City to adopt an ordinance on January 18, 2023, reenacting LMC Chapter 15.66 to
reestablish the collection of CFF fees; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the reenacted LMC Chapter 15.66, the City will
adopt the County's CFF Program and the corresponding fee schedule, which is to be
automatically adjusted for inflation annually, based upon changes to the California Construction
Cost Index; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66018 requires local agencies to hold a public
hearing, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly -scheduled
meeting prior to approving an increase in an existing fee, and to publish notice of the time and
place of the meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2023, the City Council of the City of Lodi conducted a public
hearing to consider the adoption and implementation of the County CFF Nexus Study and the
corresponding 2022-2023 CFF fee schedule, with an effective date of January 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the CFF Program fees listed in the 2022-2023 fee schedule are divided into
residential and non-residential categories, as shown in the table below:
CFF Categories
Incorporated
Areas
Residential
Single Family (per unit
$3,249
Multi -Family er unit
$2,408
Non -Residential
Retail/Commercial(per s uare foot)
$0.54
Office(per square foot
Industrial/Other(per square foot)
$0.80
$0.15
WHEREAS, the CFF Program and the proposed 2022-2023 fee schedule were available
for public inspection and review in the office of the City Clerk for more than ten days prior to the
date of this Public Hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the City Council of the
City of Lodi as follows:
1. The City has the authority to collect a capital facility fee pursuant to California
Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq. in accordance with City ordinance adoption of
the reenacted Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 15.66, once it becomes effective.
2. The City provided the statutory notice, held a public hearing, and maintained
documentation of the proposed CFF Program and the 2022-2023 fee schedule for public
inspection and review in the office of the City Clerk for more than ten days prior to the
date of this Public Hearing.
3. The City Council hereby declares that the purposes and uses of the CFF Program fees,
and the determination that there is reasonable relationship between the fees' uses and
the type of region -serving capital facilities in which the fees are imposed, are all
established in the San Joaquin County CFF Nexus Study, the corresponding annual
review, and the 2022-2023 CFF fee schedule update effective January 1, 2023, and
remain valid, and the City Council therefore finds and adopts such determinations.
4. The Lodi City Council hereby approves and adopts the proposed San Joaquin County
Facilities 2022-2023 Fee Schedule.
5. This Resolution and the findings and Fees adopted herein shall take effect concurrently
with the effective date of the reenacted Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 15.66, which shall
occur thirty (30) days after adoption of Ordinance 2014.
Dated: January 18, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2023-20 was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held January 18, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Craig, Khan, and Nakanishi
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Bregman and Mayor Hothi
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
GUkd�.
OLIVIA NASHED
City Clerk
2023-20
Presentation to City Council
to Adopt and Implement Collection of
San Joaquin County
Facilities Fees
January 18, 2023
San Joaquin County Facilities Fees (CFF) Collection
• 2005: City began collection of CFF for County.
• 2012: Master Annexation Agreement between City and County expired.
• 2012: City ceased collection of CFF due to Municipal Code Section
15.66.160 Sunset Provision.
• 2022: City's Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence
(SOI) updated; County requests City reestablish collection of CFF.
• 2023: SJC new CFF schedule effective.
• January 4, 2023: Lodi City Council waived first reading of Municipal Code
Chapter 15.66 approving collection of CFF.
• January 18, 2023: Lodi City Council heard second reading of Municipal
Code Chapter 15.66 approving collection of CFF.
San Joaquin County Facilities Fees (CFF)
• Purpose: to "finance region -serving capital facilities
located throughout the County that are used by the
residents and businesses within each city as well as
the unincorporated area and to assure that new
development pays its proportional share for these
improvements."
• Use: fees collected through the CFF Program can be
used to offset only the growth -related portion of the
cost of County regional and unincorporated area public
facilities.
2023 CFF Fee Schedule
Adopted by Board of Supervisors on October 18, 2022
CFF Categories
g
Incorporated
Areas
Residential
Single Family (per unit)
$3,249
Multi -Family (per unit)
$27408
Non -Residential
Retail/Commercial (per square foot)
$0.54
Office (per square foot)
$0.80
Industrial/Other (per square foot)
$0.15
*Adjusted annually for inflation
Proposed Resolution:
Staff recommends City Council resolve to adopt San
Joaquin County's County Facilities Fees findings and
the 2022-2023 County Facilities Fees schedule for
future development within the City of Lodi and approve
City collection of these County Facilities Fees as
authorized under Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 15.66.
End presentation.
Please immediately confirm receipt
of this fax by calling 333-6702
CITY OF LODI
P. O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION REVISING
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROCEDURES TO ALLOW
ISSUING GROWTH ALLOCATIONS FOR PROJECTS ON LAND NOT YET
ANNEXED
PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, JANUARY 7, 2023
TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One (1) please
SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: OLIVIA NASHED, CITY CLERK
LNS ACCT. #5100152 City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
DATED: THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 2023
ORDERED BY: OLIVIA NASHED
CITY CLERK
PAMELA M, FARRIS V
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
KAYLEE CLAYTON
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
Emailed to the Sentinel at legals@lodinews.com aton 1 date) (pages)
forms\advins.doc
yfOF
G
oro]""11
C
DECLARATION OF POSTING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION REVISING GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROCEDURES TO ALLOW ISSUING GROWTH
ALLOCATIONS FOR PROJECTS ON LAND NOT YET ANNEXED
On Thursday, January 5, 2023, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a
copy of a Notice of Public Hearing to consider resolution revising Growth Management
Program procedures to allow issuing Growth Allocations for projects on land not yet
annexed (attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A") was posted at the following locations:
Lodi City Clerk's Office
Lodi City Hall Lobby
Lodi Carnegie Forum
WorkNet Office
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 5, 2023, at Lodi, California.
PAMELA M. FARRIS
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
ORDERED BY:
OLIVIA NASHED
CITY CLERK
- Lk/111KAYL E LAYTON
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
\\cvcfilv0I\administration$\Administration\CLERK\Agenda\City Council\Public
Hearings\AFFADAVITS\DECPOST 1. DOC
CITY OF LODI
Carnegie Forum
305 West Pine Street, Lodi
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date: January 18, 2023
Time: 7:00 p.m.
For information regarding this notice please contact:
Olivia Nashed
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333-6702
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Ef'-1 - I--- - -
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, January 18, 2023, at the hour of
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will
conduct a public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider
the following item:
a) Resolution adopting and implementing collection of San Joaquin
County Facilities Fees.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the Community Development
Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, (209) 333-6711. All interested persons are
invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be
filed with the City Clerk, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, 2n' Floor, Lodi, 95240, at any
time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said
hearing. Comments may be made in person or via the following link:
https://LisOBweb.zoom, uslj18201337706617pwd=N2xoOXE2bmVJUFg5ODFZRkVH UIJ52z09
If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to
the close of the public hearing.
By Order of the Lodi City Council:
Olivia Nashed
City Clerk
Dated: January 4, 2023
Approved as to form
e ).7Magdich
City Attorney
AVISO: Para obtener ayuda interpretativa con esta noticia, por favor Ilame a la oficina de la
Secretaria Municipal, a las (209) 333-6702.
nolcdd_CounlyFaciI!liesFeesCollection 12/29/22