HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - June 20, 1991 (73)CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 21, 1991
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
CC -46 City Manager Peterson introduced the agenda subject
CC -56 "Development Impact Fees". Public Works Director presented
the following responses to questions that were raised at
the May 28, 1991 Development Impact Fee public hearing.
1. What is the "Value" of existing Parks and Recreation
Department in VAcre for the existing City compared to the
new fees (Terry Piazza)?
Since the "existing standard" as defined is the same as
that used for calculating the fee, the "value" would be the
same if replacement value of existing facilities was used.
The estimate for future park facilities took into account
the existing inventory shown in Table 9-2 on Page 80 of the
study. Thus, the new park facilities are comparable to
existing facilities. Explicitly answering the question
would require a more detailed inventory and additional
estimates; both requiring significant staff time and
consultant expense.
2. Sewer RAE schedule appears inconsistent with Design
Standards and Water RAE (Steve Pechin).
The Design Standards while based on the various Master
Plans, were written to cover the design of facilities
within- a development project. The impact fee study
relied on city-wideflow flow data taken directly from the
engineering consuTtants who worked on the General Plan.
The unit flow factors are not necessarily the same and are
more conservative in the Design Standards; thus, comparing
the RAE schedule to the Design. Standards will not provide
consistent results.
However, in reviewing this issue, the consultant found
a s panties in both the Water and Sewer RAE schedules.
The schedu12s have been recalculated as follows:
Category Water RAE Sewer RAE
Residential
Low Density
1.00
1.00
Medium Density
1.96*
1.96*
High Density
3.49*
3.49*
East Side
1.00
1.00
PR -LD
1.00
1.00
PR -MD
1.96*
1.96*
PR -HD
3.49*
3.49*
Commercial
Nei g or ood
0.64
0.94
(was
1.25)
General
0.64
0.94
(was
1.25)
Downtown
0.64
0.94
(was
1.25)
Office
0.64
0.94
(was
1.25)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 21, 1991
Industr;al
LTgR 0.26 (was 0.92) 0.42 (was 0.33)
Heavy 0.26 (was 0.92) 0.42 (was 0.33)
*Original figure was rounded to nearest 0.1; used nearest
0.01 to be consistent with other categories
3. Storm Drain RAE schedule appears inconsistent with Design
Standards and Water and Sewer RAE's (Steve Pechin).
The storm drain relative factors are the same as those
presently in effect. They were determined by the City in
1988 as part of the update of the Master Storm Drain System
Master Pian and Fee Program. An analysis was done on the
total cost of providing trunk lines, basins and pumping
facilities for residential versus commercial development.
The Design Standards only address runoff calculations.
While it could be argued that a more refined breakdown is
possible (for example, commercial versus industrial), the
cost difference would be less the difference implied by the
Design Standards which is only 13%.
Incidentally, the storm drain fees need to be recalculated
due to land use changes in the adopted General Plan and the
omission of two existing storm drain reimbursement
agreements that are to be paid out of the impact fee fund.
4. clow does additional water system revenue from metering
affect the fee program (Steve Pechin)?
Presumably, water rates will be set to cover maintenance,
replacements and contrib-itions to general fund and no new
capital facil;ties. Of course, actual water rates are set
by the City Council. To the extent water conservation from
metering reduces the need for additional wells, future
updates of the General Plan and the Water Master Plan would
reduce the number of new wells -eeded. Then the fee could
go down.
5. What is the effect of removing Lodi Lake from the
calculation on existing park standard (Steve Pechin)?
The lake itself accounts for 35 acres of the 10i acres of
Lodi Lake Park included in the existing standard.
Eliminating acreage from the existing standard and reducing
the new park acreage to match the existing standard will
reduce the fee. The exact reduction amount will depend on
the results of the cash flow analysis. Based on the
average cost of new parks, Table I (see Exhibit A attached)
presents the approximate effect of reducing the acreages as
shown.
6. Question using $100,000 per acre as value for sand
acquisition (Steve Pechin, Dennis Bennett, Jeff Kirst,
Council).
CITY COUNCIL METING
June 21, 1991
Based on comments from other developers, staff feels the
$100,000 figure is reasonable considering the City will
have to have appraisals done and pay prevailing market
rates at the time of purchase. This action will occur
nearer to development time, thus land will be more
expensive than land purchased years ago on speculation.
7. In computing the area of existing community buildings, were
leased facilities included and how does it effect the
program; is there a list of the existing facilities (Steve
Pechin, Jeff Kirst)?
The facilities used in determining the existing standard
are:
Hutchins Street Square Cafeteria
6,400
SF
Camp Hutchins Room
6,000
SF
Hutchins Street Square North Ccmplex
19,600
SF
Hutchins Street Square Pool Area
5,400
SF
Hutchins Street Square Fine Arts Building
8,700
SF
Recreation Annex, North Stockton Street
3,500
SF*
Kofu Park Building
1,800
SF
Lee Jones Building (@ Legion Park)
900
SF
Grape Festival Pavilion**
32,000
SF*
Grape Festival Chablis Hail
9,600
SF*
Recreation Office Meeting Room
900
SF
TOTAL
94,800 SF
(use of indoor school facilities not included)
*Leased
**Pavilion only available 5-1/2 months/year
This square footage was used in determining the amount and
cost of new community buildings (44,100 SF @ $100/SF =
$4,410,000). Reducing this square footage has a similar
effect on the fee as reducing park acreage, although the
amounts are smaller. See Table 1 (Exhibit A attached) for
some approximate alternatives.
8. Were revenues from renting/leasing community buildings
included in the program (Steve Pechin)?
No, City policy in setting rental rates is to attempt to
recover operating expenses only.
g. Police RAE's the land use is not as important a factor as
the area of town (Steve Pechin).
Possibly, but this is not accounted for in the methodology
and it would probably not be legal to do so.
10. Residential impact fee comparison - Tracy is going down,
Galt's figure is only for certain parts of town and include
Mello -Roos figures, also the comparisons are distorted,
misleading and inaccurate (Dennis Bennett).
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 21, 1991
Tracy's storm drain fee has been reduced from $5,204 to
$4,564; however, many of the other categories have gone
up. The total of $23,116 shown in the comparison is now
$23,661. We have also been informed that a suit is being
filed over Tracy's fees.
Based on correspondence from Bennett and Compton, the
City's comparison is accurate except in two categories:
Water - Depending on the area being developed, the fee is
$950 instead of $1,800.
NE Area - These fees were established to reduce the
Mello -Roos bond payments. They are used for capital
facilities including the types of facilities in Lodi's
proposed program, and in our mind fit the definition of an
impact fee.
Their letter provided the following fee examples:
1,331 SF home in NE area: $12,623.64
1,250 SF home not in NE area: $ 8,763.20
The City comparison showed $12,677 for a 2,000 SF home.
Given the wide variation in fee programs and situations, we
feel the comparison is sufficiently accurate for the
purpose intended.
The fee comparisons were not intended to be precise. Doing
so would require a specific project design in a specific
area for each city. The proposed City of Lodi fees are
based on providing the facilities listed for the General
Plan service area. The City Council may, as a matter of
policy, reduce the fees in order to be "competitive".
However, this will transfer the burden to the General Fund
and/or Utility Funds. As discussed at the public hearing,
arbitrarily adjusting the fees opens the City to legal
challenge. Reducing the fees can be done by:
1. Lowering the service standard and
eliminating projects - This would uniformly
reduce the fee in each land use category for
the reduced standard fee category (i.e.,
Police, Fire, etc.).
2. Reduce the fee per RAE in any or all of the
fee categories - This would require
subsidies from other City funds in order to
maintain the service standard or would mean
deferring or eliminating projects, in effect
reducing the level of service.
3. Directly subsidize land use categories (such
as low income housing) by paying all or a
portion of the fee out of the General Fund
or other City funds.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 21, 1991
11. Fee, collection at Final Map versus Building Permit stage
(Dennis Bennett).
Later collection will increase fees and create much more
administrative burden, i.e., billing and tracking every
parcel versus one map. Charging to collecting all fees at
building permit would mean recalculating to a square
footage basis for commercial/industrial and presumably per
dwelling unit for residential. We could split with some
categories at map and others at building permit. We
already collect storm drain fees at map stage.
12. Parks standard distorted especially considering Lodi Lake
and School acreage, need more analysis (Dennis Bennett).
The standard is a policy decision; the data is there for
Council to decide. The first Parks project is a new Parks
Master Plan which will more precisely define the nature of
the new parks, improvements to be included, etc. Staff
suggests that is the time to do more analysis and fine-tune
the fee program.
School acreage was not included in the existing standard
nor included in future additions since the City has no
control over either situation.
13. Need more analysis on General City Facilities Fees (Dennis
Bennett).
Again, this is a policy decision on the Council's part as
to what projects should be paid out of fees versus the
general fund or simply deleted. All the City Facilities
included are needed to accommodate growth.
14. Effect on house price of borrowing money to pay fees at
Final Map stage (Dennis Bennett).
The impact fees for a single-family subdivision at 5 lots
per acre total $7,634 per lot. At 15% interest for 18
months, the additional cost to be passed on the home buyer
is approximately $1,700 plus whatever the developer and
builder mark up their costs. These numbers are comparable
to a realtor's fee on a $150,000 sale ($9,000 @ 6%).
This is over-estimated however, since it includes the time
spent building the house. In collecting at building permit
stage, there is still 6 months' or so interest while the
house is being built. In collecting at that later stage,
the fee will have to be approximately 4% higher to account
for the loss of interest revenue in the fee program. These
two factors would reduce the additional amount
approximately $800 plus markup. We also would assume that
with the growth management program, we will not see
excessive numbers of lots mapped so there should be a
shorter time between map filing and home construction.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
CITY COUNCIL MEFTING
June 21, 1991
Lodi;s proposed Park standard is 3.4 acres per 1,000
persons served. What is the parks standard for other
agencies (Council)?
Stockton - 3 acres per 1,000 residents (considering
commercial/industrial impact)
Davis - standard is area/distance based
Tracy - 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents
Manteca - 5 acres per 1,000 residents
Woodland (draft) - 3.2 acres per 1,000 persons served plus
additiona. standards for facilities and regional parks
Relationship/methodology between Commercial land use and
Police, Fire and General City Facilities and sales tax
revenue (William Mitchell).
No credit was offered for potential sales tax revenue.
These sources don't even pay for Police, Fire, and Parks
and Recreation operations, let alone new capital facilities.
Difference/relationship between commercial fees (especially
streets) based on per acre basis versus per 1,000 SF of
building area (William Mitchell).
The basic decision to use General Plan land use categories
to keep the fee program simple and to collect at map stage
means that acreage must be used since specific project
plans are not available then. This also evens out small
differences in land use and is much simpler to administer
(fewer arguments over trip rates or specific types of land
use nor worrying about minor changes in land use). Given
this, there will always be at least 50% of the projects who
fe.l they are below the average and should get a fee
reduction. That could be done, but only if we charge the
other 50% a higher fee.
Why have parallel water mains on certain streets (Council)?
This is done on major streets and provides better service
to what are usually large parcels needing many fire
services. It reduces the need to cross the major street
repeatedly which is expensive since such crossings are
usually,bored rather than open cut.
Police "existing persons served" is 80,207 per Table 7-1.
This seems high (Council).
The number includes an accounting of residents and
employees based on the various General Plan documents. It
is consistently used in the existing land use and project
land use, although it is recalculated separately for each
fee category.
CITY COUNCIL METING
June 21, 1991
20. The. additional number of firefighters appears to be more
than that needed for the new station. Is it "top heavy"
(Council)?
The projects/equipment shown on Table 8-1 are per the Fire
Long Range Plan which includes:
- A 4 -person "quint" (combined truck/engine) at the new
Station 4, which includes 1 captain (mid -management)
- Adding a firefighter to the east side truck company
- Adding 2 fire inspectors
- Adding 1 public education specialist
- Adding 1 hazardous materials specialist
All are firefighting personnel. This is a total of 23
positions for which equipment costs only are included.
21. We are collecting fees for a fire station that will not be
built for a few years (Council).
The collection of fees for future projects is in compliance
with State law given that we have a long-range Capital
Improvements Program.
22. Parks and Recreation, Page 78, Paragraph 2 says 770 SF is
the existing building standard (Council).
That is a typographical error; the correct figure is 2,800
SF.
23. If a service club or private donation builds a park
improvements, what happens to the fee (Council)?
When a project included in the fee program is funded from
another source, the cost estimate would be changed at the
next fee program update along with any other changes and/or
cost increases; thus the total fee would be adjusted
accordingly.
24. Why don't we reimburse the City for the cost of land
already purchased (Council)?
That could be done. However, then the land could not be
counted as part of the existing standard. For example, the
semi -developed portion of Pixley Park (C -Basin) was counted
in the existing standard. It could be removed from the
standard and included in new parks. In some specific cases
(such as the rest of C -Basin), the undeveloped land was
purchased with impact fee (Master Storm Drain) funds so it
would not be appropriate to "buy" it again. In other
cases, such as the 13 -acre Lodi Lake Park expansion, the
land was acquired many years ago (more than 10) and it
CITY COUNCIL ME9TING
June 21, 1991
would be difficult to determine the purchase terms and
conditions. In the case of streets where we included
recent widening projects, the cost of land (Right -of -Way
Acquisition) was included. We would include some allowance
for park land already owned if Council so desires and City
provides specific direction. This would of course increase
the fee. An example is shown in Table 1.
25. Why is the level of service standard for City Hall being
increased per Page 91, Table 10-1 (Council)?
The analysis for City Hall reflects that fact that the
existing building is overcrowded, thus the total cost of
the project cannot be placed on new development. The term
"level of service standard" in this case is misleading
since it is a statement of existing conditions, not a
desired level of space allocation. The future total is
based on the present plans for the expansion of the
building and matches the projections of City Hall personnel
increases throughout the life of the General Plan.
Additional Discussion
Although there were no specific questions, the issue of
"affordable housing" was discussed. This issue involves
much more than just impact fees and includes land prices,
construction costs, interest charges, profit margins and
"the Market". However, the following discussion just
addresses impact fees.
Certainly anything that increases expenses to developers
and builders has the potential of increasing the final sale
price. The issue of "who ultimately pays" is not clear and
depends on many local factors. According to the latest
information staff received at a recent seminar on impact
fees, there have been very few rigorous studies that
attempt to answer this question. These few indicate that
while there is an increase, it is "trivial" when compared
against increases due to other factors.
This seminar included some discussion on the "impact" of
impact fees. Ten suggestions on offsetting their impact
are attached as Exhibit A. Given the City's 2% Growth
Management Plan, some of these suggestions are not
possible. Note that No. 7 suggests fees be charged as
early as possible in the approval process. Numbers 9 and
10 and similar alternatives would require a much more
active role by the City in the area of housing programs.
Such programs could be handled by other public agencies on
a contract basis, by a consultant, or by new City staff.
Recommendation/Action
At this point, staff needs Council direction on how to
proceed with the Development Impact Fee Program in order to
complete the enabling ordinance and implementing
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 21, 1991
resolution. The draft fees as presented need to be
recalculated anyway because of the changes. Also, the
calculations started with revenue and expenses in fiscal
year 1990/91. Obviously, the program will not start then.
We do wish to proceed as quickly as possible; the City
cannot collect any of its county -wide 1./2C sales tax
(Measure K) allocations until we have a traffic fee in
place.
Council decisions are needed on the following issues that
have been raised which will also affect the fee calculation:
1. RAE Schedules - In addition to the water and
sewer changes, if the Council has
questions/concerns on other schedules (such
as Parks and Recreation and
commercial/industrial land use), these
should be resolved.
2. Projects/Standards - A decision should be
made on the project list and standards used,
especially in Parks and Recreation where the
most questions were raised; also the land
value figure should be agreed upon.
3. Fee Collection - The issue of collecting at
Final Map versus Building Permit is
critical. In changing to building permit,
staff would recommend changing the
residential acre equivalent factors (RAE'S)
to a dwelling unit and 1,000 SF
commercial/industrial basis.
OL-1Also
presented for Council review was the Revise(
Draft (June 20, 1991) of the proposed 1991 Fee and Service
Charge Schedule.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 21, 1991
Following a lengthy discussion, with questions being posed
by members of the Lodi City Council and members of the
audience, the City Council took the following actions:
a)
On motion of Council Member Snider, Sieglock
second, the City Council determined that the
Parks Standards as described in the Fee
Study, including the acreage standard of 3.4
acres per 1,000 persons served, be adopted.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members - Pennino, Sieglock,
Snider and
Hinchman (Mayor)
Noes: Council Members - Pinkerton
Absent: Council Members - None
b)
On motion of Council Member Sieglock,
Hinchman second, the City Council
unanimously voted that the parks residential
acre equivalent factors described in the Fee
Study be approved and that a Parks and
Recreation Master Plan study be done.
c)
On motion of Mayor Hinchman, Sieglock
second, the City Council unanimously voted
that all of the projects shown in the Fee
Study be included in the Fee Program.
d)
On motion of Council Member Snider, Sieglock
second, the City Council unanimously voted
that the Fee Program provide for fees to be
collected at Final Subdivision Map or, when
not applicable, at Building Permit.
w'1 1 / C 1
GUIDELINES AND STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLYING TO ALL
NEW DEVELOPMENT
I. PROPOSED OPERATION OF PHASED ALLOCATION PLAN
Five Xear Play}
A "rolling" five-year phasing period will be in effect, whereby
the City will annually plan the unit phasing for an additional
year, and make modifications as needed to prior phasing
determinations. Annual amendments will, however, be limited to
approving additional areas or units for earlier phasing, but not
removing earlier phasing approval unless requested by the
applicant, upon legal expiration of an approved tentative map, or
other circumstances particular to that project.
City consideration for modifying prior allocations should include
financial commitments (subdivision improvement agreeients, etc.)
s and requirements of executed development agreements.
}
II. GUIDELINES
Y
The following are the guidelines that apply to the phased
a allocation system and the standard conditions that apply to all
projects within the phasing system. Exception or modification to
these Guidelines is subject to approval from the city Council and
would require the adoption of a resolution..
3
h
�A_. EXCEPTION$•
The following types of uses would be permitted to be processed
and approved at any time, in addition to those base units
3 'approved for the 5 -year phasing plan, provided all development
conditions are met and required infrastructure is or will be
' provided:
1. Housing units granted allocations prior to adoption of
the Phased Allocation Plan provided the original
project has not been rezoned; these units are subject
to the standard conditions adopted in the corresponding
allocation, rather than those of this phasing plan;
2. All commercial and industrial development, until and
unless the City Council finds probable cause that the
proposed timing of such development threatens the
City's fiscal balance relative to Prop. 4 (Gann limit);
1
.;2—
Phased Allocation Plan
Guidelines and Standard Conditions
May 1990
3. All types of development, including residential, within
the Core Area;
4. Infill residential development on 10 gross acres or
less for lots created prior to January 1, 1989, and
with a residential land use designation on the General
Plan :lap, such lots may be further subdivided;
5. Affordabla housing units meeting or exceeding the
designated inclusionary standards for very low and low,
50% and 80%, respectively, of median income for the
MSA.
H. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THE
ALLOCATION SYSTEM:
1. Each project shall be considered based on a master plan
sketch map and any other information provided by a
project applicant.
Z. Earp project allocation shall include a review for
adequacy of existing and anticipated City services and
facilities.
3. Unless specifically released with the project approval,
a minimum of 15 percent of the lots are to be sold to
other builders, including owner/builders, not to
include those builders who are otherwise included in
the current 5 -year phasing plan. The developer is
required to sell such lots to other builders and a good
faith effort at sales must be demonstrated. The
Community Development Director may recommend releasing
the project from this requirement, subject to City
Council approval. The intent is to provide
construction opportunities for local, small builders
within major development areas of the City.
4. The degree to which the affordable housing or other
incentives are being met will be examined and taken
into account at the time of the annual review.
5. Each project shall be required to submit an internal
project phasing plan, including the proposed phasing
for both single-family and multi -family units approved
during the 5 -year Phased Allocation Plan at the
tentative map or final planned development stage of
each project approval.
2
.j
Phased Allocation Plan
Guidelines and Standard Conditions
May 1990
6. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING: Phasing of all residential
projects involving lots, existing as of January 1,
1989, that are more than 10 gross acres in size are to
be subject to the projects provision for inclusionary
housing units. Inclusionary housing units are those
affordable to moderate, low, or very low income
households as per standards defined by HUD. 'These
units are also referred to as "affordable units" in
this plan.
a. The inclusionary housing provisions shall be as
adopted by the City in the General Plan and shall
include adopted implementing programs, if any. As
applicable each development project shall:
1) Designate the location of inclusionary units
for specified parcels on either the tentative
map or the final planned development map. If
a developer defers such designation to the
final planned development map stage,
additional environmental review may be
necessary.
2) Construct inclusionary units prior to or
concurrently with the allocated market rate
units to be constructed during the five-year
development phase.
b. If a density bonus option is exercised, the number
of increased units approved could be constructed
in addition to the base allocation of units for
that project. The additional units due to a
density bonus may not be constructed before the
designated affordable units are being constructed,
it have been constructed.
7. PROJECT BUILD---OU-T: Any project which is approved for
development would be permitted to build --out within a maximum
Of 15 years from the first year the project was allocated
units, provided minimum development conditions are met. A
project may be permitted to build -out in less than 15 years.
A minimum of 50 percent of the remaining units of a
residential project may be developed during the 6th through
the 10th year after the first units were complete, and the
balance of the units may be developed during the 11th
q
Phased Allocation Plan
Guidelines and Standard Conditions
May 1990
through the 15th year after the first units were completed.
During each of the 15 years which would constitute the
maximtLm permitted build -out period, some portion of the
remaining units will be permitted to be constructed each
year. The annual determination of this number will occur
during the annual updates of the 5 -year Phased Allocation
Plan.
8. DUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION: Building permits for the number
of units eligible for issuance within a given fiscal year
will not be accepted prior to July 1 for the following
fiscal year, with one initial exception. For 1989 only,
building permits will be accepted one month prior to the
beginning of the fiscal year, i.e. June 1st.
C. ANNUAL REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR MONITORING DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS
1. Staff will review actual development of all projects
within the current 5 -year phasing period, relative to
the unit completion projections. All applicants of
projects within the prior 5 -year phasing period are
requested to submit either:
a) Confirmation of intent to proceed with development
schedule as proposed in the initial phasing plan
for the next fiscal year;
b) Requests to delay the timing of development of
units from that proposed in the initial annual
phasing.
2. Staff will analyze and report to the Planning
Commission and City Council on overall development
status, including development of affordable units, and
any request for delays in initial proposed development,
and will propose findings regarding any reasons for
development delays which appear to be beyond the
control of the developer(s), versus those determined to
be within the control of project developers. Reasons
beyond the control of the developer would include
regional and/or national detrimental economic
conditions such as prohibitively high interest rates,
or a major recession.
Based on evidence regardinq lack of due diligence in
r
Phased Allocation Plan
Guidelines and Standard Conditions
May 1990
developing units and upon making appropriate findings,
the City may act to revoke units previously allocated,
by rescinding and/or suspending allocation of units for
subsequent years.
If the above action is taken, the commitment to permit
a maximum build -out within 15 years from the first year
in which the project received an allocation could also
be rescinded.
3. Any requests for modifications to annual unit
allocations for a project are to be included in the
developer's report on the construction status of the
projects allocated units. Interim modification
requests may be considered only when necessitated by
economic and financial constraints. All such requests
shall include information as requested by the City, and
shall be subject to the approval of the Planning
Commission and dity Council.
4. Housing units which are allocated, but for which
building permits are not issued, in any given fiscal
year, may receive building permits in the succeeding
fiscal year and shall not be subject to administrative
review through the annual review process. Housing
units which have been allocated for more than two
fiscal years prior to the annual review, but for which
building permits, have not been issued, shall be subject
to City review.
D. PROJECTS NOT INCLUDED IN INITIAL 5 YEAR ALLOCATION: Zoning
and development applications for projects not included
within the initial 5 year allocation will be processed for
approval, consistent with Council -approved staff workload
and determination of General Plan consistency.
(phs.con/jr2)
5
BENNETT & COMPTON
June 6, 1991
-�
Mr. Jack Ronsko, Public Works Director _ .n
Mr. Richard Prima, Assistant City Engineer =?,� co 1-r1
CITY OF LODI —mrV)
221 W. Pine �� =- r—
Lodi, CA 95241 m co �-
vt
Gentlemen,
I am writing at the request of Dennis Bennett regarding the
discussion of residential impact fee comparisons during the May
28th workshop. Mr. Ronsko requested any additional information
we may have regarding the fee structure in Galt, a community in
which we are developing and building.
I would like to start by delineating "impact" fees from
"standard" fees. Following the order of the exhibit labeled
"residential impact fee comparison.", I offer the following:
WATER: This is not an impact fee, but a hookup fee. The
$1,800.00 cost is charged only if the project is not
participating in a well development program, i.e. on-site well,
storage tank, or participation in an assessment district that
provides these facilities. Of the 4 on-going projects we are
building in Galt, and the 5 future projects we are developing,
all are participating in assessment districts, thus our water fee
will be $950.00 per unit, payable at building permit. I should
add that to my knowledge there are no subdivisions in Galt of any
size, (25 lots or more), that .are paying the $1,800.00 water fee.
SEWER: The $3,000.00 fee shown is the hookup fee for all
projects in the City and is paid at permit.
STORM DRAIN: This fee. represents the acreage drainage fee paid
prior to final map approval. The fee is $1,800.00 per gross acre
and has been at that level for at least 3 years.
STREETS & ROADS: The amount shown of $1,139.00 per unit is
representative of the traffic Capitol impact fee changed at
building permit, if the project is outside the Northeast Specific
Plan Area. Projects within the NEASP area are charged $550.00
per unit at building permit.
POLICE & FIRE AND GENERAL CITY FACILITIES: These fees are
accurate representations of the capitol impact fees charged
City-wide and payable at building permit.
777 G: 101 I1;):111.;rrv•. St il(' 1. • 1'.(). i5ox 1'x,)7 • 1.(XIi. a alifnn)ia 6) :3.11 • 12o9i 334-r;:U4 5 • (204)1 •lri7-Bono • St: u+• 1J(� I• ter• NO 43•Lf)a:r
ROUTE 104/TWIN CITIES ROAD,
NE AREA IMPROVEMENTS, AND
NE AREA WATER STORAGE: These fees are unique to projects
within the NE area. They are not "impact fees"; they are per
unit costs of providing the improvements described and other
infrastructure, such as road construction, sewer tank lines, etc.
These fees came into existence at the request of the landowners
within the NE area in an effort to keep Mello Roos tax
assessments at a maximum $500.00 per year per lot level. These
3 fees are paid at building permit.
Not including school fees our most recent permits paid in Galt
are as follows:
1331 sq. ft. within NE area $12,623.64
1250 sq. ft. outside NE area $ 8,763.20
In May of this year, a 60 lot project we own was approved as a
final map in Galt. The total fees collected by the City for that
project were approximately $166,000.00, or $2,766.00 per lot.
None of the final map fees paid were impact fees. I have
included the cost breakdown for that project for your files.
As I stated in a previous workshop session, and Dennis Bennett
stated during the May 28 session, we feel strongly that impact
fees should be charged at a point in time after final map. Other
than a small portion of General City Facilities, Fire, and
Police, the impacts created on the services are non-existent
until well after home construction begins. As Denn.s stated
during the May 28 workshop, the additional carrying costs of a
project having to pay impact fees at final map will significantly
impact the cost of housing in Ludi, which is already unaffordable
to over 75% of it's residents.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please feel
free to contact Dennis or myself. We look forward to developing
(again!) in Lodi.
Sincerely yours,
Dale N. Gillespie
Project Coordinator
DNG/rle
cc: Dennis Bennett
City Council Members
Tom Peterson, City Manager
A:\WS2\LODI.IMP
068
EXHIBIT A
FEE SCHEDULE - MITCHELL ESTATES
1.
Parkland Dedication
$100,182.70
2.
Computerized Input
$
400.00
3.
Map Updates
$
440.00
4.
Final Map Review
$
553.00
5.
Addressing
$
190.00
6.
Plan Check
$
14,366.28
7.
Inspection
$
21,732.57
8.
Storm Drain
$
25,614.00
9.
Materials Testing (deposit)
$
4,0.0.00
TOTAL $165,683.55
CITY O F L O D i 1991 Fee and
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Service Charge Schedule
Development- mpact Mitigation Fees:.;
RAE - Residential Acre Equivalent
Lend Use Category I Total Fee Water
i per Acre RAE Fee/Acre
Sewer
RAE
Revised Draft -
6120191
Storm Drainage
Fee/Acre RAE Fee/Acre
Streets
RAE
Fee/Acre
Residential
Low Density
$39,160
1.00
$5,500
1.00
$1,080
1.00
$7,380
1.00
$5,380
Medium Density
$59,820
1.96
$10,780
1.96
$2,17)
1.00
$7,380
1.96
$10,540
High Density
6105,200
3.49
$19,200
3.49
$3,770
1.00
$7,380
3.05
$18,410
East Side Residential
$41,130
1.00
$5,500
1.00
$1,080
1.00
$7,380
1.00
$5,380
Planned Low Density
$39,160
1,DO
$5,500
1.00
$1,080
1.00
$7,380
1.00
$5,380
Planned Med. Density
$59,820
1.96
$10,780
1.96
$2,120
1.00
$7,380
1.96
510,540
Planned High Density
$105,200
3.49
$19,200
3.49
$3,770
1.00
$7,380
3.05
$16,410
Commercial
1
Neighborhood
$40,280
0.64
$3,520
0.94
$1.020
1.33
$9,820
1.90
$10,220
General
$48,270
0.64
$3,520
0.94
11,020
1.33
$9,820
3.82
$20,550
Downtown
$40,280
0.64
$3,520
0.94
$1.020
1.33
$9,820
1.90
$10,220
Office
$53,530
0.64
$3,520
0.94
$1,020
1.33
$9,820
3.27
$17,590
Industrial
Light
$29,930
0.26
$1,430
0.42
$450
1.33
$9,820
2.00
$10,760
Heavy
$28,8701
0.28
$1,430,
0.42
$41501
1.33
$9,820
1.27
$6,830
Police
Fre
Parks & Recreation
General City
RAE
Fee/Acre
RAE
Fee/Acre
RAE
Fee/Acre
RAE
Fee/Acre
Residential
Low Density
1.00
$1,130
1.00
$510
1.00
$11,810
1.00
$6,370
Medium Density
1.77
$2,000
1.96
$1,000
1.43
$16,890
1.43
$9,110
High Density
4.72
$5,330
4.32
$2,200
2.80
$33,070
2.80
$17,840
East Side Residential
1.09
$1,230
1.10
$560
1.10
$12,990
1.10
$7,010
Planned Low Density
1.00
$1,130
1.00
$510
1.00
$11,810
1.00
$6,370
Planned Med. Density
1.77
$2,000
1.96
$1,000
1.43
$16,890
1.43
$9,110
Planned High Density
4.72
$5,330
4.32
$2,200
2.80
$33,070
2.80
$17,840
Commercial
Neighborhood
4.28
$4,840
2.77
$1,410
0.32
$3,780
0.89
$6.670
General
2.59
$2,930
1.93
$980
0.32
$3,780
0.89
$5,670
Downtown
4,28
$4,840
2.77
$1,410
0.32
$3,780
0.89
SE,670
Office
3.72
$4,200
2.48
$1,250
0.54
$6,380
1.53
$9,750
Industrial
Light
0.30
$340
0.64
$330
0.23
$2,720
0.64
$4,080
Heavy
0.19
$210
0.61
$310
0.33
$3,900
0.93
$5,920
See Note 4.
Reference:
LMC 315.64.moc & Resolution 91 -too
Notes
1. This schedule is a summery only; refer to the reference cited for details of
applicability
and interpretations.
2. LMC - Lodi Municipal Code; PWD = Public Works Department
3. Fees must be paid before
work is scheduled or applicable Map/Permit issued.
4. Special area assessment@ or charges required by reimbursement
agreements are not included in this summary.
Approved: Jack L. Ronsko. Public Works Director Date
Page 4 of 4 May 1991 YVWL1rtt9.AL,
ini
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department
TO: City Council
City Manager
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: June 20, 1991
SUBJECT: Development Impact Fees - Public Hearing Questions and Responses
Following are responses to questions raised at the May 28 Development
Impact Fee public hearing. The questions are paraphrased from the tape of
the meeting. Some additional discussion is provided at the end of the
memo.
1. What is the "Value" of existing Parks and Recreation Department in
$/Acre for the existing City compared to the new fees? (Terry Piazza) -
Since the "existing standard" as defined is the same as that used for
calculating the fee, the "value" would be the same if replacement
value of existing facilities was used. The estimate for future park
facilities took into account the existing inventory shown in Table
9-2 on Page 80 of the study. Thus, the new park facilities are
comparable to existing facilities. Explicitly answering the question
would require a more detailed inventory and additional estimates;
both requiring significant staff time and consultant expense.
2. Sewer RAE schedule appears inconsistent with Design Standards and
Water RAE (Steve Pechin) -
The Design Standards, while based on the various Master Plans, were
written to cover the design of facilities within a development
project. The impact fee study relied on city-wide flow data taken
directly from the engineering consultants who worked on the General
Plan. The unit flow factors are not necessarily the same and are
more conservative in the Design Standards; thus, comparing the RAE
schedule to the Design Standards will not provide consistent
results.
However, in reviewing this issue, the consultant found discrepancies
in both the Water and Sewer RAE schedules. The schedules have been
recalculated as follows:
MCC91OI/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 2
Category Water RAE Sewer RAE
Residential
Low Density
1.00
1.00
Medium Density
1.96*
1.96*
High Density
3.49*
3.49*
East Side
1.00
1.00
PR -LD
1.00
1.00
PR -MD
1.96*
1.96*
PR -HD
3.49*
3.49*
Commercial
Neighborhood
0.64
0.94
(was
1.25)
General
0.64
0.94
(was
1.25)
Downtown
0.64
0.94
(was
1.25)
Office
0.64
0.94
(was
1.25)
Industrial
Light
0.26 (was 0.92)
0.42
(was
0.33)
Heavy
0.26 (was 0.92
0.42
(was
0.33)
*Original figure was rounded to nearest 0.1; used nearest 0.01 to
be consistent with ot`►er categories
3. Storm Drain RAE schedule appears inconsistent with Design Standards
and Water and Sewer RAE's (Steve Pechin) -
The storm drain relative factors are the same as those presently in
effect. They were determined by the City in 1988 as part of the
update of the Master Storm Drain System Master Plan and Fee Program.
An analysis was done on the total cost of providing trunk lines,
basins and pumping facilities for residential versus commercial
development. The Design Standards only address runoff calculations.
While it could be argued that a more refined breakdown is possible
(for example, commercial versus industrial), the cost difference
would be less the difference implied by the Design Standards which is
only 13%.
Incidentally, the storm drain fees need to be recalculated due to
land use changes in the adopted General Plan and the omission of two
existing storm drain reimbursement agreements that are to be paid out
of the impact fee fund.
4. How does additional water system revenue from metering affect the fee
program? (Steve Pechin) -
Presumably, water rates will be set to cover maintenance,
replacements and contributions to general fund and no new capital
facilities. Of course, actual water rates are set by the City
Council. To the extent water conservation from metering reduces the
need for additional wells, future updates of the General Plan and
Water Master Plan would reduce the number of new wells needed. Then
the fee could go down.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 3
5. What is the effect of removing Lodi Lake from the calculation on
existing park standard? (Steve Pechin) -
The lake itself accounts for 35 acres of the 101 acres of Lodi Lake
Park included in the existing standard. Eliminating acreage from the
existing standard and reducing the new park acreage to match the
existing standard will reduce the fee. The exact reduction amount
will depend on the results of the cash flow analysis. Based on the
average cost of new parks, Table 1 presents the approximate effect of
reducing the acreages as shown.
6. Question using 3100,000 per acre as value for land acquisition (Steve
Pechin, Dennis Bennett, Jeff Kirst, Council) -
Based on c•imments from other developers, staff feels the $100,000
figure is reasonable considering the City will have to have
appraisals done and pay prevailing market rates at the time of
purchase. This action will occur nearer to development time, thus
land will be more expensive than land purchased years ago on
speculation.
7. In computing the area of existing community buildings, were leased
facilities included and how does it affect the program; is there a
list of the existing facilities? (Steve Pechin, Jeff Kirst) -
The facilities used in determining the existing standard are:
Hutchins Street Square Cafeteria
6,400
SF
Camp Hutchins Room
6,000
SF
Hutchins Street Square North Complex
19,600
SF
Hutchins Street Square Pool Area
5,400
SF
Hutchins Street Square Fine Arts Building
8,700
SF
Recreation Annex, North Stockton Street
3,500
SF
leased
Kofu Park Building
1,800
SF
Lee Jones Building (@ Legion Park)
900
SF
Grape Festival Pavilion
32,000
SF
leased*
Grape Festival Chablis Hall
9,600
SF
leased
Recreation Office Meeting Room
900
SF
94,800 SF
Total
(use of indoor school facilities not included)
*Pavilion only availab;e 51 months/year
This square footage was used in determining the amount and cost of
new community buildings (44,100 SF @ S100/SF = S4,410,000). Reducing
this square footage has a similar effect on the fee as reducing park
acreage, although the amounts are smaller. See Table 1 for some
approximate alternatives.
8. Were revenues from renting/leasing community buildings included in
the program? (Steve Pechin) -
No, City policy in setting rental rates is to attempt to recover
operating expenses only.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 4
9. Police RAE's the land use is not as important a factor as the area of
town (Steve Pechin) -
Possibly, but this is not accounted for in the methodology and it
would probably not be legal to do so.
10. Residential impact fee comparison - Tracy is going down, Galt's
figure is only for certain parts of town and include Mello -Roos
figures, also the comparisons are distorted, misleading and
inaccurate (Dennis Bennett) -
Tracy's storm drain fee has been reduced from $5,204 to $4,564,
however, many of the other categories have gone up. The total of
$23,116 shown in the comparison is now 523,661. We have also been
informed that a suit is being filed over Tracy's fees.
Based on correspondence from Bennett and Compton, the City's
comparison is accurate except in two categories:
Water - Depending on the area being developed, the fee is 5950
instead of 51,800.
NE Area - These fees were established to reduce the Mello -Roos
bond payments. They are used for capital facilities including
the types of facilities in Lodi's proposed program, and in our
mind fit the definition of an impact fee.
Their letter provided the following fee examples:
1,331 SF home in NE area: $12,623.64
1,250 SF home not in NE area: $ 8,763.20
The City comparison showed $12,677 for a 2,000 SF home. Given the
wide variation in fee programs and situations, we feel the comparison
is sufficiently accurate for the purpose intended.
The fee comparisons were not intended to be precise. Doing so would
require a specific project design in a specific area for each city.
The proposed City of Lodi fees are based on providing the facilities
listed for the General Plan service area. The City Council may, as a
matter of policy, reduce the fees in order to be "competitive".
However, this will transfer to burden to the General Fund and/or
Utility Funds. As discussed at the public hearing, arbitrarily
adjusting the fees opens the City to legal challenge. Reducing the
fees can be done by:
1) Lowering the service standard and eliminating projects - This
would uniformly reduce the fee in each land use category for the
reduced standard fee category (i.e., Police, Fire, etc.).
2) Reduce the fee per RAE in any or all of the fee categories - This
would require subsidies from other City funds in order to
maintain the service standard or would mean deferring or
eliminating projects, in effect reducing the level of service.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 5
3) Directly subsidize land use categories (such as low income
housing) by_paying all or a portion of the fee out of the General
Fund or other City funds.
11. Fee collection at Final Map versus Building Permit stage (Dennis
Bennett) -
Later collection will increase fees and create much more
administrative burden, i.e., billing and tracking every parcel versus
one map. Changing to collecting all fees at building permit would
mean recalculating to a square footage basis for
commercial/industrial and presumably per dwelling unit for
residential. We could split with some categories at map and others
at building permit. We already collect storm drain fees at map stage.
12. Parks standard distorted especially considering Lodi Lake and School
acreage, need more analysis (Dennis Bennett) -
The standard is a policy decision; the data is there for Council to
decide. The first Parks project is a new Parks easter Plan which
will more precisely define the nature of the new parks, improvements
to be included, etc. Staff suggests that is the time to do more
analysis and fine-tune the fee program.
School acreage was not included in the existing standard nor included
in future additions since the City has no control over either
situation.
13. Need more analysis on General City Facilities Fees (Dennis Bennett) -
Again, this is a policy decision on the Council's part as to what
projects should be paid out of fees versus the general fund or simply
deleted. All the City Facilities included are needed to accommodate
growth.
14. Effect on house price of borrewing money to pay fees at Final Map
stage (Dennis Bennett) -
The impact fees for a single-family subdivision at 5 lots per acre
total $7,634 per lot. At 15% interest for 18 months, the additional
cost to be passed on the home buyer is approximately $1,700 plus
whatever the developer and builder mark up their costs. These
numbers are comparable to a realtor's fee on a $150,000 sale (59,000
@ 6%).
This is over-estimated however, since it includes the time spent
building the house. In collecting at building permit stage, there is
still 6 months' or so interest while the house is beino built. In
collecting at the later stage, the fee will have to be+ approximately
4% higher to account for the loss of interest revenue in the fee
program. These two factors would reduce the additional amount to
approximately $800 plus markup. We also would assume that with the
growth management program, we will not see excessive numbers of lots
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
I
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 6
mapped so there should be a shorter time between map filing and home
construction.
15. Lodi's proposed Park standard is 3.4 acres per 1,000 persons served.
What is the parks standard for other agencies (Council) -
Stockton - 3 acres per 1,000 residents (considering
commercial/industrial impact)
Davis - standard is area/distance based
Tracy - 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents
Manteca - 5 acres per 1,000 residents
Woodland (draft) - 3.2 acres per 1,000 persons served plus additional
standards for facilities ;xnd regional parks
16. Relationship/methodology between Commercial land use and Police, Fire
and General City Facilities and sales tax revenue (William Mitchell) -
No credit was offered for potential sales tax revenue. These sources
don't even pay for Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation operations,
let alone new capital facilities.
17. Difference/relationship between commercial fees (especially streets)
based on per acre basis versus per 1,000 SF of.building area (William
Mitchell) -
The basic decisions to use General Plan land use categories to keep
the fee program simple and to collect at map stage means that acreage
must be used since specific project plans are not available then.
This also evens out small differences in land use and is much simpler
to administer (fewer arguments over trip rates for specific types of
land use nnr worrying about minor changes in land use). Giver, this,
there will always be at least 50% of the projects who feel they are
below the average and should get a fee reduction. That could be
done, but only if we charge the other 50% a higher fee.
18. Why have parallel water mains on certain streets? (Council) -
This is done on major streets and provides better service to what are
usually large parcels needing many fire services. It reduces the
need to cross the major street repeatedly which is expensive since
such crossings are usually bored rather than open cut.
19. Police "existing persons served" is 80,207 per Table 7-1. This seems
high. (Council) -
The number includes an accounting of residents and employees based on
the various General Plan documents. It is consistently used in the
existing land use and project land use, although it is recalculated
separately for each fee category.
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 7
20. The additional number of firefighters appears to be more than that
needed for the new station. Is it "top heavy"? (Council) -
The projects/equipment shown on Table 8-1 are per the Fire Long Range
Plan which includes:
° A 4-persor. "quint" (combined truck/engine) at the new Station 4,
which includes 1 captain (mid -management)
° Adding a firefighter to the east side truck company
° Adding 2 fire inspectors
° Adding 1 public education specialist
° Adding 1 hazardous materials specialist
All are firefighting personnel. This is a total of 23 positions for
which equipment costs only are included.
21. We are collecting fees for a fire station that will not be built for
a few years (Council) -
The collection of fees for future projects is in compliance with
State law given that we have a long-range Capital Improvement Program.
22. Parks and Recreation, Page 78, Paragraph 2 says 770 SF is the
existing building standard (Council) -
That is a typographical error; the correct figure is 1,200 SF.
23. If a service club or private donation builds a park improvement, what
happens to the fee? (Council) -
When a project included in the fee program is funded from another
source, the cost estimate would be changed at the next fee program
update along with any other changes and/or cost increases; thus the
total fee would be adjusted accordingly.
24. Why don't we reimburse the City for the cost of land already
purchased? (Council) -
That could be done. However, then the land could not be counted as
part of the existing standard. For example, the semi -developed
portion of Pixley Park (C -Basin) was counted in the existing
standard. It could be removed from the standard and included in new
parks. In some specific cases (such as the rest of C -Basin), the
undeveloped land was purchased with impact fee (Master Storm Drain)
funds so it would not be appropriate to "buy" it again. Ir other
cases, such as the 13 -acre Lodi Lake Park expansion, the land was
acouired many years ago (more than 10) and it would be difficult to
determine the purchase terms and conditions. In the case of streets
where we included recent widening projects, the cost of land
(Right -of -Way acouisition) was included. We would include some
allowance for park land already owned if Council so desires and City
provides specific direction. This would of course increase the fee.
An example is shown in Table 1.
MCC°101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1991
Page 8
25. Why is the level of service standard for City Hall being increased
per Page 91, Table 10-1? (Council) -
The analysis for City Hall reflects that fact that the existing
building is overcrowded, thus the total cost of the project cannot be
placed on new development. The term "level of service standard" in
this case is misleading since it is a statement of existing
conditions, not a desired level of space allocation. The future
total is based on the present plans for the expansion of the building
and matches the projections of City Hall personnel increases
throughout the life of the General Plan.
Additional Discussion.
Although there were no specific questions, the issue of "affordable
housing" was discussed. This issue involves much more than Just impact
fees and includes land prices, construction costs, interest charges,
profit margins and "the Market". however, the following discussion just
addresses impact fees.
Certainly anything that increases expenses to developers and builders has
the potential of increasing the final sale price. The issue of "who
ultimately pays" is not clear and depends on many local factors.
According to the latest information staff received at a recent seminar on
impact fees, there have been very few rigorous studies that attempt to
answer this question. These few indicate that while there is an increase,
X, it is "trivial" when compared against increases due to other factors.
This seminar included some discussion on the "impact" of impact fees. Ten
suggestions on offsetting their impact are attached as Exhibit A. Given
the City's 2% Growth Management Plan, some of these suggestions are not
possible. Note that No. 7 suggests fees be charged as early as possible
in the approval process. Numbers 9 and 10 and similar alternatives would
require a much more active role by the City in the area of housing
programs. Such programs could be handled by other public agencies on a
contract basis, by a consultant, or by new City staff.
Recommendation/Action
At this point, staff needs Council direction on how to proceed with the
Development Impact Fee Program in order to complete the enabling ordinance
{ and implementing resolution. The draft fees as presented need to be
recalculated anyway because of the changes in the final adopted General
Plan and the Water and Sewer RAE factor changes. Also, the calculations
started with revenue and expenses in fiscal year 1990/91. Obviously, the
program will not start then. We do wish to proceed as quickly as
possible; the City cannot collect any of its county -wide 1/2d sales tax
(Measure K) allocations until we have a traffic fee in place.
Council decisions are needed on the following issues that have been raised
which will also affect the fee calculation:
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
City Council
June 20, 1.991
Page 9
1. RAE Schedules - In addition to the water and sewer changes, if the
Council has questions/concerns on other schedules (such as Parks and
Recreation and commercial/industrial land use), these should be
resolved.
2. Projects/Standards - A decision should be made on the project list
and standards used, especially in Parks and Recreation where the most
questions were raised; also the land value figure should be agreed
upon.
3. F:e Collection - The issue of collecting at Final Map versus Building
Permit is critical. In changing to building permit, staff would
recommend changing the residential acre equivalent factors (RAE'S) to
a dwelling un' and 1,000 SF commercial/industrial basis.
�'V � r�
J ck%,'Ronsko
P iorks Director
JLR/RCP/mt
cc: Concerned Citizens
Nolte and Associates
McDonald and Associates
Assistant City Engineer
Department Heads
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
Table 1
APPROXIMATE PARKS PW RECREATION IMPAC FEE RFVISIONS
"Existing" Future Cost of Fee Diff.
Standard Additions Future per PAE
Additions
Parks
With Lodi Lake 177.8 Ac
Deduct Lake 36 Acres 142.8 Ac
Deduct 50% of Lake 35 Acrps 160.3 Ac
Ccmrunity Buildings
83.0 Ac 12,991,000* 511,810 --
66.7 Ac SIO,440,000.(approx.) $10,210 -51,600
74.8 Ac 511,710,000 (approx.) 511,000 -S 810
With All Facilities 94,800 SF 44,100 SF $ 4,410,000 S11,810 --
Deduct All Leased Facilities 49,700 SF 23,120 SF S 2,312,000 (approx.) 510,490 -S1,320
Prorate Pavilion SF 77,470 SF 36,040 SF S 3,604,000 (approx.) S11,310 -S 500
Land P.eimbursement
Lodi Lake 13 Acre Expansion -- -- S 1,300,000 (approx.) S12,630 +S 820
*Master Plan, Camunity Buildings, and miscellaneous projects subtotal 55,749,000 `or 518,740,000 total program
MCC9101/TXTW.02M
Fix— hibit A
Iisetting the Impacte of Impact Fees
Connerly (1988) argues that impact fees are simply bad policy because of their
tendency to force higher prices and thereby displace lower- and middle-income house-
holds. Huffman, Nelson. Smith, and Stegman (1988) warn that impact fees may displace
development to areas that may be less able cope with that development. They also warn
of fiscal effects. The problem is that public officials have not generally come to grips with
these or other effects of impact fees. Where impact fees are relatively small, however as
they seem to be at the present time in most communities assessing them — any impact of
impact fees will be practically meaningless.
Nevertheless, where communities are concerned about prospective adverse impacts
of impact fees, they may pursue any of several mitigating policies ' Weitz, 1984). The aim
of such policies is to shift as much of the burden back to o\.. ;ers of vacant land as
possible, soften the magnitude of impact fee effects on housing prices by encouraging
greater land use intensity, and distribute the remaining burden among tenants of new
development and developers so that no parry is burdened with the whole impact. What
exactly are those policies? Ten are suggested here.
1. Assure that long-range community plans adequately foresee future development
demand by providing enough land for that development. That land must be
provid%.d with suitable infrastructure. These efforts will keep the land market from
internalizing supply shortages attributable solely to unserviced land.
I Give adequate advance notice to developers of impending impact fees. This may
be done through public hearings aad delayed effective dates. The objective is to
give developers enough time to negotiate more favorable land purchase prices.
3. Tailor impact fees to the effects that specific developments will have on com-
munities. Fixed fees fail to account for projects have relatively higher impacts
because of their location in more congested areas. Setting fees by service area of
facilities is one workable solution.
4. Attempt to provide a competitive market. In a tight market where demand for
developable land exceeds supply in the short term, public officials might allow
greater development density (where facilities can accommodate it), or allow
annexations.
5. Assure consistent land use practices. When landowners perceive that zoning or
planning changes are easily acquired, they will force developers to pay prices
reflecting those expectations. Conanunities should hold firm to land use designa-
tions.
6. Many communities under -assess vacant land or extend it certain open space tax
preferences. Such practices subsidize speculative behavior, allow landowners to
hold land for longer periods, and enable landowners to demand higher prices than
the market would otherwise justify. They should be reconsidered.
80 �"'
7. Assess impact fees at the stage in the development process that ca:i have the least
impact on prices. Consideration might be given to assessing the fees upon approval
of a project. This has the effect of forcing developers to internalize the fee as a
cost before selling land to builders. It should encourage developers to negotiate
lower land prices.
As a practical matter, the farther along in the development process the fee is
assessed, the more likely it will passed along to buyers. Assessing the fee at the building
permit stage has the advantage of raising revenue approximately when the impact is felt
while keeping the fee relatively far away from buyers. Assessing fees upon completion or
explicitly shifting fees to buyers will not put downward pressure on sellers of vacant,
buildable land and will instead guarantee forward linkage of the fee.
8. Communities should consider more flexible use of local improvement districts. If
communities can extend to new development lower borrowing rates and allow
repayment of the fee over a long period of time, the potentially adverse effects of
impact fees may be greatly reduced.
9. Communities should aggressively pursue subsidized housing programs offered by
the federal and state governments. Connerly (1988), for example, calculates that
the impact fee burden on lower-income households can be nearly completely
eliminated by use of federal low income housing tax credits.
10. Some communities pay the impact fee for lower- and middle-income housing from
the general fund or other sources. This has many attractive features. First, there
is little adverse impact on the construction of affordable housing. Second. the
impact fee revenues are in fact raised and put into necessary, earmarked accounts
for use by specific facilities. Third, it is the community at -large that subsidizes such
housing with payment of the fees. Loveland, Colorado, and Broward County,
Florida, are among communities that do this.
Communities should consider an impact fee mitigation policy package comprised of the
combination of those policies that together show the greatest promise for offsetting the
impacts of impact fees.
Source: "A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees" by
James C. Nicholas, Arthur C. Nelson, Julian Juergensmeyer
Course notebook from 1991 seminar on Development Impact Fees
81
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department
TO: City Manager
Department Heads
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: January 23, 1991
SUBJECT: Administrative Draft of Impact Fee Study
Attached is a copy of the administrative draft of the Impact Fee Study
prepared by Nolte/Angus McDonald. Richard Prima will be attending our
next Department Head meeting on January 28 to review with all of us the
general concepts that were used in the development of this proposal.
Richard will hopefully be able to answer any general or minor questions
that you have concerning your portion of the study at this meeting. If
necessary, we will make arrangements to also meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss this draft.
It is important that we provide our comments back to Nolte/McDonald .by
February 1 in order that we can keep this project moving ahead. Once this
draft is revised, the Public Works staff, together with Nolte/McDona-ld,
will be meeting with local developers and engineers to review this
document. We do not want to make this information public until this draft
is revised.
Table 2.2 shows a recap of all proposed fees.
If you have any questions concerning this prior to the Department Head
meeting, please contact me.
Jac L. Ronsko
ubl;c Works Director
JLR/mt
Attachment
cc: Assistant City Engineer
Nolte and Associates, Wally Sandelin
MCM9103/TXTW.02M
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
CITY OF LODI
DEVEDOPMENT IMPACT FEE STU
JANUARY
PREPARED BY:
NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES
ANCUS MCDONALD AND ASSOCIATES
M
. *j
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
CITY OF LODI
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Prepared fnv--
CITY OF LOD;-;.-
Prepared by:
NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES
1750 Creekside Oaks Drive,,.-Stilte 200
Sacramento, Califorpta\)95835
(916) 641,.-4500
e -)x
NOLTE A"SOCIATES
123 N. sy
,�agiore Avenue, Suite 101
Najvtfica, California 95336
(209) 239-9080
ANGUS MCDONALD AND ASSOCIATES
1950 Addison Street, Suite 107
Berkeley, California 94704
(415) 548-7599
January 22, 1991
I _T�'�_ _ y_1t2� T [:= ?`.� _I_. __. r., -HANGE.
-, r—Mas o pr.w► 0-wo wMa" WAS met loft .r+* aw ?rM$ N00 mmi at in Yi am
Administrative }Qrai't - January..21, 1991
.Su"ry of Responsibilities'.
Description of Item
Development Forecast
Assignment of Burden to Land Use
Project Cost Estimates Interchanges
Other Projects
;Allocation of Project Costs Among
i (Construction Years
1,24a�
> `Development Impact Fee Estimates
I G i
I Q 2 ;Legal Adequacy and Form
;Approved for Transmittal to
!City Council
i
i 2 Al
' rg j
C
i
�PrepQ ed By \ J Approved By
5A _
t�
fill)
`l
Geoffrey ,Richman /�--�� Angus McDonald
Angus Mc66nald & Associates `✓�\,\ ` gus McDonald & Associates
fa .j r
k V 1
{
0 J�, �RP202-B
Y� O
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
P�9g
F'
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1
INTRODUCTION
1
Purpose of the Fee
1
Basis of Costs
1
Background - Development Forecast
2
Residential Acre Equivalents
2
"
CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
4
1�
SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES
4
Phasing of Improvements for Maximum Efficiency
4
V,
Assumptions/Concepts
4
Procedure for Staging Public Improvements
6
Comments on Specific Projects and Services
7
1
Transportation
7
Parks and Recreation
7
Water
7
Police, Fire and General Facilities
8
Identifying Projects Curing Existing Deficiencies
8
Two Tier Fee - The Case of Lodi General City Facilities
8
Conceptual Issues and Concerns
10
�f
Method of Calculation
11
Summary of Fees
12
Charges In Land Use Entitlements
15
CHAPTER 3 WATER SERVICE
16
OVERVIEW
16
bo
Supply
16
Distribution System
16
Rt►
Water Master Plan
17
Water Reimbursement Policy
17
Existing Deficiencies
18
PLANNED WATER FACILITIES
18
Supply
21
Distribution System
21
Treatment
21
�i
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
21
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
22
i
Reis:ionship of Water Projects to New Development
22
.�
Relationship of Water Projects to Land Uses
22
4w
i
MR
v
G
P1ot
v
vo
04
M
4
i.:
Recommended Fees
CHAPTER 4 SEWER SERVICE
OVERVIEW
Collection System
Treatment and Disposal
Master Sewerage Plan
Sewer Reimbursement Policy
Existing Deficiencies
PLANNED SEWERAGE FACILITIES
Collection System
Treatment and Disposal
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
Relationship of New Development to Sewer Facilities Projects
Relationship of Land Uses to Sewer Facilities Projects
Recommended Fees
BURDEN ANALYSIS FOR SEWER SUB -ZONES
CHAPTER 5 STORM DRAINAGE
OVERVIEW
Collection System
Detention Basins
Master Storm Drainage Plan
PLANNED STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Collection System
Detention Basins
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
Relationship of New Development to Police Facilities Projects
Relationship of Land Uses to Storm Drainage Facilities Projects
Recommended Fees
CHAPTER 6 STREETS AND ROADS
OVERVIEW
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
ii
24
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
27
27
27
27
30
30
30
32
35
35
22
36
36
36
39
39
39
39
40
40
42
42
42
r
i!
AR
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
'Section
page
CIRCULATION PLAN
42
#
PLANNED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
43
Developer Required Improvements
43
Street and Road Improvements
43
14
Freeway Improvements
46
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
46
Relationship of New Development to Streets and Road Facilities
Projects
4&
Relationship of Land Uses to Streets and Road Facilities Projects
48
{
Recommended Fees
48
CHAPTER 7 POLICE
rap
4x,
OVERVIEW
Level of Service
4
Existing Police Facilities
co
Existing Deficiencies
rp
PLANNED POLICE FACILITIES
52
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
52
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
52
Relationship of New Development to Police Facilities Projects
,Z
Relationship of Land Uses to Police Facilities Projects
5+
Recommanded Fees
54
CHAPTER 8 FIRE
55
OVERVIEW
5s
Level of Service
693
Existing Fire Facilities
66
Existing Deficiencies
6g
1.14
PLANNED FIRE FACILITIES
513
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
t,4
i�
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section
Paae
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE %.
Relationship of New Development to Fire Facilities Projects 66
Relationship of Land Uses to Fire Facilities Projects SG
Recommended Fees S9
CHAPTER 9 PARKS AND RECREATION 60
OVERVIEW
GO
Level of Service
bo
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
too
Existing Deficiencies
too
PLANNED PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
44
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
&4
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
44
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to New Development
64
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to Land Uses
67
Recommended Fees
G7
CHAPTER 10 GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
L4
OVERVIEW
b9
Level of Service
49
Existing Deficiencies
PLANNED GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
G4
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING
49
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
0
Relationship of New Developme^'_ to General City Facilities Projects
44
Relationship of Land Uses to General City Facilities Projects
73
Recommended Fees
T3
APPENDIX A 75
APPENDIX B 77
iv
J
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number
ham
2-1 Sewer Two -Tier Fee Example 9
3-1 Mater System Improvements 20
4-1 Sanitary Sewer System Improvements Z9
5-1 Storm Drainage Improvements 39
6-1 Typical Street Sections 44
6-2 Street Improvements 45
9-1 Parks and Recreation Improvements !o(o
v
is
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number
Title Following Page
2-1
Summary of Capital Improvements Estimated
Costs and Funding Sources
4
2-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees
12
City of Lodi Development Fees - All Fees
3-1
Development Related Construction Costs and
Phasing - Water
�g
3-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Water
ZZ
4-1
Development Related Construction Costs and
Phasing - Sewer
z�
4-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Sewer
4-3
Sewer Sub -Zone Calculations
5-1
Development Related Construction Cosis
and Phasing - Storm Drainage
a�
5-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees
40
6-1
Development Related Construction Costs and
Phasing - Streets and Roads
443
6-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Streets
and Roads
40
7-1
Existing Deficiencies Analysis - Police
40
7-2
Development Related Costs and Phasing - Police
5n
7-3
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Police
492
8-I
Development Related Costs and Phasing - Fire
so
8-2
Summary of Development Impact Fees - Fire
6(0
9-I
Inventory of Existing Park and Recreation Acreage
G0
9-2
Inventory of Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities
ro!
9-3
Existing Deficiencies Analysis - Parks and Recreation
6Z
Vi
9-4 Development Related Costs and Phasing - Parks
and Recreations
9-5 Summary of Development Impact Fees - Parks and
Recreation
10-1 Existing Deficiencies Analysis - General City
Facilities
10-2 Development Related Costs and Phasing - General City
Facilities
10-3 Summary of Development Impact Fees - General City
Facilities
vii
(P4
47
A
fig
-79
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
} The enactment of AB 1600 (Government,-bde §66000 et. seq.) ha -z generatk
formal and stringent requirements,,, -for documenting the basis for valid:
development impact fees. In :r -"s ;nse to the changing legal c-Iiiiiite, as we,Il
as the desire to have a ccimpi+ehensive financing plan for till 'Various publi&,
facilities in Lodi, thy-4ui-rent fees must be updated an&`tiew`.numerous fees
need to be implemented."
The goal of tbe'Public Facilities Financing P)-an'is.:to prepare development
impact feesir'hich will provide funds to construeii'various types of
improvgzients such that the City of Lo4i-'-ss adopt'ed,:level of service is
V maintained throughout the planning pe0fbd_ Tbis'-goal will be attained
consistent with the requirements of ABj1§M.
Purpose of the Fee �Jf`
The purpose of the develop ent impact fees is to provide a dequate-financing
for the variou,-,VQfii�'�faC ity projects that are required to -implement the
Cl ty's Gener T'Plan. a fee is imposed such that new 6e
_dlopment will bear
1` fair sffake of pr*iding adequate infrastructure.., -74
The'�rfees co11'eC&edJwill be used to finance the<,.&e ign, construction, and
inspection of streets and roads, Water, Sew -W. Drainage, Parks and Recreation,
Police; Fire, and General City facilitiesJ`-The fee revenue will also be used
for a rjor update of the fee program; -which is to be performed every 5 years.
Planning Period ���•-
r The proposed`,General P1 before the City of Lodi covers a planning period of
April 1987 to 20QZ.-- or the purposes of the fee study, the planning period
was broken down into fiscal year increments: 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93,
1993/94, 1994/95, 1995/96, 1996/91, 1997/98, 2001/02, 2002/03 and 2006/07.
The planning increments are the basis for projecting fee collections, capital
improvement expenditures and cash flow analyses.
Basis of Costs
Capital improvement schedules have been prepared for the Proposed General Plan
that cover water, sewer, storm drainage, streets and roads, police, fire, and
General City facilities. Capital costs included in the general facilities
category are, for example, city hall expansion and remodel, library
---I-- --------- - - _ - - -- - - --
wo
rs
ON
,.. construction, fee program monitoring, parking lot construction, and
miscellaneous projects not failing into other infrastructure categories.
Project descriptions for each project were developed with the assistance of
City staff, other City -retained consultants, and the -authors. For"teach major
project, estimates of cost have been prepared utilizing current cost:Aata from
the City, recent bids for similar projects,, cbntractors-and supplierst,21
mz Estimates of cost are based upon January, Y, 1990 dollars throughout the
g report. Estimates of construction gost'are based upon the Engineering N�.ws
Record 20 -Cities Average Construcktd'n Cost Index for January 1990 of 4671171SOL11,
Background - Development Fori3cast
The first step in cai'ating a valid development impact fee is .to prepare a L=
forecast of the tim9ng and rate at which the Cit_Y.iwill.-develop:'' This forecast
must be cons.Aent with Lodi's General Plan apd=-trowrh Management Ordinance.
•4
The develo'pme
nt forecast serves two purposes:
•.-=''The development forecast provides th--N-Ti-s for determining when the �� `
required infrastroicture itq�:be col'eted to maintain the targeted level
E of service set forthby.�:tfiq ` qty : j
• The development_r-:orebi�t plays a significant role in forecasting cash
flow. The pnount pf deiRelopment that occurs throughout the planning
period deteiinines ,the *ount of the fee and the devel_dpment in any
particdlarr year Aetermines the total dollars tha_L_:�are available to fund
improvetkht pro. ects.
The forecast of final mapping was prepared.�r gross acre by the City of Lodi
and is -presented in Appendix A. Because.tie City will collect these fees at
the time;of the final subdivision map��s recorded, a forecast of final mapping
was used -=#o estimate the inflow of -cash. A second forecast was prepared by
the City twit presented the ti%*6 of construction and is also provided in
fit Appendix B,Forecasts of SonIftruction reflect the estimate of cash outlay for
#I capital impro-vements. TW annual update of the fee program will include an
assessment of"the extedt to which development in Lodi has been occurring as
i� forecasted. If r`aies of development begin to depart substantially from
expectations, the development forecast and fee program will be updated based
on a forecast that reflects then -current expectations.
i Residential Acre Equivalents
t�
After the amount of development was forecast for each land use category, a
to conversion was made into the number of Residential Acre Equivalents (RAE'S)
that would be developed, for each category of public improvements. An RAE
factor measures the use or burden a land use places on a category of public
improvements (e.g., water supply or roadway improvements) relative to the use
rw
PW
k
or burden placed on those improvements by an acre of single family dwellings
in the low-density residential category.
As one simple example, the water service RAE factgrs'reflect relative water
consumption. Since the Low Density residential-fategory is selectecias the
use from which all other land uses are measured, this land use categ&li has a
RAE factor for all services equal to the,euipected density of 1.0 unit Or
acre. All other RAE factors for thq,_Cafegory of public services being Or
considered are scaled relative to,,Udls "base" RAE factor for the Low Dens<%y
land use category.
� Y
For this example, the WR actors for water are calculata&'ik'the following
manner for low densit*-hand medium density residential and us6%'gategories.
Assume a populattm and unit density as shown belg-.-�;:
fes/
Land Use Population Unit�b6sity
Lots Density 2.75/unitjj== �.� 5acre
'Medium Density 2.25/unit / ----22/acre
Also, assume a per capita r wat' consumption of 285 gallons
Therefore, the water dex d.r acre.► can be calculated as follows:.
Low Density;`-� �D�mW - 2.75 x 5 x 285 - 3,919 gal./day/acre
'-!-,Medium 104sity: /Y Demand - 2.25 x 12 x 285 - 7,69-5-'gal/day/acre
By tt�fs metho' a results indicate that the demand of medium density
resid tial land exerts a 2 times (7695/39L%` 1.96) greater demand upon water
supply'Ohnd transmission facilities than d6e�i low density residential.
Therefor, a RAE factor of 2.0 is asslgfied to medium density residential for
water remembering, of course, that.,46w density residential is the baseline
having a Ot factor of 1.0.
rer
f CHAPTER 2 _
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES f
Capital improvement projects to supp_,t the Proposed General Plan and otAer
City improvements are to be fundedgfirough a number of sources. In the burse
of identifying Proposed GeneraT�Man capital improvements, a otOBer of
existing deficiencies were.i&fitified in each of the servico.' reas that are_,'-;_
not to be funded by deyr .IfDpment impact fees. City staf�:has`pxojected, where;.
possible, the sources
�4 funds to finance those pro)#-c-ts and/'. onions of
projects that are,not development related as sum�zed.'in Table
Phasing of.:haprovements for Maximum Efficiency-:..
#. The matching of required public improv t,projects to revenues from the
development impact fee program was an;ltea,* ve'process that included close
/coordination with the Growth3tagagemeOV501an. Two objectives were served.:?
,.o�new�pu61 is improvements in Lodi were: planned to
The location and tiniifig
help assure an order?•X`and cost-efficient pattern of development.
Fit •. Public i-mprovements.were timed to assure that Level,:of Service (LOS)
targets',: for eachservice were maintained.
Insofylr as practifal, the growth rates that are part of the Growth Management
Plan CAn be accommodated throughout the C %r�;�" Development can occur
simult'eously in several areas of the City, rather than be concentrated in
} ` one area`:at a time. A temporary quasf-fnonopoly on supply of developable land
• is avoided-.
+ The followfng paragraphs descfibe some of the basic assumptions and concepts
that were used in arriv)ag at project phasing. Additional information
concerning specific facilities is included at the end.
17 Assumptions/Concepts
Ins
The following assumptions and concepts guided the process of preparing the
development forecast and staging p g g public improvements to meet LOS targets.
• Development of new residential land will be limited such that the
population will grow at 2% based on the September 1989 population. This
31lows more units (acres) in the early years than in middle years due to
"catch up" after the wastewater moratorium.
---------------- -- _.._._..._I
9� SM 111104 AM IN Ili WA lk
t
TABLE 2-1 0171821
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES
T0801 a 1
OFTOfAL
GEPAWLL
O047M
WEWBI
JOAOUM
UPAN
FEOENAI
BASTAX
SALEB TAX
YFACT
0011f7RUGf10NU0
ROD
FUND
ROD
ODUNIY
FUND
RAID
RND
FUND(l)
OTHER
FEE FtXW J
L M0100r6100au0
44.671.000
so"
82
00
82
82
82
82
80.671.600
8—osa00
i s
6/.016.782
1"540 0
82
tM.0o0
82
82
82
82
82
$44000
Wa61.760
L 10med00001060
814877.006
082.000
0o
00
82
la
82
82
so
82
014827.000
0. Owego wed 80006
ONMI47
8104820
82
82
8217.000
40
884000
0182.820
i4242.000
00
8IIA44.e67
L MO -API - we
824672A00
A.27JAW
82
82
so
00
08
82
00
011.044000
810.000.100
a 8000
6284000
00
82
n
82
so
so
82
82
81440=
02480,000
7. F00
0;160,000
OI400.000
82
82
82
82
00
82
82
00
81,000,000
L D0ralaWFtlUO
8/482y210
$1.8WMM
8807.600
00
82
b
82
82
82
82
allX4.04
AL
>�6.106 Q2a
cn6�6 wF.W.K►.+...
T0801 a 1
j • Commercial development will tend to follow residential development, except
where one major development is currently being processed (Cadi Shopping
Center, also called Sunwest Plaza, at the SE corneK of Lower Sacramento
Road and Kettleman Lane).
• Industrial development was assumed to grow uniformly.
i The implementation of the Gro",,-flanagement Plan will discourage new,-,
i'or
developments that require extxdinary extension of utilities or other
improvements, such as trun)Cfines through agricultural property. This,
will help lower the cost-DbI development and reduce disruption of
' agricultural activJ$,tes.
Procedure for Staging Public Improvements
The specifi-c'steps that led to the staged Capital%improvements Program are
describpd'in the following paragraphs.
•- The annual number of units to be 4 1!W d-wiis converted to acres based on.-'
an average of seven unit n acreer the Draft General Plan.
r- • Sub -areas surroundifl th'Li�y�were identified based on available' storm
�_
drain basins, utj].�ity.l:ruA lines, major streets, General Plan limits, and
natural boupdartes,.'
• i, The acreages were' -i atched with the sub -areas and..bibken into three phases:
Jane 7 year:_ block followed by two 5 year block; -_
N.
• The above two steps were repeated until A6 acreage provided in each phase
matched the number of units in the fi ,t step.
The majoi-tjy of the projects were.hien placed in the appropriate phase
coinciding' -kith development of.the adjacent area. This would include projects
in which t�ie,.impact fee fund'wrould be used in conjunction with frontage
r 6; improvements --by a develgp6 such as for oversized lines and major street
} crossings. As-;toted,ifi the assumptions, there should be few cases in which a
Ya utility must be extended outside the development. (Exceptions and
64 clarifications are noted below.)
�w Careful attention was paid to the timing of construction of public
improvements, compared to increases in development and demand for services.
*00 Each improvement was staged to insure that it would be completed and in place
before the actual level of service had declined below the City's Level Of
+14 Service target.
In support of the objective of avoiding degradation of service level, the City
of Lodi intends to collect development impact fees in advance of the date of
46.
T4P,: S A !-;RA;—,
Ti
ems►
PW
m.
final inspection or the date a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Delaying
residential fees to the time of occupancy would assure that compjetion of
public improvements would considerably lag the residential develo"{ment that is
creating a significant percentage of the demand fot^'the. improvements. To
avoid this situation, the City's fee ordinancesr provide that develdOpent
impact fees are due at the time that a fin,] -subdivision map is filed Public
r+ capital improvements can then be construeted in parallel with the prodess of
readying parcels for development ands<r6nstructing residences. The sere-ce
capacity provided by the public ,i provements can be in place atthe time;�that
increased demand actually occgek.
The present document cgcfIitutes a ". .proposed constrttaioq-,schedule or .
plan..." for seventeeh`� ears. The various fee ordinoiices wili,`gnsure that `
"...an account kw -been established and funds apps}6pr,14ted..."- Accordingly,
the requiremeatt of Government Code Section 66QQ7," been met. Lodi can `
collect residential impact fees in advance of,
,frd:al inspection or occupancy.
Consents on Specific Projects and Serric=
The following paragraphs exip'tai�f�the f reasons for the staging of certain key j
projects. `"
Yf
>Y �,
Transportation
The HigWay 12 (ottleman Lane) Project Study Rept+was placed early in
rw =the program.�'is Report will take some time -6 --do and the results will
affect t6iee and cost of subsequent projects.
Sheet capacity improvements were ph based based on examination of the
present and future volumes, capao-iy of existing improvements and the
capid4ty after the new improyow nt.
�+ Parks and ia.creation
" The Master --.Pian udy was placed early since it will take some time to do
;a and the resul s will affect the scope and cost of subsequent projects.
• Parks would be completed by the end of the phase in which adjacent
c�
# development occurred.
«. Yater
r' • No new wells would be required in 1990/91 since no annexations/new housing
would be occupied in that year.
L.y
IL
r
• dells were added in each of 15 of the remaining 16 years in the Program.
It was assumed that the first wells to be added would -not require Granular
Activated Carbon (GAC) filtration units. Since they water system is highly
interconnected, wells need not be constructed�.within the area that is
being developed. It is possible to decide. -where to drill an individual
well at the time that the additional
acity is required.
i�
Police, Fire and General Facilities
• Projects were phased base)dC"'discussions with the Police;an8 Fire CO
,,e
and other department heeds. ":�
• The west side fire' ouse was placed in%the first- chase sihta it is locate
in the corre§pdnding area. -"'
Identifying--iP ojects Caring Existing Deficiencies~"
The _entire list of capital improvemen r — , revi'ewied to identify projects f?
which primarily cured existing de ci Projects that were excluded from,
the fee program based on thi. luatip¢hn are any type of replacement, repairor renovation of an existiitJ hich provides for little or no:added
i capacity.
`.In addition, 13r prs` Asp or groups of projects, in Parks:: -:and Recreation,
kolice and Geaef-al City Facilities were evaluated on an:..Wividual basis. The
r`qAults of 1fiis leveY-bf analysis is that certain prn, cts were split between
nex�developmeht tf i`program funded) and existinq`diM opment Jother financing
sourc_e).
Two Ti -dr Fee - The Case of Lodi General -dty Facilities
An examp% from Lodi's fee prograw-fan illustrate the concept of the two tier
fee. The`-;kjcample is illustratod'in Figure 2-1. The General City facilities
fee can be`!�ummarized with
January 1; 1990 dollarsj.a following facts. (All figures are in constant
'
• During the period from 1990/91 through 2001/02 the total cost of the
improvements to provide capacity required to serve new development at the
targeted level of service is $8,093,369. The projects funded by the
,i General City Facilities fee are not curing any existing deficiencies.
t
set+ HV-; 'S A ORA _ -..,+t.-. r' *�_`:tE'N �
40'
FIGURE 2-1
Sewer Fee - City of Lodi
Cumulative Average Cost Per RAE
Dollars Per RAE
800
.im
400
200
01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/96 1996/98 1998/97 1997/98- 2002/03-
2001/02 2008/07
Years
— Cum. Avg. Per RAE -- Avg Per RAE Program
• During 1990/91 through 2001/02, a total of 1,568 General__City Facilities
Residential Acre Equivalents (RAEs) will develop. _
• The average cost in the period 1990/91 through -2001/02 is $5,16.1 per RAE
and the fee necessary to fund the improvements in this period fic?$5,482
per RAE. (The slight difference is due.to interest -payments, wht0h are
explained subsequently.) �-
�- v
• The improvements constructed,, ng 1990/91-2001/02 will provide somr'w
m. capacity that will be avai,.*le to serve development after-,2001/02.`tF�e
capacity available to,,d&: 11opment after 2001/02 is a by_-=RYoduct of *lumpy
projects" (e.g. thp^jefty Hall expansion) which can not be.`broken dorm info
smaller units. T* creation of some excess cap-acfiy, incidental to the 4
demand created -by new development, is frequently wpvoidabYe for temporary`
periods of -time.
s�
►�• If development for period 2002/03-2006A7 happens, only an additional
„ $1,550,400 is required to serve the 741-Qfsjoredasted to develop in this
period at the targeted level of servi¢o.-Fhts="would require a fee of only
'S2,150 per RAE jf the incremenf grboccurring between 2002j03 and
2006/07 were charged for,no6sar'y iryqremental capacity and were allowed'to
enjoy, at no cost, the irkidetdtal-._Oeei ss capacity financed by those -who
developed between 193J9'1" rid 2001/02.
This "free r..fd-e'-would/be inequitable. Onthe other hand•"a fee during the
period 2002 0.3-2006/0,"of $4,482 would be sufficient.:.ttil4und the improvements
�. stated for his p ri6d, as well as fully reimburs_e•.4�.fair share of the
incidental excess"capacity funded by developmieaf-in 1990/91-2001/02. The fee
durih9. 2002/03-2006/07 is higher than the axei-age cost through 2006/07 of
k $4,21Z -'because the funds collected subject io contingent reimbursement are
reimbursed with interest, based on a,rate 2% above inflation..
Conceptual - issues and Concerns,
The nature aid timing ofthe General City Facility projects is such that they
are required to rovjde the targeted level of service to the new development
r.9 leading up to their construction. The projects will provide incidental excess
capacity which future development would then buy into. However, it should be
noted that the requirement for the capacity a project is providing, and the
timing of its construction is based on the development occurring prior to its
construction, not afterwards. In other words, if development occurred which
*' triggered the requirement for the project to be built, and no other
development subsequently occurred, that project would still be required to
se provide the desired level of service for the then existing development. This
is an engineered finding supported by Nolte and Associates.
Separate fees are recommended for two distinct time periods.
r
I. Fee For The Period 1990/91-2001/02: The impact fees'.collected during this
period would finance the improvements that are required to meet Lodi's
its level of service target for new development during this time period.
Further, improvements financed by these fees"are the minimal se!�bf
improvements that will provide the capaytty required to serve th&_�pew
development over this period. Due to -'the fact that projects must to built
as complete units they unavoida�jy provide excess capacity incident'a� to
the demand that would be place�-on them by new development through ttfg.
year 2000.
2. Fee For The Period.. M2/03-2006/07: The fee chargedr�d"uri.pg the period
this period woujc�-ti sufficient to meets three regUOrements_.;:
The aOfiionai facilities requiredtoy erv.a:eew development in the
per,fod 2002/03-2006/07 would be funded-.'-; _"
F`"
who necessarily finance tridental -'excess capacity during the
period 1990/91-2001/02 would O Ceim-builsed with interest compounded on
the balance due (at 1)i
. f ` -
`'4 . The final balaneeeCi4,;dic fee account would be approximateiy taro.
Pi The fee for the ori6i,'19W/91-2001/02 has two components:
Portion of`Fee &I Subject To Contingent Reimbursement N7his component is
co#,iected per. `acrer:ef development and charged fortis entire planning period.
'
Port�46n of Fee Subject To Contingent ReiwbuMAIRent: The portion of the fee
M subjeet'to contingent reimbursement is imposed per acre on new development in
the eartJer years of the fee program td"insure funding for improvements on a
s
timely 6i�is. If development occuraccording to the forecast, this charge
would not* imposed through tjw'entire planning period. Those who develop in
the early years would be reimbursed from fee receipts from future development
if, and when;\that deve>Oment occurs. The reimbursement would include
interest over t1xq_ ppg-y_W for the portion subject to contingent reimbursement
}a that was outstand�g. The reimbursement -is not guaranteed as it is contingent
on future development actually occurring.
s_n Method of Calculation
The portion of the fee not subject to contingent reimbursement is
approximately equal to the total cost of all improvements, divided by the
t-,, total number of RAE's that have been forecast to develop through the year
2006/07. This relationship is approximate, rather than exact, because the
balances in each development fee account earn interest, and interest is earned
'bi! THIS 1S A
r�
a
by, and paid on, the outstanding portion of the fee that is subject to
contingent reimbursement.
The calculation of the portion of the fee subject.,to contingent relspbursement
is more complex. A heuristic algorithm is employed and successive ' _
modifications of three separate variables "'made. The first two vatjables
w" are the level of the portion subject to ',contingent reimbursement and t'he years
it is collected. The third variablF41 s the years in which the portion `subject
to contingent reimbursement, plus,4,&rued interest, is repaid from the this
then available in the developnto fee account.
A project phasing sche tje is prepared, as. determined by:_ be';development ',1=
forecast and the adooed service standard,tshowingthe'timing`of the
expenditures required for each improvement. A tgr'i w of Residential Acre t
Equivalents is,-prepared, then converted into a-forecast of the amount of fee
Qt subject'-6 contingent reimbursement and fee'-subject to contingent
w reimbursement that will be collected i each year. The fee and cost of
t> capital improvements are inflated for spur-poses ofanalysis at the same rate.
However, it was assumed that the infl #i.--#ffects on the fee are lagged one=:-
due to the fact that t�-_19 is bri updated at the end of each year:"
The amount of both compdhgnt;:;b-f-Lfee, along with the years the '..-portion
subject to contingenl_reim-beirsement is imposed, and subsequentl.y-'repaid, are
successively majvt tatid un%il:
• All prdjects have; been constructed at their then_,•aCival year cost;
Fhll yearly.ficits in the Development Fee<.atcount have been eliminated;
- �.
• Th4i portion subject of contingent reimbursement balance, along with
accumulated interest, has been ful-t"y repaid. The balance in this account
at tlte- end of the planning pertd`d is zero;
i
°" • Only a nominal surplus regains in the Development Fee account at the end
of the planning period.
Sumwry of Fees
i
A summary of the development impact fees is presented by General Plan land use
k� category in Table 2-2. This summary presents the summation of the impact fee
imposed for each of the relevant facility categories in the public facilities
financing plan. The fee for each particular category of public improvement is
presented in the applicable chapter (e.g. Streets and Roads - Chapter 6).
Each fee, except the sewer impact fee is imposed citywide throughout the
w: entire planning period, and a portion of the fee is subject to contingent
reimbursement.
arr
TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
ALL SERVICES
ToW
#Facts
wear
sews
norm Qm!mm
Street- 8 nolds
Portion Not Portion
Portion Nal Portion
Panim Nat pal
Potion Not Portion
Panton Net Paden
Land Use Cataparlae Unit S110iect To Srbjed To Told
Sub)eor To subject To TOW
Sutiod To Arblaet To TOW
subject To Sublset To TOW
Bub)" -0 Subject To TOW
Caentllv&A Cantb10$5d
Condngml Contingent
Caadrl0ara Candngent
Contbpaot CmdngeM
Cantkpent ConWlOent
netmbunemam Rdmbaeamarlt
RNmburvommt Rebabor$5rnent
Aaimbursemalt ReimMiramanl
Ralmbafement Reimborsem6ni
Reimbursement Reimbursement
RESIDENTIAL
Puke and
Omelet City I
1"AicsFie
Lw Mnsily Ap.
$1,211
S42S
Roaeedm
I -0 -ay A..
1134,616
$2.010 1151,646
",114
311
",1N
6600
7:60
$700
51,600
$276
$9.on
91.726
$100
54.023
mMwm 0-4 A-
Milli1
114,04 $52.740
µ,374
d
36.37'1
$1.000
am
$IAA
VAN
$276
$5.076
$9.211
M$5
WAS7
Ia9h M.My A..
6102,67
84,1$5 aI10A72
614,66$
6o
111,066
51.750
3610
8300
97,60
$776
Worst
61'1,'111
not
$11.716
r-, Sm. A.4dg3.1 Ap.
MIA=
4766 543,021
N,t47
$5
84,I37
Sm
Sm
$700
$7,600
3376
".W6
$4,726
1100
35,626
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
$1,360 $9.273
fl.dium Dr.."I Ast.
s2201
$764
$2.9"
11,017
$390
51,110
$11.178
so 317,174
511,322
51."s $13,261
High Mmhy Ape
M40
LO.0-sit, b'1
636661$
$2410 641.676
µ1N1
s0
04,1117
"00
pm
$700
$7,100
$276
",076
64.726
3100
$4,626
Y.dwm0.fey Apt
"6,lµ
",007 ML220
$4,374
$5
$8.274
$100
am
SIAM
$7,100
$276
$4,0$
39,211
$759
$9.667
Hph b..Nry Apt
11102,/67
Win 11"o.a21
s11,a"
so
314,666
$1,750
$910
maw
$7,600
$276
$4.076
314,411
6306
$14,716
COMMERCIAL
$4,6"
355,
sl.9"
$3.416
$4 $3.6,6
$7.05
$1.207 54.202
Clle,. C.mn.reial ft,.
".620
$1.567
".202
$1.274
6402
56.7"
N.NhbummdC T-okl b'1
$0.711
64.463 364.774
$5.400
$5
64,6"
36116
6326
Sm
$10.374
dee
310.740
$4,971
$190
$4.1$4
oao..64 C - coil Apt
610.647
63,70$ 360.414
$2,660
In
12990
am
$326
3640
914.37.
d$5
$10,740
613,050
Sm
sle!32
D-- Asn
",311
µ,40i "1.774
$5,660
$5
92AN
$425
$326
Wm
$10.374
63"
$10,740
".976
MW
119,1"
io ml.lp
ClCpal Apt
"9.361
".776 0$5
$e6.
$2610
d
82,650
$426
3325
am
310.374
6006
$10.740
µ2,100
$891
most
INDVSTRIAL
LI1hlI -W Ap.
332,33'1
$1,770 334,104
53,152
40
63,62
$1"
3"
5261
610,374
sw
$10,7.0
69.450
3200
solved
14-5 I'd ... W Den
$32,233
$2,031 534,264
4,662
40
33,662
3,"
116,11,
MSI
1110,374
$]E8
310.740
36.001
6127
$6.129
MOu.IrW M1.m Ac.. _
35,331
$1.770 536,101
41662
m
33.652
tNS
a.
MSI
$10,371
tide
310,760
$9!50
Sm
W,"
__.
Puke and
Omelet City I
1"AicsFie
Lw Mnsily Ap.
$1,211
S42S
Roaeedm
farililief
5200
Poltim Na
Portion
$0 11,2421
Portion Not
Ponion
Portim Not Portion
Porion Not Patim
Land Use Categories Unit
Subject To
Subject To
Total
Subject To
Subject To Taal
Subject To Subject To
Total Subject To Subject To Tow
$1.640 .3.261
Contingent
Conlingenl
K005
Contingent
Contingent
Conting.nl Contingent
Canlingout Con0l49nt
$sole
Reimbursement Umbussemenl
$52,151
Reimbursement Reimbursement
Reimbursement ReimbulWmmt
Reimburwment Reimbursement
a- IDENTIAL
Lw Mnsily Ap.
$1,211
S42S
$1."6
"I3
5200
Tins
$1;021
$0 11,2421
$7,023
111,350 $9,2n
4.dwm D.W" Ape
$220,
6464
12.95
$1.017
5301
51.410
3t/,f 7e
s0 617.,78
311.322
$1.640 .3.261
1606 Mme/ Apr
35463
K005
67.666
12740
066
53,105
$sole
m M610
$52,151
531770 176.531
Eu1 Sidi 11..Id-W A..
SI,317
11161
s1,"s
$50
3220
$7"
$13.197
$0 $13.197
$6.00
SIMM? $10.140
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Lw D11Wry Ap.
111,241
6425
s„$4
"10
elect
$718
512.021
" "2021
S7,9"
$1,360 $9.273
fl.dium Dr.."I Ast.
s2201
$764
$2.9"
11,017
$390
51,110
$11.178
so 317,174
511,322
51."s $13,261
High Mmhy Ape
M40
412.09
$71.56
S2.m
1466
$3.1"
351.619
SO 530.029
$22.156
4,774 mb
COMMERCIAL
7Mlghbphood C -d1 Mn
",319
$1,421
$7.,20
s1,135
Mea
61,990
d,ete
m 113AIG,
W.W5
$1.207 ".m2
0.11..+11 -bud A..
33.2218
$1.102
6..320
$1.000
6340
$1,355
$&via
$5 33.616
57.045
51.:07 14.292
a--Cdllnr+eial Asn
".144
$1.021
$7.139
$4,6"
355,
sl.9"
$3.416
$4 $3.6,6
$7.05
$1.207 54.202
Clle,. C.mn.reial ft,.
".620
$1.567
".202
$1.274
6402
56.7"
14.643
W WM3
02.1ar
52.070 61.215
INDUSTRIAL
Lvh, In1.lwtal A-
074
$,2e
$02
3333
5128
6.61
W.
30 52,7:6
0.041
"82 $S,M
I's." w,0w1rW A..
Sm
$79
All
"is
5123
52I
43.963
$0 3a.953
$11336
51,250 ",a
Md -W75.- A-
6374
$121
S%2
3333
$126
"1
64,726
84 12.726
sS.W,
3692 5-%M
Each fee will be fine-tuned annually to reflect inflation and other minor
adjustments.
l
The various fee ordinances should provide for aa�automatic annual i*,ease in
proportion to the Engineering News Record Cyrtstruction Cost Index, in:I%he
+� event that, for what ever reason, a mores refined annual update is not done.
Further, each fee will be subjecteO:to a major revision every fire years' -and
every time an event occurs, sud -is a General Plan update, which could havg.a
significant effect on the,.#'&' A major update should refleyt..changes in the.-
A.
development forecast,t wring of proposed projects, the pxQeet\:list itself, �',<._
and changes in cost ,i ce the last revision,. A major-revisio6-.-'t5 year update]=
of the financing ap� ,plan should extend the time frfothat no less than 15
years worth of. --growth and required projects are.;6d-5iseo determine the fee
structure..
Changes In Land Use Entitlements
Parcel may undergo redevelop ppr at` qe to a more intensive land use.•'
The development impact fei:h Z.ill(be due reflect the difference betwseen
the fee appropriate to isfie m _Intense use and the fee that would -.have been
appropriate to the pr id{i_s,use. In concept, the various classes"of
.infrastructure ha the, 40a4ity to meet the demand placed byv.:t6e original land
use. The inttikgificatlpn of use will create additional-di4and. Additional
capacity mti*l be pure6ased through the incremental de-,84-opment impact fee.
The opposite o4*le to an intensification of.vsi' ould be a parcel that
develops at a use that is less intense thap.'i'is land use entitlement. The
variods fee ordinances should provide fob -4 "exception procedure" to deal with
f instanci(.Jhat simply were not contemp•1'ated at the time that the ordinance was
adopted. -4'. -As a generalization exc*eptlons should be granted sparingly.
Facilitie<-were sized based on.xfie expected land uses and in many cases
capacity wiN be provided J&'advance of total demand because of the inability
to build certain classes --6f projects in stages. If exceptions are granted
easily, part kWArly_fii the later years of the planning period, sufficient
development impact fees will not be available to complete the Capital
'• Improvements Program.
An additional consideration is that although a parcel may be developed
initially in a less intense use, it may undergo redevelopment in future years.
As a specific example assume that a parcel with commercial entitlements is
originally developed as a residence. The full commercial fee would be due.
-s If, subsequently the parcel was redeveloped, it would receive credit for the
fact that the full commercial fee had been paid. Only if the future use was
more intense than the commercial land use category would a higher fee be due.
�.t
' The amount and timing of redevelopment and reuse
accuracy. Accordingly, the development forecast
includes only new development. If proposals for
redevelopment or reuse are forthcoming in future
wa
;4
FA
cannot be predicted with any
on whicj� tFie fees were based
significant amounts of
Mears, the effect''of this can
be considered during the annual update of the ee ordinances.
Successfully implementing a 17 year, $73,,x96,558. Capital Improvement`s]
Program is a major undertaking. It wM require a very serious effort °at.
program management and monitoring,;.W actual performance as compared to 0,1' n.
The Capital Improvements er6i�a6 contains specific line itewi?io provide tie,
cost of staff or consul int services to act as Program !l;nagek.for the Capitol
Improvements Program�jbudget is also provided for_ � major General Plan _
Update/Capital Improvements Program and Developmme&"Iry Tact Fee`dpdate every
fifth year. _
The program management function should—tnclude`a`\responsibility to monitor
actuafi performance compared to plan. ► -monitoring function can be combined
with any environmental impact monitor g�06� that is recommended either }-n-'
Environmental Impact Report } on fi update of the City's update of the
General Plan or in the E/I//R�'"r'� //^x ajtprojects.
The monitoring function kaiV also include a responsibility to monitor actual
` fiscal performs �t)e',� ty compared to the expectations _that were forecast
'in the fiscalra6alysis)pf the General Plan. _
t /
f `\_
e�
f �
Ms i TH(S 15 A._+` EN—. _'td .t +^ it_-
Me
CHAPTER 3
WATER SERVICE
OVERVIEW
A
Water service to Lodi residents is pr9lided by the City. Major component of
the water system include wells, dr,� ibution piping and a single elevated=,
,. storage tank. The following ,si+ions will describe the City':s-:::�itisting supply
and distribution facilities :jhrrent planning for expansiojraf the system,-
policy
ystem, policy relating to costygh'aring for major facilities, and.`exi.sting water ;
service deficienciesiol
s . Supply
7Water for` -the City of Lodi is pumped directly firdm wells located within the
City. -limits. At present, wells discharge'-dKrectly into the distribution
system. Of the 25 existing,
wells in it e�ty;'20 are currently producing.
,.'Two wells are not producing 0 coh ination and a third well is being
equipped for production. '
Water quality in the_�quki s tapped by City wells is generally good.
�• Recently adoptedr-ik~p7aAaeW%of Health Service (DHS) standards>`for
dibromochlorQpi6pane (01BCPfwill impact the City because,.fd� DBCP
cgncentration,at 12 mil sites exceeds the new State- At, ard. Presently, the
Cid is prepar�
ingr"conduct pilot studies of granular activated carbon
filtration unl.s=to remove the DBCP from the water. With respect to DBCP, the
better -wells are located in the northeast se,Ctor of the General Plan area.
Groundwater levels within the basin hA steadily dropped over the last years.
Concerns'i`or salt water intrusion.A"s_a regional concern but may not be a
threat to,Odi due to influence-d'f the Mokelumne River as a major contributor
to replenishMent of the groundwater basin.
Well yields id -Lodi are good. Individual wells produce an average of 1,600
gallons per minute. Pumping levels vary across the well field by
approximately 80 feet, with the shallowest water in the northeast area and the
`~- deepest water in the southwest area. The City operates a Supervisory Control
and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to assist in operating the well field,
maintaining pressures in the system, and recording operating data.
Distribution System
Existing distribution piping within the City ranges in size from 2 to 14 inch.
By current standards, any distribution piping smaller than 6 inches is
_16-
5
IEli - f TO
w.
substandard. Smaller pipe was primarily used in the older portions of town
and it has, in many cases, been constructed in backyards-Ahd aT%eys.
Backbone of the City distribution system consists�of a network of 1.0 and 14
1= inch pipe laid on an intersecting grid. Grid intersections are typ'q.ally
separated by a distance of 1/4 to 1/2 mile:, -AM
Pressures within the distribution system are maintained using an elevated tank
and with assistance from the SCA[11 system. Water elevations in the tanfi`are
consistently 165 to 180 feet',,-FiiOting in a 49 to 55 pound .er. iquare
inch -pressure at the tank. .f
Water luster Plan
k Current plann.tn} for the expansion of water sv "pl, a;Ai distribution facilities
to serve �"City through the period of the General Plan is embodied in the
„ "Water 14aster Plan" prepared in 1990. -Based upon:.the General Plan projected
popul- £ion and average water demandsf� 9 -gallons per capita per day, total
average day water demand at 2007 will Pe U.r-lii l l i on gallons per day.
:.Existing (1987) average day is 58 million gallons per day.
i3 A number of planning an iesti1endations were presented in the Water
Master Plan. Those cod�nendations that affected the information"presented in
this report are -sMi_ tat�i ed�1 el ow.
Des gtn�for f,�fire wells should conform to thatVhr recently
_ constructAe-wells: 21, 22, and 23.
'_. Well and distribution system shoui�iti�`e capable of meeting maximum day
demands with 20% of the wells otlt�b� service.
F4 /
3. Oer each 2,000 equivalent..persons added to the system, a new well
s*ld be constructed.
4. One of three we should be equipped with standby power.
tw 5. Re-evaluateWater Master Plan at least every 5 years.
t Water Reimbursement Policy
to Under the City's slater Main Extension policy, applicants are reimbursed a
portion of the construction cost of oversize mains and major crossings.
Commonly, city's and agencies share in the cost of constructing special items
of infrastructure, especially, since these special items are typically part of
iw
the backbone of the system.
ysr THIS1-5 A -DRAT l13C %IEE—
For oversize mains, the reimbursement policy applies to water mains larger
than 8 inches in diameter. Major crossings covered by this poTicy are
Woodbridge Irrigation District canals, Southern Pacifjc"Transportation
Company, Central California Traction Company, Highway 99, Highway 12 west of
Highway 99, Lower Sacramento Road, and Hutchtn� Pt south of Ket an
Lane. For major crossings, the City will �fmburse one half the cos ,of
construction. /
' For the purposes of this report,,:j*i~mbursable construction costs are asstAed
to include materials, constractjrin, administrative, engineering�ind
inspection. AdministratiYe'irfd engineering reimbursement,is`limited to 10i"by
City policy.
Existing Deficiencies
�i The Water master Plan identified a number of e'A "ng deficiencies in the
water distribution system. These deficl� ncies generally include replacement
of older pipe and construction of pare apes a Significant water quality
(DBCP) deficiencies exist at I2 of th 2 eoo&dcing wells. Estimated cost to,
correct the pipeline and water- alitj,- eficiencies is $8.2 million. Pipeline
A reconstruction will be fun;
,)tinQuqH the City water fund. D8CP facilities
will be constructed using la e4,Stat�e funds that will be repaid by custoaers
through water service rate.
Pa � --
"ED WATERJACILITIo
Wafer faciltt%es td=serve buildout of the'Generai,RIeh were identified in the
Water Master Rltrt: As part of the public faciJiies financing effort of the
Genenal Plan, speci' - project descriptionssmer'e generated for those
improvements identified by the Water Haste Plan. Generally this effort
p! included defining the length and size. -Qt pipe and appurtenant facilities;
definin4-Ahe additional equipment-tfl be provided at the wells; and identifying
the canal., --Street and railroad,trossing that involve cost sharing by the City.
A summary ofthese facilitlji5 is presented below and described in Table 3-1.
Project numbeEs listed Jn1lable 3-1 are used to identify the project locations
on Figure 3-1. _
r.
40
a-- *ON* 0-- pa1- a211fr riga man owe omd ii+ 6--" mr4 wd" f.w.f$ fMw rrrr !� w" w>
o,raAl
TAIXE 3 —1
WATER SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
knpaa
pnljad Dwalpd- Faa
lNumbor Fwd 120=1 Imim2 1007/00 1903M4 109WS 1276100 199ow IOW -4002 2007-2007
WATER MAN EXnNSi0MS
MWOMI Tumor Ad. fanwkdOn mdn
$10.000
$0
m
i0
i0
:0
$0
$0
$2.613
$13.WY
conwlsr0 o12A60 K 104nah
wdw mdn Dam mwwlyaf Wa
Cwwal Cart. "mm Co.
fowtirsd auw0
MWG M10 Tumw And trmrmafafl0n andn
$10.000
$0
m
m
EO
m
W
:7
m
$10.000
O W181061i kwkdN con wdon
of 02 mda mdw Ow Carwal CNK
- Tfaaron Co. (cal alwklpj
- - MW8f002 Lad Awrma•mrtrmbelan main
$O.ow
$o
$0
HYD
$0
$o
$0
$o
$1.470
$7.030
oankaiv oft ooM1644h
wdwmain.W ykomCk*
Ave. to Ca" Tracdon
CSF (orwlii�d maks
MWSM" 1,360 K 1644 A NOW MOM
$11.000
1C
m
$0
W
$0
$11.000
m
$o
30
wg wlF kom lodl kmmw.
(o—dad Pudn)
MWSdOW (irrrd Avwma bmm-bdon
$30.000
$0
m
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
$$0.000
$0
,ara ow..lrrra a seotr r
10-WAft WSW MOM a§WV
kob" GuNd Awma baewaan
- - Pl" &W Kohn wL
MWir7000 TraMNNl0nm I pwa"and
$31.000
$0
$0
00
10
$0
$o
00
0o
$61.000
adpe.* 10 Carwd c 4K
Tnwdm Co. ,, , , th p of
balWaan Pkm and Kalrmm n.
O wd-d mals
PAGE IO 9
-V: • _
TABLE 3 —1
WATER SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
mp—
Mn*w
rad
$$$apt
lanm
tow=
lam# 4
1001/06
lie s
180w
10Y7�20D2
zaaa-so�17
bIW81000 bd0laww"wwwwvlmmft
$1.060
".00o
m
so
so
so
so
m
oo�+.la,oaaon r to -Inca
so
m
.. wob►pdnbs»wwl0ltiuR
NNnw. (or•nli�d Indo wMd1
AIYY61007 bidwawYMrytronoairimnab
0.00
so!D
m
$0
. OonY q a 1.180 k 10-k"
f0
m
>D
$0,000
$0
coat nwtk beM Oat of CW
*$..am
.. cow" vwwlt100s.
.- $Or.'bOtnnbt)
' Uwmn Rolm n ftm w011U01nim mwn
$$0.000
$D
s0
$10.000
i0
i0
so
so
twadMNq d t,$00 M /0 -Intl
so
00
arwnwb� bsM nasl W
K�nwn tr». (owtdtod p�i�)
: srim s "Mu" YrngiMlOn now
:$DA00
$0
m
$O
so
s0
$".NO
$0
4omdW" W &,w* u %-Ww l
$p
f0
wnMt WA%door h* n WON
b0lwwnroobmm &nd wa.
i+wsato ON~ tan0 annrnlwion pdn
$s7.000
$o
>D
w
m
so
it7 000
$o
��g a A$wq tt-In�A
$o
$a 000
. wWtntnbiwntwlrtamlonior
BwMrrMolbdbbONManw.
MW81011 TamwibdaamnhAwmds
wo.000
$0
$0.714
$1.007
$3.000
$3.130
$lAM
40
oondMYiOatt'J$001f ttl-Yicb
so
$0
wnMt sada ban I.Owr 8�nnrnl0
Ibn0. (aMd11d pdn)
PAGE 2 OF •
pa5r� � Cw++ rw.alt �..� �... �r :..-r aawwa� .r Pita. nlaaw� � �o;f B1ra+1 �� !•w �
otam
TABLE 3 - I
WATER SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
baped
Ro}a Daafp6oa Faa
tMarbw Fwd lo0om 1001m 1902M 1003104 1004M 1995" loo6N7 is"-== 2W2-2007
UWSMZ AppW&md Ddw ummModon mat
$10.000
so
$4.057
$1.003
$1,532
$t.506
$342
$6
m
so
oolld -, d1,300glo.w wwm
maY10a1 @ftdlpW6164ncb
' wrw main aomllwlytma Twlwr Rad
1660 adwrq main. (mwdw wwfa)
YW=13 Lb wS $amamw00 PAW lmnrMab
$4.000
$6
$4.000
30
do
$o
$o
$o
so
i0
main om *dng of 650 616*wb
waw own nw6wy ama Yoaamba
Avamu.(m1M+i.aW1$
YW51614 AWW^v d Ddo t ummbelon mdn
$166.600
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o
$0
$0
$o
$565.600
OWAIM at L%400 610-b"
wank mdn WW&ody kam+ddkq
Apgawoodb"-"L—(*— d
mwN
YW=ol AppWaoodMWbmwMaafo mWn
$$AW
$o
$o
$0
$o
$0
m
>D
$o
$0.000
, MW910/4atgYldudaam41atr1wikn
of a *4nah wales bw wdw 6w
W= Canai (aw "one)
YW=U AWWwoodD*nWwwaWmmein
$6.500
Ib
$6
$6
$o
$6
$o
$0
$0-%o
$0
P MS1014) aim Mich oonatrla.'6on
da fo-Mwh walw Sim aaloaa
Lmwr $amaow6o Rad Wow abrYq)
$twmis emgaan Ddaa trw w "m man
$25.000
$o
$12.143
$3.760
$3,631
$3,012
$1,355
$0
$o
$o
amlai -, 0 013,260M lo-och www
wwwya w aaawly from aalatlno
E qp— D,Iw b Lowes Sa>amelao
' (orewre wa"
01/72/91
TABLE 3 —1
WATER SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
mv—
Rojua D-Odpdal F"
1"wrAw Fvrd losom /991/92 loom" 1993704 19046 loom 190mw 1997-Z00Y A007 -4A07
UWS1014 Lad MWma Vwmmdti0m mdn
570,000
m
70
5o
50
40
4D
m
Mm
$16.734
Cando** of 2.000 9104nch
. alW main wordy km Lmw
.. Smammmm0 plod to ewww F1rn
YW=17 VkW SW" UUMM "mmdo
414.000
$0
40
m
30
:D
4D
m
$tm
315.061
eOndMhnQd2,250M10-indn
glmlef maim athAY a Loc1W
SamonamO ROM M q m laws
$"a (ovrllmd now
&MMS KoO ma Lem trlwddam mean
Su.000
so
40
40
so
4D
So
40
$5=
424.448
oaw.wgd4,5soKtoamah
allrmmhaWtyalamt
Smommril0 Rod b "m Way.
- (orrelzM me"
.. MW=19 La11W Sommamlo Rod ammmisdo
441.000
40
40
l0
4D
40
421.000
40
Mm
510.734
.. . intim 00"1tq d 0.700 It 104nch
- atw maim nmftft lo Kc9Nmma
Lra 10 Ca W.1A. Cral.
. (-Wzod mak#
UWSXM Kotlbm udLamW SmOmmwwRood
$13.000
so
50
40
50
40
50
40
$13.000
$0
dmnpli.mimn malls ommi4 and
_ MW31010)YwNdudmmEuin WWK
m0 two rdemYq mod& (cat dwkw
MWSWW Minh Awma mwmrAmi m mdm
511.000
SD
50
SD
m
140
m
SO
411,000
40
QWAkdna of l:Wa m 104mh
WrW Malin nmft yham KMCw1Nn
Lana W W.I.D. Crai (wWmtrmd ma"
PACE40FO
� �"" - - �r .�.n. r�i. nv... rr+� .--•• .�-, Wi®r .Yiw r.�l i'.
oftn a1
TABLE 3 - 1
WATER SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
knpact
ft ompfpf0n Fm
tMwe�r Fund 1omm 100U92 1902103 1963104 1904W 1996190 199w 19x7-pOq 2002-,rA7
s
. MMI=WM9aAwamuamlrnlwi0nmdo
$0.000
so
90
$0
so
90
so
w
0.000
90
4 (14WSw2q aiw Mdud" oomtructlon
ddw mdn undm dw W.LD. Ca W.
1
(bad dmwmd
I
MWSXM MW*Avwnw 1rmlwaiwkn main
$0.600
$o
>o
$0
so
so
$o
$0
70.600
$0
aMWSgt20)aiokid�dwomm u dm
fatm mdn udm 1lri. Lm»
ialddwkgj
YW87021 Gnb"mww&mwAodonmdn
$6.000
$o
$0
$o
so
$o
$6,000
so
m
W
eondwiq d 1,900 M 104nch
rdUrmWnwdmb tomes
Way done &Mum Cmmuy MU&
dlpmmlM b jdn dw mddkq
W.&L (awdsd mdk#
I
uvnw 2 can" ok& wwwwj"Im mdn
$22.000
W
ZD
$0
$o
so
$o
$0
39.602
$1$,40$
amddkq a 2,x0 p to -inch
wahrmdnaimpt„Yw.6gim.,M
kM Law 86d"MrWao band b
2-41 van kwldwy.
�kd
MWMC007 CmMmy Bhbd, hwa Wasim main
$0.600
70
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$0.600
(MWSID21)md"W aimk"ms"
00adnxdm1 a bo main undw Law
ti90rammb i1o7d. (oa1411m11�
(
Mweax$ Faun trmmdmion maknOmWdYp
$61,000
m
m
»o
so
so
m
$10,000
$41,000
30
o12"0 M 104mh Agnod kwwwn
j and Praia$bCwkwmd Mm'my.
tl1an 4odhmh bOm Mm amd b
y Hnwy (o -sim Me"
p"E 60F s
,�� •� rdr .ewr peau �Q 7� reowres mow � �� ili-ri( fralrM � litr�l �! fes$ 1� �'
o V2ml
TABLE 3 — 1
WATER SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
hoped
ADomorkdk2a F«
imuni" Raj 1990N1 19MA2 1997193 te9'.eYe 1904m • 199619! 1996x97 1997-== 1002-4007
mw81624 Nrray tarn er.mmhelan mem
7334.00*
so
$0
$8
so
so
$0
so
so
$20,000
aoftsk&n0 d 7,= N 10-kah
wAw areln ow y tan "mm lata
to 9n ewswa twWr7 of 9n palwef
OM rte. (0verrtzed me141
YWS71009 /Won Lan eeeadnMn plW7M2
$8.000
s0
so
s0
so
s0
$0
so
$0.000
so
tmtdee awWw./Mn of a 104md1
weir Ins under so wJ.D. Cr W.
(am rmemm
UWfD01$$ Nrery Lsn tr emisaka main
Wmaq tmAnlee
$elm
so
so
s0
s0
so
so
so
so
$0.600
W alrntudlon
of 171e aet7 -leer Laver $eaemrMo
fbad_ (eor dW4
1 wma com"y Blv& teawdnan mem
$$,000
so
$3.8"
$1,20$
$fAm
$1.262
$434
$0
so
$0
ewwetllq of 1 JW N to-tmt weW
. mwn ee , '- toe 11ra1d0n 8L 10
Cmc aedee Lew. {wetted eats
UWSM Ctsak"Mrrnyterwnleelonaem
$73.000
so
$36,469
$10.976
SIM"
$f 1.424
$3,967
$0
$0
$o
eamk*q b 4,700 N 104eet wafer
-
memeeeI --tamsipnk0e4efaq
f Weal, tlme70e. Nally elaq
CMrdwe to Cu" Wvd. (0vaefzed
RAW
FAGS t OF 9
AN -0 AN"* wauG Watts arra Atari moo smaw mm won 0mt so"
ov2zwl
TABLE 3 — 1
WATER SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING,
Prgw Ooen% Fee
INUsAK Feed lswm 199/A2 loam 199391 19946 1906196 INGW 1007-2092 2001-7A07
WATER WELLB
YW W"ol hMNt9ou of war wM •A•
$723.000
i0
90
so
t0
so
so
so
1723.000
$0
ohh puapkv capacky of 1.500
GPM and a Grarudar Acivaled
Carbon Fi er.
tdwwlm l ateaodoi alwebr wet •s•
st23.000
so
s6
$o
so
so
so
so
s9
s7 .8m
cattle pL-Pkw eaipaoiyd 1AW
GPM and a Grander Ac7vamod
C rboe riMw.
Mr4nom YW4Ym a water wat•C•
s773AW
so
so
so
so
s9
so
$0
so
$773.000
Mlh puw4*v oat Nj of lAw
GPM.. GroarAw AotNoteO Carbon
Now. aid Standby Povrar.
MWWI064&WARadon ofWata Was -O•
"..$mow
$0
so
$0
$0
so
so
so
s723.000
A
with PumOI^9 empanky of JAN
GPM and a, Gawdor Aotutard
Carbon Fihor.
Mwwms Meru M a Wela well •E-
sMOW
so
so
so
so
so
$0
30
s723.ow
so
i tFu 0, a eapeoft of 1,500
GPM and a Grnrdr Aotiv.ad
Carbon FMrr.
MwWw" Insteta6orr of water caw •F-
$MA00
$o
$0
$o
$0
so
so
so
$34.000
$o
oitlt purnpkv MPGAy of $AN
GPM and eaieDy Paver.
ArmV0007 Mrea.doi a Warr vlras •G•
smim
so
s2WOOO
so
so
$0
so
so
so
$0
oeh puapti9 c+pociyot tA"
GPM.
PAf267OF 0
rr. .�... "Mom p"loo Nola" pm— t•� ir°r! I' .o.., !'""� "1 •""! ONE" 0004 ;.rw sem.
TABLE 3 — t
WATER SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
Prq.d oa�abraorr
rw.abw
uwwmn Indaimmm of WMw v" •m.
wM; i ;' upuday at 1,000
GPM and 6rw dby Puww.
MWww00 bdasadon of MAW wN•1•
wOAPranPAgepaNyd f,600
oPM and swrdby power.
MWmlo t atemoomd WYw YWO•d'
"M PuwpAq apadlyd 1.600
opw
Mq 111011 MdYWlondWMwwM-K"
w101 pwwkq epae01 d 1,600
oPss.
Mwwl0t2ln thood ndwWrwN•L•
. wa PawPArs aw.Ory d 1.600
. GPMwrdaGrww wAdkwod
i Cwbon taw.
wwwloss bm NNon dwaM wN •w
w lh puaydn0 opeafty d 1.606
GPM. • QmwW Adbdad Coban
{ FOM. and swi0by Paver.
MW W*14 b*Wkgoo d WaW WN •N•
MIA puwpMp tpaeOy d 1,600
j GPM.
. wwwl"s k"boadan d wtlw WN 10,
PAGE OOF0
TABLE 3 — t
WATER SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
ovaaot
F«
Fund
100"t
ta011s2 IOU"
10000M
1764N6
toom
Maw
1"7-2002
2002-2007
$346,000
so
ss44.J00 s0
so
so
70
so
so
so
$346AW
so
so $346.000
so
so
so
so
so
so
41MA00
s0
so so
$meow
so
so
s0
so
$o
snow
so
so $o
so
sm.000
m
so
so
so
smwo
$o
so so
so
so s723.OW
so
so
so
smwo
$o
m so
so
so
$o
so
so
sna 000
$mow
s0
so $0
$o
so
so
so
so
sza6.000
$2$$,000
so
so so
so
so
so
so
so
sm.000
ou27N1
TABLE 3 — t
WATER SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
bapad
Rood D.ow*dm Fee
LMimOw Fund 1990191 'low= 1902M /99379 19045 too&" losaw 1907-2.002 7002-2007
MATER UOSSMS
YWMWW em%poouD"vomoM(61x/51015)
10.500
$0
s2
fo
$0
49,50o
x
s6
so
so
YmkWoo ocno&ucdm of IM mdn
u I taow SwomwA* Row (cod
X61
Ywao002 Wow Yaw pwn-1107
$57.x0
$67.9"
s0
so
s0
w
io
so
so
so
Ywsoo$2 wow Modw son
$26.00$
s0
so
so
so
so
570.000
so
$0
$0
ow C.1.P. Updaa*--IW?
UW90M WOW Mas6w Plm
sm.000
s0
$0
x
so
s0
so
so
$20.000
s0
oM C.I.P. Updd -,2002
"
AL WATER COST
SUTI'm .
PAGE9Of s
A
Supply - - - --�
Through buildout of the General Plan, the City wil"continue to rely upon
groundwater as the sole water supply. Project-aVerage day demand tf;`buildout
is 22.1 .pillion gallons per day. A total €'f5 new wells will be reW red to
supply to water to the General Plan areProposed locations of the rkv wells
marked on Figure 3-1. Seven of thewells will be equipped with ttMidby
power generators.1,5
!" Distribution System
Additional water maiuk'will be required tokdistribute=water t -k the area. With
regard to fund- main extensions, the Cit�r-ts` roponsib?e only for
water mains I4 -inches and larger in diameter.e-,Wpgr4imate location and limits `
of these tfater mains are shown on Figure 3-1.'�-J�cti�iai location and alignment
of the waiver mains may slightly change -When sife`.specific planning is
"'° completed.
Treatment
�•.t Two types of treatment Kedat the wells sites: emergency
chlorination and grad a �a[ct i voted carbon filtration. Ch1orinai:ion of .'�e
water is not rq�{t� e u red, however, permanent chlorination facilities
.will be con�ructed a,ei cted well sites. Granular aci;iVated carbon
f�) tration`,U' its wi k be constructed at 7 of the 15 :ne�-wel l s .
ha EST11U1TED l\COSTS AND PHASING 09-
In
FIn Tab?�3-1, a su�mary of the water,.pfojects and estimated costs is
presented Estimates costs are reftrenced to the Engineering News Record 20
Cities Co struction Cost 1rdAe or January 1, 1990 of 4,673. Water main
extension costs represent gaily the City's funding responsibility per the City
Reimbursemen Policy. actual fact, .he developer will be constructing the
k improvement artd._wilL receive back from the City a portion to cover the cost of
oversizing the pipelines and the City's share (50%) of the crossings.
Phasing of the improvements is presented in Table 3-1 and is based upon the
Forecast of Units Constructed Over the General Plan Period (Appendix A)
provided by the City. In Table 3-1, the phasing is divided by year for the
first 7 years followed by two 5 -year increments. Costs for projects serving
General Plan development funded on or before July 1, 1990 are shown in the
current year (1990/91). Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to
the January 1, 1990 dollars.
THIS IS A',?RArT 007,11 E:1 ,N" i71-
13
` -IS COMPLETE(:_'_ -"S E'JBJE:_ r T+.i_, _;-+._' _ - --
AN
0.
Many of the projects listed in Table 3-1 are oversizing projects wherein the
City's participation is limited to reimbursement to the developer, for
oversizing costs. It is not intended that the cost shown in the table reflect
the total cost of construction. Similarly, for p,roj`ects such as the Public
Works building expansion, the costs have beenA4vided between the witEr and
sewer impact fee funds and the costs shown are the portion allocated,..,tq the
project water impact fee fund. Also, where a partially serves the extsting
community and partially the general 44-n expansion areas, only the cost�r5
allocated to the general plan aro are shown.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Watee^�Projects to New Development
A reasonable reTitionship must be established,-lfei;w.GW 1) a fee's use and (2) `
the type of -development on which the fee is imposfd. To establish such a
relation-sfiip, it must be shown that the -type of•.._development that is going to
be charged the fee actually uses, is iel;i d -by, 'o� benefits from the public
facilities that are to be financed by!�he,fEe-=revenue.
!�! 'Because of the logical gi:ovAh patatterriVc-'onceived in the Proposed Generxt Plan
E : i and because of the pl anifi4 9..efi orIC:sA down in the Water Master Plan, the City
ensures that all water- faaeffity improvements will primarily benefit the
' residential, conroercial industrial and quasi -public land user within the
General Plan -area. Each and every water project to be,.Uhanced by the fee
prggram will'%provide.the same level of service to the�;Froposed General Plan
area, as currently.,06vided to the existing commun_tt of Lodi. Although other
protects have\.Bkn identified that will correct eiCisting deficiencies, these
ha project costs will not be included in the f program.
�i Relationship of Water Projects to Land1ises
On the bas# -5 that all land use,&-ijill benefit from the facilities to be
a constructed,., the burden of-f-t6ancing will be distributed to each land use in
proportion to,their use -of, or benefit from, the improvements.
This is accomplisTied through the use of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates the relative responsibility to pay for
improvements for each land use category in relation to the single family
detached residential category. A summary of the RAE factors for water is
- presented in Table 3-2. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship
between the cost of the required water projects and financing burden placed on
each land use.
r+
F�
der
_-_._.22_
.-
TABLE 3-2 19-J.n-91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
WATER
Charge Per Unit
Portion Not Portion
Subject To Subject To
Contingent Contingent
,Land Use Categories Unit RAE Reimbursement Reimbursement Total
RESIDENTIAS
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$4.187
$0
$4,187
Medium Ddnsity
Acre
2.00
$8,374
$0
$8,374
High Density
Acre
3.50
$14,655
$0
$14.655
East Side Residential
Acre
1.00
$4,187
$0
$4,187
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
54,187
$0
$4,187
Medium Dent.ft-,
Acre
2.00
$8,374
$0
$8,374
High Density
Acre
3.50
$14,655
$0
$14,655
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Com— 9rctal
Acre
0.64
$2,680
$0
$2,680
General Commercial
Acre
0.64
$2,680
$0
$2,680
Downtown Commercial
Acre
0.64
52,680
$0
$2.680
Office Commercial
Acre
0.64
$2.680
$0
$2,680
INDUSTRIAL
UgM Industrial
Acro
0.92
$3.852
$0
$3,852
Heavy Industrial
Acre
0.82
$3,852
$0
$3,852
Industrial Reserve
Acre
M92
$3,852
$0
$3,852
NOW. Dollar &ftxwKa ars In oonatant JwKswy 1. 1900 dollars.
sow Tion. d, A*W010" OW AaVW McDonNd a Aaoc aaa
iiN
Recomended Fees
A summary of water fees for each land use benefittinc-
L from the water projects
P*' is provided in Table 3-2. The total fee for low �ensity residentiil use is
ra $4,Ia7 per acre. For water, the cash flow is that a portion ol-lthe fee
il n2t subject to Contingent reimbursemen
W
IJ
py
24L
A6 ";Ci�J1.1Z
"JBJEC r T(
Ls
IL
OVERVIEW
CHAPTER 4
SEWER SERVICE '
The City of Lodi has provided sewer;$ e -'services to its residents since tpe
early 19201s. Major facilities d and operated by the City include a-�ity-
wide collection system, sewer.-O''mk to the treatment plant, a4ethe White`
Slough Water Pollution Corltrai''Facility located approximat 6 miles
southwest of the City.`,,,.rte�` `� ~<
,_-
Collection Systei�,- ` !�
The sanitary -`sewer collection system within th`e�y includes more than 155
miles of-Oipeline. Sizes of the main sewers rare from 4 to 48 inches in
diameter, with 6 inches being the most/. 076estic and limited industrial
wastewater flows are kept separate wi o&,kxideption of General Mills that =-
'pretreats its wastewater pri�p-1 d is �ge into the domestic system.
t. Five sewer lift stations' r_e�s�we age service to outlying areas of the
City where conditions_ r4h 'it gravity systems. These existingl.li'ft stations
are: Cluff Avegu--9UfAoM,\f%kelumne Village, Rivergate, Wgpdtlake, and Park
West. / --
Cu'rlently, eight separate domestic and industrial mower sheds have been
esti6lished wtti fi the City. Wastewater from thiPeight sewer sheds is
convey to a 46 inch trunk line from the C.Jkr'to the treatment plant.
Treatment. and Disposal =
White Slotig Water Pollution CcurCrol Facility is owned and operated by the
City. Currently, the plan" operating at the design capacity of 6.2 million
gallons per d4y (MGD). ,fiiCpansion of the plant to a capacity of 6.8 MGD is
currently unde`r_cons_xrtfction. Future expansion to 20.3 MGD is planned.
Facility costs and financing for wastewater treatment and disposal are not
.• addressed in this report.
,... Master Sewerage Plan
Planning for sewerage collection facilities to serve the expanded General Plan
area are addressed in the report by Black and Veatch, "Draft Sanitary Sewer
System, Technical Report, General Plan Update, (July 11, 1990)." Included in
"" the report are results of a comprehensive hydraulic evaluation of the existing
F
f7
collection system and proposed expansions of the collection system to serve an
expanded City.
The Master Plan presents recommendations for gravity`and pressure Sewer
design, sewer lift station design, and collect on system maintenances_
Recommendations for sizing and location of new facilities are present that
will serve the General Plan expansion arj3af as discussed in the sect ieii;
"Planned Sewerage Facilities". In aooftion, Master Pian identifies a number
of collection system deficiencie ,,*-At are described in the subsection,
"Existing Deficiencies". _ i;�'`
Sewer Reimbursement Pol¢jr' f
Commonly, developer) are required to construct sewe`�" mks with greater
capacity than seeded in order to provide servj{'to--kxpanding areas of a
comnunity.;.it is not very common that a City`or-agency is able to get
propertp 6wners to pay in advance for sewer c3pac-Jt;� that they do not plan to
use jn the near future and, as a resul., 3'rt'es �d agencies pay for the
ove"rsizing of sewer trunks. Policies o"-*Mbursing for oversizing costs
'vary from community to commuq�W, {'
Under the City's Sewer 1?finkt-wi n policy, applicants are reimbursed a
portion of the estimated` -.,c truction cost of oversize trunk sewefs. For
oversize trunks,.tf&--reimbulcsement policy applies to trunk s_.ew6rs larger than
10 inches inf4iaineter.,j, /FoPthe purposes of this report,._;reimbursable
construction-,, osts aro"assumed to include materials,-fdiistruction,
adiginistratiph, engineering and inspection. Admiq%-t�ative and engineering
reimbursement\1". imited by City policy to 10X, >`
Existing Deficiencies
A number ssf existing sewers within,, -t4 City are operating above design
capacity a� determined by the ;Pet ods presented in the Master Sewerage Plan.
Correction -of the problem requires the construction of parallel sewers to
relieve the sgrcharge cgndition. Listing of these sewers is presented in the
`^ Master Plan. 'Maintepa6ie deficiencies within the collection system were also
identified consis-ng primarily of sewer cleaning that had not regularly been
performed in the past.
Based upon construction costs referenced to January 1, 1990 dollars, the
estimated cost to construct those parallel relief sewers is $143,000.
Estimated cost to clean the existing sewers is $165,000. Source of funding
for these deficiencies has been identified by the City to be the Sewer Fund.
._ _ 26_ ._
i
PLANNED SEWERAGE FACILITIES
Sewerage collection facilities to serve the expanded GTfyf have been identified
,w in the Master Sewer Plan. A summary of these faci14fl es is presented below
and in Table 4-1. Project numbers listed in Tab e 4-1 are used to fflentify
the project locations as shown on Figure 4-)--
¢' Collection System
Expansion of the existing cols tion system to serve new areas-::Vifill require=
construction of new gravit,�v,s' ers and lift stations as described in Table"4-
1 and shown on Figure 4R,� Two new lift stations and spea-il`sewer service
areas have been desi fed. One near Kettleman Land AHighway`11) and the
second near Harney. -Cane. Location of the lift %gs�and boundary of the
i service area i,,,, -,shown on Figure 4-1. AdditioDa, gra ii £y sewer trunks will be
required to.. -serve the General Plan areas. Onry°--A`dse trunk lines that are
larger thin 10 inches in diameter are consider4d in this report and are listed
in Table 4-1.
Treataent and Disposal
�r Expansion of the White ST16u ,f"er�llution Control Facility is currentl
� �' _ _ y
under construction. Costi`'of the expansion and future planned expansions are
`..not considered Jw-1 i�� repo t. Funding for these improvements has been
arranged by the City'a6d re`i'mbursement will come from City- Sewer Connection
Foes collected at the%fime of building permit issuance*;
r" ESTIlRAT® CosTS-�Nu PHASING +�0
In Tabh 4-1, a summary of the sewer pro)iMts and estimated costs is
presented. Estimated costs are refer nted to the Engineering News Record 20
Cities C&struction Cost Index foranuary 1, 1990 of 4673. Sewer trunk
extension* reflect only the�ty's funding responsibility per the City
Reimbursement, Policy and dot reflect the total estimated construction cost.
Phasing of the,. mpr_gy*&nts is based upon the Forecast of Units Constructed
Over the General an Period (Appendix A) provided by the City. In
Table 4-1, the phasing is divided by year for the first 7 years followed by
two 5 -year increments. Costs for the projects serving the Gen( al Plan
development funded on or before July 1, 1990 are shown in the current year
(1990/91). Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to the
January 1, 1990 dolliir reference.
Some projects listed in Table 4-1 are not included in the overall development
impact fee program. These include projects related to serving the Cluff
_... THIi S iS A iZiv •T L;C�CUMF:N -' �� i •. _. - =t_yy --
.�__
Iy.
/1mrrw am% awmk 00ft lama& mwm F.00" lam W—c W—f a&" , ft" "" U"w arra one am
TABLE 4 - 1 01/22/91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
SEWER
IftoOd Description Fes Area Fee
INunber Fund Fund 199441 1991192 1952W 1993!94 1 2002-2007
USS1001 Beckman Road sewer trunk $49.000 $0 so $0 5o so so to $0 so $0
comprising 1,100 N of 10-Mch
sal sewer pipe and manholes
from Pile Strom to Lodi Avenue.
(PAW sewer tnml bene"aft
CI.9 Avenw Mt station
mvpwnwdal be area.)
MSSOM Western boundary sewer Ins* 50 x300.000 so $0 5o so 50 so so $0 5300,000
corsIstirq of SW 9,12 -Inch,
Soo N 154Incb. 2.000 N of
16 -Inch. 2,000 a of 21 -inch,
AM 2,500 N of 24 -Inch sewer
pipe connecting to the mcisling
46 inch sewer Interceptor to the
trsatmerd plank
USSOM Marney Lane sewer trunk 546.000
comprising 2,700 N of 124nch
and 1.000 9 of 15 -Inch sewer
bvnk.((k&Atysewer beneNNing
Harney Lara i9[ station
supplemental lee area.)
PAGE 1 OF 3
so $0 so so so so $0 $0 $0 $0
f�ft mumm wit Lreai Wm r ..�.
TABLE 4 —1 01122/91
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
SEWER
Supplemental knpact
PrWet3 Description Fee Area Fee
Fund Fund 1990191 1901192 1992193 1993194 1994/96 1995/98 1996W 1997.2002 2002-2007
MSSW4 Harney Lane Ult station and 1262,000
tome ngln cor»pfistng 3 -len
horsepower pumps having a
Combined 1.000 GPM capacity and
2.800 M of 8 -inch tripe. plarney
Lane Lit Station supplemental
fee area)
lessm Kettteman Lane ph station and $171.000
force main with 2-fi4e
horsepower pumps and 450 GPM
Capacity and start force main
under KetUaman Larw Q(etternan
Lane raft station suppiementaf
fee area)
MSSI008 Ckrff Avenue Wt station and $108.000
force main with 2 -fifteen
horsepower pumps and a 1.500
GPM capacity
$0 $0 $0 S0 $0 $0 $.0 $0 $0 $0
so $0 $0 i0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 50 $0 so $0 $0 to $0 $0
MSS007 1.400 N of 18-Imh sanitary $0 $42.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42.000
sewer pipe with manholes torn
Ekn Street to Ketdeman Lane.
MSSIM 2.500 it of 15 -Inch sanitary $o $49.000 $0 $0 $49.000 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0
sewer pipe with manholes horn
Lod Avenue to Elm Strew.
TABLE 4 - I oir2z9l
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
SEWER
PFOIM D—w-
Fee Area
Fee
-
Number
Fund
Fund
1990M
1991192
1992193
1993094
199496 1995198
1998197
1997-2002
2002-2007
MSMW Hun" Lwo smw tnink
$15.000
so
so
$0
so
so
so so
$0
so
$0
COft"no at 1.40011 of
12 -Inch pipe Itam L&AW
Saaamento Road west
bwwMWg
Pawky —
Harney Lam Wt gad=
. - I I . "w1w .
MWWO Ckoff Averdo Nt stadon
$77.000
$0
$0
so
so
$0
$0 $0
$0
$0
$0
Bawer Uw* conslaft of
Ixomolls-kchpipe east
km the in mom Waft
W^w InnellIft COA Avenue
OR station evoww" f"
GCF1006 Public VftWAdn*0sftadw
. submaeowdlom
$0
$154,000
$0
$0
$154.000
$0
$0 $0
$0
$0
so
GCFNW Public WaWAdmiristralJon
$0
$24.ODO
$0
$0
$0
$0
$24,W0 so
so
$0
$0
Staram
u3s0001 Sewer Ludw PLVI
so
U2'.753
$82.753
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0
$0
$0
$0
ya
M 06,
AL SANITARY
$73D.000
$D
1 4203-00D
PAGE 30F3
'�
r
;;
in
i
Avenue lift station service area, the Harney Lane Lift Station Service Area
and the Kettleman Lane Lift Station Service Area. For eacfi of -these areas a
separate supplemental fee is calculated because the benefit of these projects
can be isolated to a specific area. A separate c ltulation for these sub -
zones is presented in the section, BURDEN ANAL�(f�IS FOR SEWER SUB-ZOF1�S.
r
f Relationship of New Development to Sewer, -Facilities Projects
A reasonable relationship must be.-,*sgablished between: (1) the fee's use :and;
(2) the type of development oAC-)c' h the fee is imposed. To :establish such.a
' relationship, it must be Sb&W that the type of development that is going to
s be charged the fee actu?fly uses, is served by, or benefits `from the public
facilities that are tef=e financed by the fee revenue:-
.
Sewer col lecti-ori facilities are used by resideW al-'ommercial, industrial
and quasi -public land uses. Benefit to each fahf-,use is based upon peak
wastewatefr generation rates as set forth in the\,Sewer Master Plan. Because
PA each, -I' nd use mentioned above benefit rfxonr-the 'sever projects in the capital
i.mp"rovements program, each land use i alse`a-part of the fee program.
C
r' Relationship of Land Uses;tw'Se"r IF lities Projects
Once the relationship be'taieen the facilities to be constructed :and the land
r
'-..uses has been estalrITt 0qd Ahe burden of financing is to be:fitributed to
each land use,.fn propokiorZ'to its use of, or benefit fr,h. the improvements.
This is accodiplished.through the use of a Residential rcre Equivalent (RAE)
sc6dule. X.._RAE:sc idule indicates the relative.>�sponsibility to pay for
improvements `id0',each land use category in rel.ati-bn to the single family
�+ detaalted residential category. r
By definition, an acre of low density,--!rfngle family detached dwelling units
{.,, has a RAVfactor of 1.0. All other"land use categories have RAE factors that
show their;'Police Facilities demiM relative to one acre of single family
.�. detached dwelling units. Tit'RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship
between the cpst of the,re"quired Police Facilities projects and financing
burden placed`m eac4-=Tand use. The RAE schedule that has been developed for
w the Sewer Facilites Fee is shown in Table 4-2.
Reco®ended Fees
r-� The Sewer Facilities Fees for each land use are summarized in Table 4-2. The
total fee is $500 per low density residential acre. For Sewer Facilities, the
fee subject to contingent reimbursement JI required.
---30 ----- ------ -- - - - - ----1
' i
TABLE 4-2 22 -Jan -#t
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
SEINER
Charge Per Unit
Portion Not Portion
Subject To Subject To
Contingent Contingent
Land Use Categories Unit RAE Reimbursement Reimbursement Total
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
5500
$260
$760
Medium Density
Acre
200
$1,000
$520
$1,520
High Density
Acre
3.50
$1,750
$910
52.660
East Side Residential
Acre
1.00
$500
$260
$760
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$500
$260
$760
Medium Density
Acre
200
$1,000
$520
51,520
High Density
Acre
3.50
$1,750
$910
$2,660
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
1.25
5625
$325
$950
General Commercial
Acre
1.25
$625
$325
$950
Dcwntown Commercial
Acre
1.25
$625
$325
5950
Office Commercial
Acre
1.25 -
$62S
$325
$950
INDUSTRIAL
Ught lndusirtal
Acre
0.33
$165
$96
$251
Heavy Industrial
Acre
M33
$165
$86
$251
Industrial Reserve
Ar )
0.33
S165
$86
$251
Note: Dollar amounts are In constant January 1. 1990 dollars.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
M
BURDEN ANALYSIS FOR SERER SUB -ZONES
There are three sewer sub -zones which are not served�he improvements in
�,. the fee program and cannot be funded by the sewer development impact fee.
These areas require lift stations and other improvements that will Kenefit
" only a specific area of undeveloped land. ,T"ifice the improvements wikhave to
be constructed prior to any development taking place, development impaft fees
do not provide a viable means to finance these projects. =r.
The total cost of lift station,<faind a q
appurtenant sewers a uals,$-i44,000. In,
practice, this amount would $4e t be obtained by borrowing �Kp another City. -:of
c Lodi fund. A special silk" -Area Impact Fee could then be.collacted in the three
sewer sub-zores suffivo`fent to repay the borrowing p,J* an appw'iate rate of
p,
interest.
The alternaii"ve, three sub -area financing distlri� (Special Assessment
Districts -'or Mello -Roos Community Facij. ies Di`st'ricts) would be uneconomic.
The cast of processing would be excessl%%%—compared to the funds required.
/'::z'
f•A series of analyses presentis-the big- of financing the improvements in
each of these sub -zones is:�rovf&d ifs,''tcfen Table 4-3. The calculations indicate
the approximate amount e4f".ad—v oia.7land in each sub -zone will need -to
contribute in order tQ_f1i4ce the needed improvements. It should be noted
that the cost of-flianci,ni....has not been included. ^ �,
Ire
14 -the case; of the Harxiey Lane l i ft station service arm-; existing development
ha: teen included .Wthe sizing of the facil ities,�"-A the time of annexation,
it Q)expected.jklt this area will be required--6)pay the supplemental fee
and,"therefore, it has been included in th 4`pplemental fee calculation.
The sub;,ones are the Kettleman Lift .Station Area, Harney Lane Lift Station
Area, an&the Cluff Avenue Lift Station Area. Each area has only one land use
type with*its boundaries.
wi
a.M
✓w
---32
I
THIS IS A C!PA\F7 30CUME741'.
E T T,
15 COMPLEIE0 1-1 �5 SLJS�
TABLE 4-3
SEWER SUB -ZONE FEE CALCU TONS
KettlgMan
Lift
Total Planned Residential Acres:
100
Total Cost of Improvements: $171,000
Cost Per RAE:
$ 1,385
Total
TotalTotal
Burden
Units Ynl
Developed 'F
or
A
RAEs
Per Acre
Plt_�"Low Density Acres
IL
87 !'O
87
$1,385
Medium Density Acres
I
6 --
2.0
12
$2,769
PR High Density Acres
7(11
3.5
24.5
$4,8.46-
123.5
Lane
Lift Station
PI anni&-.Jdi�ii al Acres:
T641IS
215
- '
IU
Total-'Cost of improvements:
$339,
G>
n0q_13�-'
Averagec�C
,pst Per RAE:
277
Total
Total
RAE
Total
Burden
Description
Developed
Factor
9AE5_
Per Acre
PR - Low Density Acres
187.1
1.0
187
$1,277
PR - Medium Density Acres
12.9
2.0
26
$2,553
PR - High Density Acres
15.1
3.5
53
$4,469
215
266
I
THIS IS A C!PA\F7 30CUME741'.
E T T,
15 COMPLEIE0 1-1 �5 SLJS�
Cluff Avenue Lift Station Sub -Zone
Total Industrial Reserve Acres: 158
Total Cost of Improvements: $234,00
Average Cost Per RAE: 488
Total
al Burdir!.
Description Units 1) . 6eloped Factor, Per Acre-.
IR -Industrial
Reserve 158 0.3 52 $1,481
`ite and Associates and Angus McDona'16\and Associates, 1990.
S4)urces:-..-,i�
r
S..
'7.
00
.--- -- 34- - -- - - -- -- —1
w.
.--- -- 34- - -- - - -- -- —1
-- CHAPTER 5
STORM DRAINAGE
OVERVIEW
t�-
Storm drainage services are provided (y the City of Lodi. Major featur s of
the storm drainage system includec�llection system, runoff storage/detection
facilities, and pumping plants�,'i,.ferminal drainage for the City%is provided by
r the Mokelumne River and thec.tacodbridge Irrigation Oistricj, JIRID) canal.
Characteristics of thesfrfacilities are described belowf�'
Col 1 ecti on Systeiy----` �f ;
f'. Storm drainage services are provided to an area --encompassing approximately
7,700 acr¢s. For facility planning puQoses, the drainage area has been
di vified into planning areas. Storm d��[[` iii3ge`aCi-1 i ti es for these planning
areas are incorporated into a City wt s "m -drainage facilities plan.
,r'Approximately 1,340 acres dire tJy did.Frarge to the Mokelumne River via
/'Approximately
pipelines. Appro7ciar!tg1JL,an0,.,er 2,290 acres is pumped to the: -river.
The remaining approximat ly.5;;M�,4 pumped to the WID canal from two pump
stations.
Discharges t& -Ah WID ,'�Inaf`are controlled by the flow qapfity of the canal
i�stem. BX.`Agreement•,the City is limited to a combink'total discharge of 80 -
cu�ic feet kr second at the two existing pumping(OtAions. Additional
dis¢�arge locai>�isns are not currently permitted by the agreement. The City
oper4tes a series of interconnected detenti*basins within this area to store
runoff -prior to pumping to the canal. T", City utilizes detention basins in
»• other areas also to store runoff prio>?'Eo pumping to the Mokelumne River.
Existing facilities for the coj.}2ction of storm runoff include surface
improvemen"fs like alleys, ditches and gutters, and underground pipelines.
Present design standards., -for storm drainage collection facilities only allow
gutter and undargrourd'piping. The use of ditches and alleys for conveyance
of storm runoff is currently substandard and not allowed.
!7
— New development in the City is required to construct all storm pipeline
smaller than 30 inches in diameter. Pipelines 30 inches and larger are
considered to be part of the Master Storm Drain Plan improvements and are
w
currently funded by Storm Drainage Fees collected by the City.
A number of deficiencies exist within the collection system. For the most
part, these consist of substandard surface drainage facilities (for example,
ditches and alleys), deteriorated curb and gutter, and undersized pipelines
i rHf;, IS A GRAD
.-,
and catch basins. Many of the system deficiencies can be found in the older
central and eastern parts of the City.
�- Large scale replacement of deficient facilities, i t occurs, willr.be part of
major street reconstruction projects. Small scare projects have bee))
performed by the City to repair sections of ed`rb and gutter. Replack�ent of
the alley systems is not expected due to�hfgh cost and grade conditiorA
Detention Basins
As mentioned above, the CityDbperates a system of interconped ed detention'.:.
basins that store runoft,4Yior to pumping to the WID capolr`-the Mokelumne 4,:
River. These basins<4.110 function as parkzlike are" Tien noi,_'ytilized for
�., storage of storm runoff./f.
A total of wt4ht basins exist within the City'sifinage service area. Basins
in sheds-C"(Pixley Park), B (Glaves Park), and`E�JWestgate Park) store runoff
prior,iro discharge to the Mokelumne Rive --- asitia in sheds A-1 (Kofu Park),
'- A-.2'18eckman Park), B-1 (Vinewood Sch6'11 alas Park), and G store runoff:
,prior to discharge to the WID.,canal f'' -pumping stations located on Cabrillo
►� ;` Circle and at Beckman Parkf=- ! t
Current design standards\fg4e the detention basins require storage capacity for
�,. ,the 100 -year 48;hStuw �r+l�;., Changes in hydrologic design datx'over tho past
A pars may nayx-resulte'a in some earlier basins being unc.kers'fzed.
Mauer Storms,"Ilrain?& Plan
f j
t-0 City ; f Lodi "engineering Division prepared .tj' "Master Storm Drainage Plan in
1988..':4his plan forms the principal basiT.lor future expansions of the
pw! drainage -service area to serve the Genefal Plan area. Major collection system
improveaRfiats and detention basin improvements are identified in the plan that
have been <19cl uded in this repot':
r1* � \ .
PLANNED STORM\-08AINAM-IMPROVEMENTS
Storm drainage improvements to serve buildout of the General Plan were, for
the most part, identified in the Master Storm Drainage Plan. A summary of
those facilities is presented below and summarized in Table 5-1. Project
r� numbers listed in Table 5-1 are used to identify the location of projects
shown on Figure 5-1.
F „�
p oft. ,".r: $moss t ram I'011111111! yam! no" �
TABLE 5 —1 011221v1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
kn+p"
P -IM F»
lNuwkw Find 1900101 1991/92 1902W 1993M 190410.5 1900 1906x07 1047-200¢ 2002-2W
MSDI 01 PMley Park damage basin.
$E93,000
so
so
So
1M
So
$50.1.000
$0
so
so
Bwwwlon and develop swat of
Basin 'C' accordlogi to Plan
adopted in tv$a (Owp $$EN4
USOI000 Turner Road Mona dale. 050 It
$213.000
$0
i0
$0
$0
$0
$0
so
so
$213,000
of 60', $00 H of 54% and
1.150 0 of 42' dean dralbe
In Turner Road and Guild Aveews.
USDI004 Pine Street Harm drain
$42.000
so
so
$0
s0
$0
$0
$0
$42.000
$0
oonsldkq ot $00 If of 30'
Mem drain and manhohm
M801006 Thurman $&ad Moan Man
$70.000
$0
$0
s0
1d
$0
$0
$0
$70.000
m
0onddinp of 1,256 If 30'
dorm drain and manhohm
MSDOW Basin 'C' dorm drain
$172,000
so
$o
s0
$0
$0
$0
so
$0
$172.000
00"ecdon W.Ames
aondwinp of 42' and 30'
plpee, eAwWb 0 south and
oo@L Expands owvk* area to
KeWoman and Guild.
M93" Ewrpaen wa storm drain
oollecdon (act eAmug rp
$129,000
$0
M
$o
$128,000
$o
$0
so
$D
$0
service area north to Turner
Road. lnwovelMnts bx*Ae
pipes Oud Will carry twioll to
Basin 'E*.
r•—•R, .,.., ....... ....... ;.o.�, prrr �� .+.enar ;1�.. rrw N.a.. soww.. pru...� ts.�aw
TABLE 5 —1 01122AI
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
Impact
Roject Fee
!"umbar Fund 1990M 1901192 1902M 1993!94 19%&95 1906!80 190w i997-2002 4002-2007
Maim" Ewrprwn Drive Moan drain $0.1.000 $0 so m $0 ,f0 $83,000 s0 so :0
PAGE 2 OF 3
eennice are south of 1MID
hnprovemenb hdude
canal
30' end 30' pipes that will
carry runoff loSash'E'.
USDb10
Wostode Park expansion and
$2,144.000
$0
$120.000
$429,000
$429.000
$420.000$422.000
$0
$0
$0
denlopanerM parkimpraonente
we not tndujed,
111800011
Development d new Basin IF*.
$3.St9,000
$0
$0
$0
m
$0
$0
m
$0
$3,019,000
located north of Kegtemen Lane
and wed of LOW" Sacramento
Road. Service area includes
low wed of Lower Sacramento
Hoed, north of Kettlarnan. and
sotto of the WID sand. Park
Improvemente are not included.
USM)2
Basin -F- storm drain
ooUsedort faetlkias
$307.000
m
$0
$0
$0
$0
1D
$0
$0
$307.000
eodemdMp
north d Barin • F' krolantrq
W. 4$', and 30" pipes.
MSDf013
Slotm drain consiMkp of 30'
$149,000
fro
$0
$0
$9
$0
$0
$0
$149.000
$0
and 30' pip" exbndn0
wedeNy from the endMlnit 54'
trunk Ike. Exact loco" not
yet dotssrmhed.
USD1014
Basin IF, outlaM dorm drain
$104,000
$0
$0
m
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1$4,000
$0
considkq d 30' pipes
oxWndhp eagerly from the
Mddhq 54' trunk vine.
PAGE 2 OF 3
—.� --ewe% row" m--, 0-M., rm— ram p" pissv�
TABLE 5 —1 01122A1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PHASING
STORM DRAINAGE
Impad
Project F"
lNumbeir Fund ISOM 19911W ISOM 1993104 laquas logs" 1996197 19u-2002 2002-2007
IWISMS Basin IQ' storm drain 1261.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $D 1261,000 $0
oollecdork fax
consisting consisting of 481
and 36' pigs eAwwJkq
and oam"foul
Bud" IG'. Exact location not
ye clowmined.
USM16 Basin IQ, collection kiomm"
$03,000
$0,000
$0
so
$0
so
so
$0
$10 $0
consisting of 30' OW 30' p4we
extending ws'll"and
nw&wly of the addhig 3V
aunt inorally way. Exact
loeatiorn not yet cletwinined.
USDM7 &psn" and dmWWw4 of
S4.o3e.000
so
so
So
$07.000
$807.000
$907,000
$807.WO
006.000 $D
&Hda IQ,. "cow"
Mvrovwnwft we not included.
'9=" !U" Pion
S63.000
=ON
$0
so
$0
so
$0
$0
$0 so
USM:� Dft**m" of Basin It-
$3.610.000
so
so
$0
so
$0
so
so
so matillow
located south of Kedleman Lane
"W" of UWW "Wamenlo
PlOod.
F--,---
MUKAGECOST,
I
I - .0%
1:
$1,
1
- I
$7.910.000
PAGE SOF3
Collection System
Drainage sheds established during planning for storm .drainage improvements
•^ within the existing City limits had already incorpoilated much of the land in
the expanded General Plan area. Sheds C, D, E,, --and G were already Oanned for
expansion of service to the east and south.., --New sheds F -and I will bq;
established to provide drainage services, -to areas west of Lower Sacram4to
Road.
Major storm drainage trunk pip ss -ere planned to serve the expanded General..
Plan area. Locations of these trunk improvements are shown•op, Figure 5-1.
Generally, these improve&ents are localized in the pianngd-`resi.dential
expansion area west of -Lower Sacramento Road and the,-1nuthwest,.quadrant plus
.� expansion of the i-ndustrial areas east of Highway::99.rs;
Detention Basins
r Expansion of existing detention basinsl)ini-Sheds C;' E, and G are identified in
W Master Plan. New detention basins ar.-p�,-pTarsned for new Sheds F and I.
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING:...::=%
.�. 'In Table 5-1, a.summary •of.the storm drainage projects and estimated
copstruction_,costs is presented. Estimated costs are refdrenced to the
E' ineerin News Record 20 Cities Average Constructia 2-ost Index for Januar
ng' 9'�. 9 !�` y
1, 1990 of 46T3.;:.Starm drainage trunk pipelines,.represent the total estimated
cosi- of construction.
Phasing'of the storm drainage improvements -,presented in Table 5-1 and is based
upon th�..Forecast of Units Constructed Over the General Plan Period (Appendix
a� A) provided by the City. Costs for`projects serving General Plan development
funded on ft before July 1, 19W'are shown in the current year (1990/91).
Actual costs,of these project have been adjusted to the base dollar of January
1, 1990. \
+.r
Relationship of New Development to Police Facilities Projects
�» A reasonable relationship must be established between the projects and
improvements funded by the fee and the type of development upon which the fee
is imposed. Essentially, it is incumbent upon the City to show that the
�., development is served by and/or benefits from the public facilities to be
financed by the fee revenue.
City of Lodi Storm Drainage Master Plan presents a soundly conceived and
comprehensive pian for providing storm drainage services to all areas of the
---39--
General Plan. Only those improvement costs benefitting the areas included in
the fee program are included in the fee program.
Relationship of Land Uses to Storm Drainage Facilities Projects `.
Once the relationship between the facilitieso .'�be constructed and th�:land
uses has been established, the burden of.financing is to be distribut4;.to
each land use in proportion to its use -'of, or benefit from, the improvements.
This is accomplished through the.udi4of a Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates the relative responsibility.,Ao pay for.
improvements for each land ut*-'category in relation to the,Sigle family
detached residential category.
By definition, an:.ayfcre of low density single famijetached dQ611 ing units
has a RAE factor of 1.0. All other land use Gaat'egories have RAE factors that
show their Police Facilities demand relative to --g eacre of single family
d du
detacheelling units. The RAE schedule shows..''a reasonable relationship
between the cost of the required Policj',Tagiatti6e projects and financing
burden placed on each land use. The 0E..s�ckedule that has been developed for
z.the Sewer Facilities Fee is shasm\in Tafi% S-2.
i Recommended Fees =
The Storm Drainage=Ti il,ities Fee is shown in Table 5-2. The total fee is
$8,075 per lo*-ensity!residential acre. For Storm Drai^-g Facilities, the
cash flow is`such that a portion of the fee subject to. -'contingent
refbursemeRt j,E required.
J'
_40-
_ 1
TABLE 5-2 rtt-. a"l
•� SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
STORM DRAINAGE
r -
Charge Per Unit
Portion Not Portion
-- Subject To Subject To
Contingent Contingent
Land Use Categories Unit RAE Reimbursement Reimbursement Total
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$7,800
5275
$8,075
Medium Density
Acre
1.00
57,800
$275
58,075
High Density
Acre
1.00
$7.800
$275
$8,075
East Side Residential
Acre
1.00
S7.800
$275
$8.075
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$7,800
$27S
$8,075
Medium Density
Acre
1.00
$7.800
5275
58,075
High Density .
Acre
1.00
$7.800
5275
$8.075
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
1.33
$10,374
$366
$10,740
General Commercial
Acre
1.3$
S10.3741
$3W
$10,740
Downtown Comrrwclal
Acre
1.33
$10,374
$366
$10,740
Office Commercial
Acre
1.33
$10.374
$366
$10.740
INDUSTRIAL
Ught Industrial
Acre
1.38
$10,374
$366
$10,740
Heavy Industrial
Acre
1.33
$10,374
$366
$10,740
Industrial Reserve
Acre
1.33
$10.374
5366
$10.740
Kate- 00dw &now" an in oo wm* JWAWY 1.19e0 6dum
SewooK Moro. a /swoop "and AnWe MaDmuld a Amemim.
CHAPTER 6
STREETS AND ROADS
OVERVIEW
For as long as the City of Lodi has aeen�in existence, streets and roadY-#gave
been the primary system used in icity travel. With the change in City,
wide growth, there welcome a poxi to improve the streets and :roads in the
community. The Draft General; --flan will considerable expand -.-_16 City and
additional traffic will;,k{',generated within the community:' As :a result new
streets will be needed d existing streets will need:%to be improved. The
following sections.wfll describe these improvemen�;-the City obligation for \.
funding, and the-#ees calculated to reimburse ,t re p-t-ycosts.
EXISTING :TRAFFIC CONDITIONS j , \.
Existing traffic counts were collected, 01L -M ty of Lodi Public Works
.,
Department in 1987 at numerous.- and 'throe hout the Cit b the Cit .and
P� Rs 9 Y Y Y
their traffic consultant. vii data were used to establish the current-tevel
i of Service (LOS) within tle' pr&f-drt_:study area. Currently, roadways -'and
intersections throughout`,the'City are operating at a LOS of C or --better with
.the exception of bOcFqns Street/Kettleman Lane intersection, which operates
n� a LOS D. ine City of,;Lodt considers C to be the standard level of service
with anythin!O ess consAdered to be substandard.
CIRCULATION PLAN
,_ .
., In Decelpber of 1989, a City-wide circulatibl study was put together by the
Traffic Consultant, TJKM, that identifie'd the impacts associated with the
envisionetl_General Plan. As mentioned earlier, the existing traffic counts
were done�6yt the City's staff. �14orporating this information along with
using a computer based travel -demand model, TJKM was able to forecast future
traffic conditions throughout the project study area. Based upon these
forecasts, road..sectiorrs"of future streets and improvements to existing
streets were identified.
A listing of general street, intersection, signalization, and interchange
improvements was submitted to the City along with the circulation study.
Working with City staff and the City improvement standards, cross-sections
~ were prepared for future streets and improvements to existing streets. These
are discussed in the following section.
w
PLANNED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
Developer Required Improvements l
For all projects within the City, the developer's required to buil* streets
to serve the project. Relative to street improvements, the developet�=,Js
required to provide all improvements and dedicate all right-of-way up'ta,that
designated as a major collector. Typical section for a major collector -i's
provided in Figure 6-1. In the c" .here development occurs onone si&e of a
maj.;r collector, the developer,��►pically is required to construct only one-
half of the street. In t e -%%*ase where development occurs_.aT,ong a street
having a greater uesign&ted capacity than a major collector,' -:the development --
impact fee funds or eider funds will be used to consthct the'mgre extensive
improvements. Examples of these streets include liKettTeman Lane, Harney
Lane, Century_Boulevard, and Lower Sacramento,:l�ii"';--11 e
`
�w Signal lights, bridge crossings, and freeway interchanges are not privately
constructed facilities and are compie =fu dedttiy the City through
development impact fees and other fun ng sources such as Federal, State,
..County and Measure K.
Street and Road Improvem6fit ' --
.A listing of the:si:reeV-,aii ,goad improvement projects included in the
development impact fee grogram is provided in Table 6 -1. -.Location of these
projects is;shown on.Yfgure 6-2. For the most part,tw-""improvement projects
h�. consist of d�err construction and modification of ttke,'Allowing major routes.
Bel o_are Iist#d.-.-ie name, lane configuration,and-Yight-of-way for these major
routes.
1. .Kettleman Lane (State Route IZ)'= six lane divided (118 feet)
2. tgwer Sacramento Road - fojw-lane divided (190 feet)
3. Ha�tey Lane - four ianeAl vided (92 feet)
-. 4. Turner Road - four lade divided (80 feet)
5. Centd y BoulevarV- four lane divided (80 feet)
6. Lodi A1se`ue _,-fbur lane divided (80 feet)
Typical sections for Harney Lane and Lower Sacramento Road are shown on Figure
6-1. For other major routes designed as four lane undivided roadways, the
middle 12 foot divider is deleted from the section.
For the purpose of identifying the portion of each major route that will be
funded by the City, the typical sections described above have been assumed.
The developer obligation, as described in the previous section, is limited to
right-of-way and improvements to construct a major collector (68 feet).
r --A3------- - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- --
j eras r, A r..K.A6T 00�.��.,�.,
LF . _ ... ... _ _..
0*0" moo Mrq IWA C won
TABLE 6-1
olrml
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project Major Planned Facilities
impact
Number
Fee
1990191
1991192 1992193
1993194
1994195
1995196
1996197 1997-2002 2002-2007
MTSt001 HedrOV of Kettlernan tare
$22,000
so
so So
$0
So
so
So
$22,000
$0
(6 - Lanes. Divided) from Lower
Sacramento Road to Ham lane.
UT51002 Redriping of Keltleman Lane
$22,000
so
$0 $0
so
so
$0
$22,000
so
$o
(6 - lanes, Divided) from Ham
Lane to Stockton Street
MT51003 Reslripphq of Kettlernan Lane
512,000
$0
SD $0
$0
$o
$0
$12.000
so
$0
(a - Lures, Divided) from
Stockton Street to Cherokee
Lane.
MPSKM Design. Construction. and
$2.800,000
so
$0 s0
$0
$1,400.000
$1,400,000
$0
s0
$0
enpkteerinp associated with
bL"v a heewar lateodtanDe
and resh"m Kettlernan Lane.
UTSIOW Wberiirip of t(downan lane
5327.1100
$0
$0 so
so
$163.000
$0
$0
$0
$164,000
(4 - Lanus, Divided) from
Beckman Road to Guild Avenue.
MPSt006 Widerft of Lower Sacramento
$0
$0
$o $0
$0
$0
$0
so
$0
$0
Road (4 - Lanae. Divided) Iran
_
Turner Road to Lodi Averue�
MTS W Wldenlrtp of Lower Sacramento
$o
$o
$0 $0
$0
$0
so
$0
$0
$o
Road (4 - Lanes, Divided) from
Elm Street to Taylor Road.
MTStooa WWWAv of Lower Sacramento
$0
$0
$0 So
$0
$0
so
$0
$0
so
Rood (4 - tares. Divided) nom
Taylor Road to Keweman Lane.
TABLE 6-1
otnsrol
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project
Major Ptarreed Facilities
Impact
Number
Fee
1990191
1991192 1992193
1993194
1994195
1995/96
1996(97 1997-2002 2002-2007
1 TSK)09
Wkfeolry of Lower Sacramento
90
90
$0 90
90
90
$0
90
90
so
Road (4 - Lams. D ykisM from
Kettieman Large to Orchis Orke.
MTS1010
Wkiening of Lower Sacramento
90
90
90 90
$0
90
90
$0
90
90
Road (4 - Lams, awed) hem
Orchis Drive to Century Bbd.
MTSI011
VVWw p of tower Sacramento
$0
90
$0 90
$0
90
90
so
90
90
Road (4 - Lams, DMided) hoar
Century 6K%L to Kristen Court.
MTSW12
WklenkV of lower Sacramento
917.500
90
90 90
90
90
97
90
s0
$17,500
Road (4 - Lanes. D~ )—
Kristen Court to Harney Lam.
MTS1013
Wktw tp of Hartley Lam
9254,000
90
$0 90
90
90
90
so
90
9284.000
(4 - Lams) from Lower
Sacramento Road east 2.650 feet.
M SW14
WkW tnp of Harney Lam
9284.000
90
90 90
90
90
90
$0
9264.000
90
(4 - Lanes) from W.I.D.
crossing west 2,650 lost.
WITS1015
Widening of Harney Lane
$136,000
so
$0 $0
se
so
40
so
$136.000
so
(4 - Lanes) ham W.I.D.
crossing east 2,250 feet.
MTS1016
Wldatng of Hamey Lane
9136,000
90
so 90
$0
90
90
so
9136.000
90
(4 - Lanes) from Hutchins
Street to Stockton Street.
MTM17
Wldeninq of Harney Lam
9148,000
90
90 90
so
90
90
s0
9148.000
90
(4 - Lanes) from Stockton
Street io Cherokee lane.
.._.. .. •--•, ...... ..�. r..r r..... ...... ;.... �.; r� }""`� r'r! ;""""1 rr� ice, •� w*M •w auf[
TABLE 6-1 0++�
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Projed Major Plamed FaciGUes Impact
Number Fee 1990/91 1991/92 1992!93 1993194 19UM 1995M 1996197 1997-2002 2002-2007
MTSMS Wldenhgl at Harney Lane $191.000 fA $D $0 $.0 SO $0 i0 $0 $181,000
(4 - Lanes) from Lower
so $0
$0
smamordo Road to the
$1.000,000
to $0
$0
$0
$13,00@
General Man Boundary.
$0
$17,000
$0
$0 $0
3o
MTSW19 Project Study Report
$90.000
$90.000
$0
$o
$o
MrS1020 Design. cora trusion, and
$1.000.000
$0
$0
$0
$o
Wonsering associated with
b a freeway Worch-pe
at Turner Road.
MrSM tTestripinp of Lodl Avenue
$13,000
$0
so
$0
so
(4 - Lanus) from Cherokee
east 3,000 leef.
MTS1022 RestripMq of Lodi Avenue
$17.000
$0
$0
$0
$0
(4 - Lanes) tram Build
Avenue west 700 feet.
MTSM 23 Restrtp ft of Tumor Road
$11.000
$0
$0
$0
$0
(4 - Lanes) from Beckman Road
east 2.500 feet.
f 1TSI024 Widenkp of Turner Road
$22,000
$0
$0
$0
$o
(4 - Laths) Nom Guild Avenue
wed 700 lest.
UTSOM VAdenkV of Century Blvd.
$240.000
$0
$0
$0
$0
(4 - Lan" tram Lower
Sacramento Road east 4,100
1199!
so $0
$0
$0
$1.000,000
to $0
$0
$0
$13,00@
$0 $0
$0
$17,000
$0
$0 $0
3o
t.0
$11,000
so $0
$0
$o
$22,000
$0 $0
$240.000
$0
$0
--- -�--: f r
P" now
PW4
pm" PhArd
PAWN am"
mm
TABLE 6-1
cfa3nf
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project Major Plarutad Facilities
impact
Number
Fee
1990/91
1991192 1992193
1993/94
1994195
1995196
1996197 1997-2002 2002-2007
MTS" WWeafng of Century BWd.
$31,000
5o
$0 $0
531.000
$o
$0
$0
$0
5o
(4 - !.suss) from Stockton
Street to cblckadee Lane.
M7=V Widening of Stockton Street
$a1,000
$0
$40,500 $0
$40.500
s0
40
$0
$o
$0
(4 - Lanes) from Kattlernan
Large to Harney Large.
MTSi020 VfdenfnQ of Guad Avenue
$168,000
$10,080
$1000 $10,000
$10,000
$10,080
$10,080
$10,080
$48.720
$48.720
(4 - Lanes) from Mor
Road to Kenleman Lane.
MTSIM Widening of Turner Road
$83,000
$0
$0 $0
$0
$0
$41,500
$41-1W
$0
$0
(4 - Larges) from Lower
Sacramento Road to the
General Plan Boundary.
MTS1030 Wkter ing of Lod Avenue
$83,000
$o
$0 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$89.000
(4 - Lams) from Lower
Sacramento Road to the
General Plan Boundary.
MTSWI Wklankp of Kettlernan Lane
$176,000
$0
50 $0
$0
$o
$0
s0
$0
$179.000
(4 - Lanes) from Lower
Sacramento Road to the
General Plan Boundary.
MTS1032 Widening of LockeWd Street
$1,267.000
50
$0 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,267.000
(4 - Lanes) horn Sacramento
Street to Cherokee lane.
MTS= Placklg of curb. outter, and
$342,000
$0
5o $0
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
$942.000
sidewalk on the rant side.
MTS0001 Master Plan 1987
$76,167
$76.187
$0 $o
$0
$0
so
$0
so
$0
---• .-., ..�.. �... �.,
rte. I..., F-4
P—" P— r-4 ---4
$0
$0
$0
$0
mum »
$o
$95.OW
$47.500
TABLE 6-1
$47.500
$0
$0
otn�et
$0
$0
$0
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
$47.500
$47.500
$0
$o
s0
$o
$0
STREETS AND ROADS
$0
$o
Project Major PtaruW Facilities
knead
Number
Fee
1990191
1991192 1992193 1993194
1994195
1995M
1996197 1997-2002 2002-2007
a
MTS0002 Master Plan and
$20,000.
so
so $0 $0
$0
$0
$20.000
so
$0
C.I.P. Update -1997
MTS0003 S Year Master Plan
$20,000
$0
$0 $0 So
$0
$0
$0
$o
$20.000
and GLP Update- 2002
MT50004 Cost Recovery Study
520,000
$0
$20.000 $0 $0
$o
$o
$o
$0
$0
MFS001 Installation of traft
$95,000
$o
$0 $0 595.000
$o
$0
$0
So
$0
signal located at the bd. of
Lower Sacramento Road and
Turner Roa1
kutaUntion of !raft
signal located at the Int. of
Turner Road and the State
Route 99 Souftiound Ramp.
Installation of traffic
signal located at the int. of
Vigor Road and CiuR Avenue.
MT5004 ittetalation d $raft
SIWW lot:ated at the IN. of
Lodi Avenue and Lower
Sacramento Road.
ATS0g6 Installation of traffic
signal located at the Int. of
Lodi Avenue and Mils Avenue.
$9d.000
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
$95.OW
$47.500
$0
$47.500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$47.500
$47.500
$0
$o
s0
$o
$0
$0
$0
$o
$47.500 $0 So $0 50 $0 $0 $0 $47.500 So
.�.. .w
...a 0-0
Pira}
Lis ta-ft
$$nasi 0-0
W"
eaaaat Alla
TABLE 6-1
OMNI
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Major Planned Fatties
Impact
Number
Fee
1990/91
1991/92 1992193
1993!94
1994195
1995M
1996/97 1997-2002 2002-2007
MTS006 Installation of tnMc
595.000
$0
$0 $0
$a
so
$0
$0
$95.000
$0
signal located x the kit. of
tower Sacramento Road and vine
Sheet.
MTWV IrWaftlon of traffic
$110.000
so
$0 $0
so
$0
$0
$0
$110,000
$o
WWW located at 11w Int. of
Ketftnan Lane and MiGs
Avenue.
MTS009 ktstat:edon of traffic
$105.000
so
$0 so
$0
$0
$105.000
$0
$0
so
signal W-wed at the M of
Kettlerrian Lane and State
Rorae 99 Sartfreound Ramp
MT9009 Installation of tfafac
$105.000
so
$0 $0
$0
$0
so
$105.000
$0
$0
Signal located at the Int. of
Kettllernan Lane and Beckman
Road.
MT8010 IrWAllattan of tmtk
$95.000
$0
$o so
$0
$0
$95.000
$0
$0
to
ftial Located at the Int. of
Lower Sacramento Road and
Harney Lane.
AffW11 trWanadon of trafoc
3$0.000
so
so so
so
$0
$0
so
$90.000
$0
signal located at the int. of
P&f" Lane and MAI% Avenue.
MT3012 4ntaltatbn of trait
$90.000
$0
$0 s0
s0
so
$0
$0
s0
$90.000
signal located at the kq. of
Harney Lane and Ham Lane.
—
�•, •� W �
r•. Ww" WAM"
$A*14 1+000111 f" bm-
-t"
tn®4 Samar" wwe
W11"
maw M
TABLE 6-1
otre"I
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project
Major Planned FacGties
Impact
Nutrnber
Fee
1991)/91
1941192 1992J93 1993f94
1994195
1995M
1996187 1997-2002
2002-2007
M75013
Installation of traffic
396.000
$0
$0 so s0
$0
$0
$0
s0
$95.000
signal located at the Int. of
Harney Laron and Stockton
Street.
IrIT8014
Installation of traffic
$45.000
545.000
$0 $0 $0
so
$0
$0
$0
i0
signal located at the Int. of
am Street and tower
Sacramento road.
WT5015
Installation of traffic
$45.000
$0
$45.000 $0 so
$0
$0
s0
$0
40
mal located at the Int. of
Lockeford Street ane Stockton
street
I1Rk3016
IrmalWtlon of trafNc
$451000
$0
$45.000 so $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
io
ftwl "opted at the Inc of
Turner Road and Stockton
Street
UTSM7
installation of tralfio
$45.000
t0
50 $0 $45.000
$0
50
$0
t0
$0
signal located at the Int. of
Pine Street and Stockton StreeL
MTSMS
kwanation of traffic
$45.000
$0
so $0 so
so
$45.000
so
$0
$0
signal located at tine WL of
Turner Ttoad and Mills Avenue"
haSM9
inuasatlon of trams
145.000
$0
$0 10 $0
$0
so
$45,000
$0
$0
signal located at the Int. of
Tinter Road and Edgewood.
MYSM
Installation of trafilc
$45.000
$0
$0 $0 $0
so
$0
$45.000
$0
so
Signal located at the IM. of
Kettleman Lane and Central
Avenue.
TABLE 6-1 ou2srvt
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
Project Major Pknned Facilities Impact
Number Fee 1990/91 1991192 1992!93 1993194 1994195 1995196 1996197 1997-2002 2002-2D07
MTS02t Installation of traffic
tas.Ooe
$0
$0
to
$0
$0
$0
$45,000
$0 $0
signal located at the kit. of
6m Street and Mft Avenue,
UTS022 Installation of uafOc
$52.500
$0
SO
$D
$0
$0
so
$0
$52.500 so
signal located at the Int. of
Cherokee Lana and Vim Streat.
Wflon Installation of traft
547.500
$o
$o
$0
so
$0
$0
so
$47-100 to
signal located at the Int. of
Ham Lane and Cambay Blbd.
MTS024 Installation oftramu:
MAW
so
$0
$0
so
$n
so
$o
$52.500 $0
signal located at the kit. of
Cherokee Lane and Elm Street_
MBC001 Widening of a eat Culvert
3207,200
so
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$207,200 $0
along Loner Sacramento Hoed
apprat.1.:160 feet south of
Lodi Avenues
M00002 Wldoning of a eat Culvert
sn.000
so
$0
$0
so
$0
$o
$0
$75.000 So
along Tuner Wad sm=
2,400 feel west of Lower
Sacf nwnto Road.
M80009 Widening of a Not Culvert
$141,000
$0
so
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$141.000 $0
along Wife Avenue apprac
100 teal south of Royal
Crest, Drive.
MBC004 VMdening of a Box Culvert
$216.000
to
$0
so
s0
so
s0
$0
$216.000 $0
Mon Harney I— app —
3.3001eet west of Hutchins
street
--I Puna! ►varrt W-0
TABLE 6-1 olrzaal
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
STREETS AND ROADS
jProject Major Planned Facilities
Impact
J
Number
Fee
1990!91
1991192 1992193
1993194
1994195
1995/96
1996197 1997-2002 2002-2007
UF11 01 Widening of a railroad
$101.000
s0
$0
$0
s0
$0
s0
s0
5101.000
$0
crossing 1.400 It. North
Of Turner Road.
WRRXOW widening and upgrade of
$202.000
so
so
$0
so
so
so
So
$202.000
$0
prolealon devices of a
railroad crossing at the Ift
of lockelord Street and Guild
Avenue.
MRRX006 Widening of a railroad
$111.000
$0
$0
s0
s0
$111,000
$0
s0
so
$0
crossing 1,350 it. East
of Guild.
UMX006 Widening and upgrade of
$227,000
$0
so
so
$0
so
so
$0
$0
$227,000
protectlon devices of a
railroad crossing at the Int.
of Beckman Road and Lodl
Avenue.
1 07 Construction of railroad
$215.000
$0
s0
s0
s0
s0
$0
$215.000
$0
$o
taossing at kit. of Lodi
Avenue and Guild Ave.
LVVU 006 CkdfAvenue and Thurman
$186,000
s0
so
so
so
s0
sJ
so
S186.000
$0
Street
MWWW Widening and upgrade of
5215.000
$0
$0
s0
$0
s0
$0
$0
$0
$215.000
protection devices of a
railroad crossing 1,350
feet Fast of Guild Avwwa
MHRXOIO Widening of railroad
$202.000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
m
s0
S2o2.000
so
crossing 1,380 feet East
of Hutchins Street.
STREETS AND ROADWAY COST
571.661.687
�
L
oa' t—af-
Foos of Curb to Foo. of Curb - sr
r 2.5'
VERTICAL C G i w
ROLLED C. G i S
MAJOR COLLECTOR
TOO LANE
ort—Of-
2-T
fom of Curb to Fop of Curb - 76'
2' CW.
r
Gas
VERTICAL C, G i S
ROILED C. G i S
MINOR ARTERIAL
FOUR LANE DfVDM
R/MI
R
if10'
CABS.
S
V 12!
FRONTAGE ROAD 1140ROUC;WARE
SEC7)CN MUMETWAL ADWT C£NTFRLD*
LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD
FIGURE
6-1
TYPICAL STREET
SECTIONS
as
Freeway Improvements
As recommended by TJKM, interchange improvements for,Kettleman Lane/State
Route 99 and Turner Road/State Route 99 will be necessary to maintain a LOS C
or better. Proposed interchange improvements atrIettleman Lane/Stale-.Route 99
' call for the realignment of Beckman Road. Currently, Beckman Road i;� ocated
about 225 feet east of the northbound raippronto State Route 99, a dist*e
that is considered too close for two,3fgnalized intersections. Realignin"t of
Beckman is proposed in the enviroppifital impact report for Kettleman
Properties located at the norhest corner of Kettleman Lane and'Beckman Road.
.A The proposed design constituytt a realignment of both BeckmaIT' Road and the
northbound offramp, but ts\ still subject to review by Caltrans`. -and approval ti
the California Transportation Commission. ,As part of. -.----the Kettleman
interchange work, a-i;r6ute study will be prepared -that wV11 address traffic and
circulation at thre interchange and, also, rer9tg0 n%.-56te Route 12 around the
east of town:-`
ESTIM_ATED COSTS AND PHASING i -
In Table 6-1, a summary of the.-street�prdjects and development impact fee::
funding is presented. EstiWed).bostijare referenced to the Engineering News
' ; Record 20 Cities Constructfory�C'St,'`ln&x for January 1, 1990 of 4671. Roadway
improvement costs reflect O*Ty the City's funding responsibility -per the City
Reimbursement Pol.1cyy404 doyot reflect the total estimated construction cost.
Til preparingrAie estimates of construction cost, the dd.Jeloper obligation,
Citi obligation and. -development impact fee fundingsfar the projects, the
=� following fact rs.'lrere considered. The City obligation for funding of
projects includes everything not required of Ohe developer including special
medians; landscaping, and right-of-way. Inure K.wiil provide funding for
improvements along Lower Sacramento Road'�and at the Kettleman Lane
intercha"e. Based upon forecast ed-:d'fstribut ion of Measure K funds along
Lower Sacramento Road, sufficieryt'funds will exist to construct the City
portion of 'the street section:'
�• Phasing of the`-improvemelits is based upon the Forecast of Units Constructed
Over the General'Pian"Period (Appendix A) provided by the City. In Table
6-1, the phasing is divided by year for the first seven years followed by two
a„ five-year increments. Costs for the projects serving the General Plan
development funded on or before July 1, 1990 are shown in the current year
(1990/91). Actual costs of these projects have been adjusted to the
January 1, 1990 dollar reference.
Relationship of New Development to Streets and Road Facilities Projects
».' A reasonable relationship must be established between the fees use and the
type of development on which the fee is imposed. Ir. order to establish this
47
_ Tr
r
s,
' relationship, we must first demonstrate that the type of devel.ppment upon
which the fee is to be charged will, in fact, use, be served by',' -,pr benefit
from the public facilities to be financed.
Each and every land use will benefit from the streets and road faci'ities
within the community. Residents use the streets to get to and from 4d -k,
.. shopping, and entertainment. Commerce and industry use the streets for-,
deliveries, customers, and employee�,\'Each and every land use in the P�aposed
General Plan will benefit from the facilities constructed as part of the e%
capital improvements program alid-,'�therefore, is appropriately --.dart of the fee
program. -
Relationship of land.-Iiies to Streets and Road Facil.lXf6s~ Projects
Once the relationship between the facilities tole,constructed and the land
uses has been -'established, the burden of finanSi'r{g"is to be distributed to
each land -=use in proportion to its use, -of, or benefit from, the improvements.
This ,W accomplished through the use o den" al Acre Equivalent (RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates t relittve responsibility to pay for
-improvements for each land use.:icategorrjr.I_=in relation to the single family .
detached residential tate 't
By definition, an acre of,,'� density single family detached dwelling units
r� :has a RAE factorstt�ai,-3ho►r their Streets and Road Facilities demand relative
t: to one acre oi'singla f*ily"detached dwelling units. The;RAE schedule shows
&-reasonable-�ielationsMp between the cost of the re4uri' id Streets and Road
Facilities pr6jects.4M financing burden placed oncii h land use. The RAE
schedule that`.-Kls:'fleen developed for the Facili-ti'e's Fee is shown in
to" Recommended Fees V
f�J
The Street6 and Road Faciiitiesj- a is shown in Table 6-2. The total fee is
�• $4,825 per'tow density residential acre. For the streets and roads
facilities, the cash flow fis such that a portion of the fee subject to
contingent rei6bursemetrc j,� required.
M
49
.� TH-15 15
TABLE 6-2 22-1an-01
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
STREETS AND ROADS
Lang! Use Categories
Unit
RAE
Charge Per Unit
Portion Not Porion
Subject To Subjact To
Contingent Contingent
Reimbursement Reimbursement
Total
RESIDENTIAL.
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$4,725
$100
$4.825
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$9,261
$196
$9,457
High Density
Acre
3.05
$14.411
5305
$14,716
East Side Residential
Arse
1.00
$4,725
$100
$4,825
PLANNED RESIDE MAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$4,725
$100
$4,825
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$9,261
$196
$9.457
High Density
Acre
3.05
$14,411
$305
$14,716
CCOMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
1.90
$8,978
$190
$9,168
General Commercial
Acre
382
$18.060
$382
$18,432
Downtown Commercial
Acre
&27
$8,978
$190
$9.168
Wee Commercial
Acre
&91
$42,100
$891
$42,991
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Acre
200
$9,450
$200
$9,650
Heavy Industrial
Acre
1.27
$6.001
$127
56,128
Indus" Reserve
Acre
200
$9.450
5200
59.650
Note: OCAW «now" w in oomwa dwWwy 1.1000 doorm
sourotw dollN6 Aaoda" end Angus McDeneld d Anodem
i"
CHAPTER 7
POLICE
OVERVIEW
Level of Service
Target for emergency response ijig'is 3 minutes anywhere in the -pity.
Currently, emergency response mes are under this goal were a total,
M
of 65 sworn personnel a� tv�
,4133 non -sworn personnel author 1988/89. Th6e
figures reveal a serv-#e' 'standard of 0.95 sworn perspo'hel and"0:,47 non -sworn
personnel per 1,00(1, -persons served. Currently, ow' -department `fs understaffed
relative to the,standard described above by 5 non -sworn
personnel.
Existing"` Police Facilities
ZT-Ki Lodi Police Department pro ides potya' protection services to all areas
within the city limits. T* 6_1xie Dipartment serves a 9.4 square mile area
with an estimated popul#fdi,qf�1Aj-39e'in 1990. The Police Department,
W
located at 230 . Elm Sti*e
t�-,has A estimated 21,571 square feet -of building
space. The current::jMj,oyk standard based 98 total employees,"is 1.3
.1-;60'd pe�s�ns*,ierved. t space standard is 220 square
employees per: The current
ftet of buil,616j spac er employee.
Exfi Deffe, enOleers
Existing deficiencies are calculated basect-, '66 what is currently provided in
the way -of staff and facilities and whaestaff and facilities are planned to
be provided at the end of the plann}.nf9 period. Further, the existing
deficiencP-c
;calculation is prepay O"to identify the portion of the facilities,
if any, Ail& should be serviog existing development based upon a current
staffing or facility def
t6cj relative to the future standard for police
t
staffing and space.
Table 7-1 presents the calculation of the existing deficiency for the Police
Station Expansion. Based upon forecasts provided by the City for building
space and police staffing in the future, the space standard and the staffing
standard increase slightly. This produces only a very minor existing
deficiency such that 7.1% of the Police Station Expansion is not funded from
the development impact fees.
60
THiS !S A GR .`7 UGCJP-AE"'_
TABLE 7-1 22 -,en -01
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
POLICE
Existing Future Future
Description of Item Population Additions Total
GENERAL GOVERNMENT PERSONS S
60,256
44,314
105.663
SERVICE CAPACITY
Police Employees
98.0
43.0
141.0
Police Facilites (Sq. Ft.)
21,571
10,000
31,571
SERVICE STANDARD
Current Service Standard:
Police Employees Per
1.31
1.000 Persons Served
Building Sq. FL Per Employee
220•1
Target Service Standard
Poke Employees Per
1.33
1.000 Persons Served
Building Sq. FL Per Employee
223.9
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRED
Additional Employees
1.5
41.2
42.7
Additional Building Area (Sq. Ft.)
For Existing Employees
372
372
For New Employees
334
9,226
9,560
Total
706
9.226
9,932
Burden on New and Existing Development
7.1%
92.9%
100.0%
Note: Dopar amounts are In constant January 1. 1990 dollars.
Sources Nolte 3 Associates and Angus McDonald A Associates
PLANNED POLICE FACILITIES -
Police facilities to serve at buildout of the Proposed General Plam were
identified by City staff and the Police Departpent. A summary of tom,
facilities is presented in Table 7-2. wittL-•the exception of the Poli
Station expansion and the jail expansion, -'the major facilities are self
explanatory.
y. Currently, alternatives for pallce and jail facilities are be#sig considered:by
the City and the Police Dgp6tioent. Specific locations for, a facilities`_
have not been identified Alternatives being considered:'ince renovation
and expansion of theecisting Police Station.
ESTIMATED COST -AND PHASING
m; In Tab1e.T=2, a summary of the Police f cility an'd estimated costs to serve
the future City of Lodi is presented. (E t ated'tosts are referenced to the
Engineering News Record 20 Cities Cons�tryi3n 'Cost Index for January 1, 199U`
,-af 4673. Phasing of the impr nts:fi'`based upon forecasts of facility
needs by the City over the, anjri=g p{�iod.
For the purposes of fee �tto, the police station expansion costs are not
`•._wholly attributable to-`Ahe development provided for under the Proposed General
�.. Plan. A portio-iY of thefbui9"ding expansion (7.1x) will erve existing
divelopment� ;'The cost;•ln Table 7-2 reflects the reducdd estimated cost. The
jatl.expansi'on,and.-the other facility costs listed.--in-Table 7-2 are not
subject to Wk.". --Aing deficiency reduction.,. -'
ti 1'
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relations*ip of New Development to "lice Facilities Projects
•Y
A reasonabT .relationship be established between: (1) the fee's use and;
(2) the type of developmg on which the fee is imposed. To establish such a
relationship, -t must.be shown that the type of development that is going to
,�. be charged the fee actually uses, is served by, or benefits from the public
facilities that are to be financed by the fee revenue.
Police facilities are used by all the land uses in Lodi. Responses to calls
for service as a function of land use have been provided by the Police
�► Department. This data provides that basis for the assertion that new
development will indeed create a demand for Police protection services. Thus,
,�. each and every land use uses and/or benefits from Police Facilities and is
appropriately part of the fee program.
KV
62
f
j iS COMPLETED IT
TABLE 7 - 2 oirlaffil
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
POLICE
proled knpo"
Numbw Fee 1960091 1991192 190= 19031" 1904M 1905199 190M I987-2002 2=-2007
LPD001 Polbe Sta0m expansion
$IJ64.000
$0
so
to
so
to
$0
$02.900
$1.705.100
$0
to add 10.000 squwz teat
of space.
LP00W JaM wWwolon to odd
$275.000
$o
$0
so
$o
$o
$0
$27.500
$247,600
$0
lo new calls
LPDM IMece4mmmm oftfsty
$44A00
$0
$3.000
$3,000
"000
$3,000
$3.000
$3.000
$13.000
$13.000
oquomwd for 29 omeem
LPOW4 Ank*W coft(A buck
$23.000
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
$23,000
and equolmnt
LPDW 2 pk;bv Woks equipped
$30.000
$0
$0
W
$0
$o
$o
$0
539,000
$10
wbh vadim and othw
LPG= EWd paftd are
$144.000
$o
$18.000
$o
$18.000
$0
$19.000
$0
$36,000
$54.000
and oqukmawiL
LPD007 Ton pmW);o radkxL
s29.000
$0
$0
$3.000
$0
$3,000
$0
$3.000
$9.000
$6.000
LPOM five work *AbonL
520.000
$0
40
$4.000
$0
$0
$4.000
$o
$4,000
$8.000
LPOM Flw compL*w ftnalnW&
$9,000
so
$0
$1.500
$0
$1.500
so
$0
$2,500
$2.500
-
TOTALPOUGEDEPARTMeWr
PAGE 1 OF 1
TABLE 7-3 rs,,.n-el
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
POLICE
Charge Per Unit
Portion Not Portion
Subject To Subject To
Contingent Contingent
Land Use Categories Unit RAE Reimbursement Reimbursement Total
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$1,241
$425
$1.666
Medium Density
Acre
1.77
$2,201
$754
$2,955
High Density
Acre
4.72
$5,853
$2,005
$7,858
East Side Residential
Acre
1.09
$1,347
$461
$1.808
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$1,241
$425
$1,666
Medium Density
Acre
1.77
$2,201
$754
$2.955
High Density
Acre
4.72
$5.853
$2,005
$7,858
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
2.30
$5.318
$976
$6.294
General Commercial
Acre
2.59
$3.218
$1,102
$4,320
Downtown Commercial
Acre
18.48
$6.318
$976
$6.294
Office Commercial
Ac, 9
3.72
$4,620
$1,581
$6,201
INDUSTRIAL
LION Industrial
Acre
0.30
$374
$127
$501
Heavy Industrial
Acre
0.19
$232
$79
$311
Industrial Reserve
Acre
0.30
$374
$127
$501
Nab- DoNar rnounte we in oonwnt Janwry 1, tow ddla-
Souroee Note a Associates and Argue McDonald s Asoodates-
Relationship of land 'Uses to Police Facilities Projects, ---
Once the relationship between the facilities to 4&-tonstructed and Ahe land
uses has been established, the burden of finagaffig is to be distributed to
each land use in proportion to its use of, oe benefit from, the impro4ements.
This is accomplished through the use of,a'ftesidential Acre Equivalent .(RAE)
schedule. A RAE schedule indicates ,the relative responsibility to pay"far
improvements for each land use c"Ogory in relation to the singe family
detached residential categoryrJ-,- :f
Sy definition, an acre �f'`low density single family detaetied*dwelling units "=
has a RAE factor of 4J8. All other land use categort#t have RAI; factors that-•--,
show their Police fteilities demand relative to ooe-acre of single family
detached dwelling units. The RAE schedule shoos a..relasonable relationship
between the,.eost of the required Police Facilitf�s'projects and financing r
burden placed on each land use. :_, `,.
The--RAE'schedule that has been ;O
develo 4z— --the Police Facilities Fee is
shown in Table 7-2. :---, �^
Recommended Fees
The Police Faci 1 itresTee ,-i s.. shown in Table 7-3. The total :l'Pe is $1, 666 per
low density res"identiaj,JacY : For Police Facilities, the�.'cish flow is such
that a porl:4 of the../fee subject to contingent reimbersement it required.
11
.1'
T
j TH'S 1� �. (3f?:�.F7 Ct;��.'J!'.c:,' '.Jti'.�. R�'.•tl�',
( i5 CC44PLETEC: IT Is
on
if
er
CHAPTER 8
FIRE
OVERVIEW
Level of Service
The level of service that gui e requirement for and place%kfit of a new
fire station is to provide maximum of a three minute drivi�lj time to all`3;_
areas within the City lits and the Limit of Utilitie;,-PTanft.Jhg.
C.
Existing Fire Faci.tiiies
The City of 1��tfi
6di Fire Department currently serv�e City from three
strategically located fire stations. Station #1As located at 210 W. Elm
Street., -'Station 02 is located at 705 E�Eiikli-_Aveii4b and Station #3 is located
at,2141 South Ham Lane. When these i -i-we're constructed, they provided,
An Afie desire service levels to tqe t"J'Tiath new development occurring Wpt of
the existing City, additions_
fJ4.prdiection capacity is required.
Existing Deficiencies
6 Currently, no diificiendi,6s exist in the Fire Facilities-relitive to the level
and service,.t'iandard f0 the City.
0c;
PLAOM FIRE 11�K_AfIES
Fire FiCilities to serve buildout of the --'posed General Plan were identified
in the Fire Station Location Master Plad and by City and staff during
preparation of this report. Major ftEilitiesprojects are listed in Table 8-
rl new Fir;K'Station (04) wi,11- located on Lower Sacramento Road near Park
West Drive. ither facilities
Ubs listed in Table 8-1 will equip Station 04 and
expand capabilities a -tfie other stations.
During the preparation of the fee study, a number of fire facility capital
improvement protects were identified by the City. The nature of these
projects can be characterized as replacement of existing facilities and
equipment. In a strict sense, these kinds of costs are not attributable to
new development but truly serve the existing community. As a result, only
those costs directly related to extending the existing level of service to new
development are included in the fee program.
1T 1� 15GH'AC11
0 -
ESTIMATED COST AND PHASING _
A summary of the Fire Facility projects and estimated costs and phasing is
presented in Table 8-1. Estimated costs are based -upon the Engineering News
Record 20 Cities Construction Cost Index for January 1990 of 4673.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of New Development tw fire Facilities Projects
A reasonable relationship Faust' be established between: (1). -.tile fee's use an4;.-
' (2) the type of developpW.t on which the fee is imposed " --'To establish such s_.
y, relationship, it music to shown that the type of dev-e}opment alai;, is going to
be charged the feeraAually uses, is served by, ovfienefits from the public
facilities thattare to be financed by the fee.ree-veaue-:
Fire facilities are used by all the land uses in.todi. Responses to calls for
service'as a function of land use havef�beerp-rovid'ed by the Fire Department.
This"data provides that basis for the ;a�s;g. on'that new development will
indeed create a demand for Fir-e•_suppress�on and protection services. Thus,
each and every land use usg.s-and% r benefits from Fire Facilities and is
appropriately part of the #ee-rograrn:'
Relationship of Fire Facilities Projects
mice the relationship,.�L-tween the facilities to be constructed and the land
uses has been`esta41-1thed, the burden of financing�,_k to be distributed to
eacr land use J''n-pfoportion to their use of, or be efit from, the
improvements. ',This is accomplished througk.,,#0i use of a Residential Acre
Equivalent (RAE ) schedule. A RAE scheduld,-indicates the relative
responsibility to pay for improvement;. ---for each land use category in relation
to the sfggle family detached reesiQeritial category.
By definition, an acre of low-density single family detached dwelling units
has a RAE factor of 1.0. ,. 1 other land use categories have RAE factors that
show their Fire.-FaciljArfes demand relative to one acre of single family
detached dwelling -un -its. The RAE schedule shows a reasonable relationship
between the cost of the required Fire Facilities projects and financing burden
placed on each land use.
The RAE schedule that has been developed for the Fire Facilities Fee is shown
~- in Table 8-2.
64,
momooft MAMA PUNWAM pa"
#MINE* NUMOM 041NAft
TABLE 8 —1 0IMMI
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
FIRE
po D-odrfta Fee
NWwbw Fend 19som "Olin "am tsew" 1"4" ISM" Is~ %$W-aM 2002-aW
LFOM Now Weeftwo owd" conavue"ft
$47900
so
so
so
so
so
94MOW
so
m
so
0416 "nisa and -POP—
LFMW Um "C'Wftw WWA and
5474000
so
so
so
00
so
w
$Now
smow
so
LFDM Two esdarm
SWM
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
8I0.000
814A00
LR)IM TV* Wkd-VWO.
330.090
so
so
so
so
w
so
$16.000
so
sts'am
LFDM Fbmoonqwwm
slaam
so
so
so
30
w
u
$3.000
*a)=
97,000
Fbe 50dho Surely 9—
$13.000
so
so
so
ao
so
w
$13,*W
so
so
for 23 mvby"*.
Lfew 12 "a-amotdood we@""
appWaMIL
816.000
so
so
so
so
40
so
$14.000
so
w
LFDM Obdion 01, Cvo*wua6onkwrgd&L
*111000
s0
so
so
so
40
sa
so
alkoce
TOTAL FRE
[
Is
I
I'll
$476,006::t
44,000
M006
FA
I
i
TABLE 8-2 22 -Jan -91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
i FIRE
Charge Per Unit
Portion Not Portion
Subject To Subject To
Contingent Contingent
Land Use Categories Unit RAE Reimbursement Reimbursement Total
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$518
$200
$718
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$1,017
$393
$1,410
High Density
Acre
4.32
$2,240
$865
$3,105
East Sift Residential
Acre
1.10
$569
$220
$789
PLANNED_ RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$S18
$200
$718
Medium Density
Acre
1.96
$1,017
$393
$1,410
High Denslty
Acre
4.32
$2.240
$865
$3.105
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
1.89
$1.435
$379
$1,814
General Commercial
Acre
1.93
$1,000
$386
$1,386
Downtown Commercial
Acre
8.96
$1,435
$379
$1.814
Office Commercial
Acre
246
$1,274
$492
$1.766
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial
Acre
0.84
$333
x128
$461
Heavy Industrial
Acre
0.61
$318
$123
$441
Industrial Reserve
Acre
0.64
$333
$128
$461
Note: Dollar amounts are in constant January 1, 1990 dcdlaru.
Sources: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
Recommended Fees
The summary Fire Facilities fee is shown in Table-.-81;� The total fee is $718
per low density residential acre. For Fire FactTities, the -cash 1`14tis such
that a portion of the fee subject to cont15gek reimbursement J_1 reqtk-fyed.
C,
�''� / (ter_ `___ -_
P"
Fri
wa
asd
roll
THIS C -FA,: -
15 CLAAPLE iEli IT SIJBJEC tit,
CHAPTER 9
PARKS AND RECREATION
j:
OVERVIEW
This chapter of the report presents thefcost estimates and the proposed-;';
phasing for each Park and Recreat#'v"improvements that are to be._.financedr-from
development impact fee revenuWy'`3 Government Code §66000 speck.fi"es certain.. -
findings are necessary for.aC,"lid development impact fee._ -=lids chapter
presents the required fi dings and presents the calculation off --.the Parks andK
Recreation fee.
Level of Service".
ervice -t'
_yam yi
The current: level service for standard parks (not'A ncluding school parks or
drainage basins) is 3.4 acres per 1,000(i' kt apd`'it`ecreation Persons Served and
the current level of service for comt0 tit`-;&ehCer building space is
approximately 770 square feet 1,OQ4--1rark and Recreation Persons Served.
These standards were used:as`-th�', ,si Ifor calculating the percentage of new
parks and additional comofurii):� ceni~er building space that could be -
appropriately financed - f 0(m ew development.
Existing Park ._acid Recreati oh" Faci 1 i ti es
,c
Tal xle 9-1 pro des:a-summary of the existing park aci�age in the City of Lodi.
In itie table, the'aiost important number is tha.-377.8 acres of Standard Park
area:',It is this acreage that is used to ca
npute the existing standard for
park acreage. Based upon an estimated cyY� t usage of 52,680 park and
recreation persons served, the existing -standard for parks and recreation
acreage 4.3.4 acres per 1,000. Based upon an estimated current building space
inventory 6f.40,950 square feet,sifC community center buildings, the existing
space standard is 777 square,.feet per 1,000. A summary of existing park
facilities provided by the1`City and is presented in Table 9-2.
Existing Deficiencies
Calculation of existing deficiencies is based upon the current standard
relative to the future standard for parks and recreation acreage and community
building space. In the City of Lodi, the future standard proposed for the
community exceeds the current standard. In Table 9-3, results of the existing
deficiency analysis are presented.
TABLE 9-1
INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARK AND RECREATION ACREAGE
Total Acreage 368.5 180.3 89.3 98.9
Total Acreage for Standard (1) 177.8
Source: City of Lodi.
(1) Century Park is a temporary park and is not Included in standards.
vi
TF.15 6: A.
'S COMPLEiEU iT
Existing Park Facilities
Tote I Standard
0 Description
Acres Park
Basin
Scho03_..
A .
1. Armory 4 1
3.2 3.2
2. Beclumw.'\�'t
16.0 0: a
3. Bl"*,
4.ne
9.0
0.2
5. It" (1)
.11 s.
2.5 2
Emerson
2.0
7. English Oaks Cannons
3.7 7
8. 6 -Basin
0
9. Henry Glaves
lik 3.6
9.6
10. Grape Bow)
is.4 15.0
11. male
6 2.6
12. Hutchins Street SQ4;:;�..."10
0 !0.0
13. Kofu
14. Law. a
10:0
10.0
10.0
8.0
tib18.0
15. Legion
5.6 5.6
16. Lodi Lake-
101.0 101.0
17. ftplii- ie1.0
1.0
t&,�*Ixley Pa "(C44asin)
17.0
9. Sales PaZ
21.0 1.0
20. Softbal-jComplex
7.6 7.6
M Van %iskirk
1.0
14.0
11.2
2.0
23,.,*stgate
6.0 ti. 0.3
5.7
24. Washington School
5.1
25. Lakewood School
S.0
26. Reese School
6.0
6.0
27. Nichols School
5.8
5.8
28. Heritage School
2.0
2.0
29. Woodbridge School
5.0
5.0
30. Sr. Elementary
12.0
12.0
`41. Lodi High School"
25.0
25.0
32. Tokay High J%cKool
21.0
21.0
33. -Jkwdhm School
2.0
2.0
Total Acreage 368.5 180.3 89.3 98.9
Total Acreage for Standard (1) 177.8
Source: City of Lodi.
(1) Century Park is a temporary park and is not Included in standards.
vi
TF.15 6: A.
'S COMPLEiEU iT
The findings indicate the following. First, the added park acreage in the
Proposed General Plan will increase the acreage standard-from-3..3/1,000 to
3.6/1,000. As a result, 13.8% of the added park acreage must be..allocated
to raise the current standard of the current residents. Stated mother way,
only 86.2% of proposed park improvement costs-4i attributable to h8w
development. >.
Second, the added community buildipg%space will raise the space standatd
from 777/1,000 to 1,502/1,000. *4a result, 49.1% of the added buildifu�p
.» space is allocated to existiW&velopment and 50.9% is allocated to new,.
development. 0--' _
cam,
�. Existing deficiencies,ire not funded through the OVilopmeni.,tmpact fee -�
program. In this-Ne study, alternative fundigVs*ces are not
specifically :identified that would cover parr'and:;*-ecreation existing `
facilities,daficiencies.
t
TABh
INVENTORY OF VOTING PARD AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Phi fREIC•I FY EXISTING STANDARD
Park-'Acreage3.4/1, 000. ,persons served
Comffiunj:tyBuilding Area 77Z_ A(-ft/1,000 persons
1erVed
RestroomsI/park over 3.0 acres
-Lighted Baseball Diamondi 11 Total
Tot-lot 1/park
�^ Lighted-Tennis Courts 11 Total
Swimming Pools 4 Total
Source: Nolte and Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates
X02
r ..
Md
TABLE 9-3
22 -Jan -91
O+
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
PARKS AND RECREATION
"a
Existing
Future
Future
I .
Description of Item Conditions
Additions
Total
i"a
PARK PERSONS SERVED 53,148
31.031
77.168
SERVICE CAPACITY
Ise
Park Acreage 177.8
103.6
281.4
r
Community Center Buildings (Sq. Ft.) 40,950
75,000
115.95o
..
SERVICE STANDARD
t
Current Service Standard:
Park Acres Per 1.000 Persons Served 3.4
Community Center Sq. Ft. Per 1,000 Persons Sery 777
Target Service Standard
Park Acres Per 1,000 Persons Served
3.6
Community Center Sq. Ft. Per 1,000 Persons Served
1.502
;a
ADDITIONAL StikVICE CAPACITY REOUIRED
Additional Park Acres 14.2
89.4
103.6
p*
Additional Community Center SgFt 38.183
36,817
75.000
BURDEN ON NEW AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Additional Park Acres 13.8%
86.2%
100.0%
}
Additional Community Center SgFt 50.9%
49.1%
100.0%
NOW: Dollar amounts we In comtMt January 1. 1900 dollars.
3ourew Heft a Associates and Angus McDonald a Aaoelatsa
FJ
1
aw
W
Yw
rat
,n
PLANNED PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
A summary of the Parks and Recreation Facility Projects"is presented in Table
9-4. Estimated costs are referenced to the Engingering News Record -,20 Cities
Construction Cost Index for January 1990 of 4673`: Project descript%ns played
an important role in preparing the project estimates and were develops' in
concert with City staff. Project Numbers -fisted in Table 9-4 are use&lo
identify project locations in Figure, -94 .
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PHASING
Improvement and land ac"isition costs for parks and recreation. facilities am
based upon informati*orovided by City staff and the."City Capital Improvement -
Plan. Land costs were assumed to be $100,000 pec akre�:,In cases where land
for parks expags4-6n is already owned by the Ciij�; tale "fee program will not pay
or reimburse.:tFie City for land costs.
. f r
As explained in the previous section, the- ut.ure'3pace and park acreage
standards are greater than the curren4lst� re. For the purpose of
fidentifying the responsibilit ,0 the`f�,e' program for funding of these
,. improvements, building costA,;�iieywsepjjated from all other cost. A 49: -IX
deficiency has been alloCif0 ,to the building costs and a 13.8% def-ttiency has
been allocated to all other costs. The exception is the Master, -,.Plan for Parks
,.and Recreation.
/t ;number of 4he projects identified by the City are :noV--attributable to new
devilopment`and more;=accurately fall into the catepi of maintenance and
repifr. These.'p�ects are easily identified because no cost has been
allocated to the impact fee fund.
In Table,9-4, the phasing of construction costs is presented only for those
Parks prd1gcts to be funded through, --the fee program. Phasing of the projects
is based upon forecasts provided Ciy the City.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Relationship of Pirk and Recreation Projects to New Development
A reasonable relationship must be established between: (1) the fee's use and;
(2) the type of development on which the fee is imposed. To establish such a
relationship, it must be shown that the type of development that is going to
be charged the fee actually uses, is served by, or benefits from the public
facilities that are to be financed by the fee revenue.
Park and Recreation facilities are primarily used by tt.e residential
population of Lodi. However, non-residential land uses are served by these
facilities. Examples include; employees using park facilities during lunch,
t t
?alri i�sLr; a�6a6t, '7�6ri1 4ii�ii �ilaii IIYM*Lf 1i1�� {�6GLi iaiL� :� P�Ilat14 144aiol a.a�.r r91a1� *rlaall
TABLE 9-4 01t2"I
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS AND RECREATION
Ps.}w ce.orLo+,m
ISre110r
CenMaalon
Coel
tlpoot
Fee
10110101
1901102
1002M
"633
tOwN6
to06.Mq
ts"W
,9W-2002
'7A02-�07
aw"M Parte andRrniea*on
me~ Plarl
*60.000
*60.000
so
060000
>o
so
ao
*0
a
so
s0
IWMW Adninfolmden ku061n0
s2.0414.000
s1.4M*oo
so
so
s0
s0
s0
s0
so
so
41.406.000
e1pNNM at 0arp>aderl ya,&
WAM tladwWou d ant reptewme
f37,00o
s0
00
s0
so
*o
so
80
>D
so
s0
WF"4 Loa Late Comtel Pwt
8666.000
so
so
s0
s0
s0
s0
so
s0
s0
so
1i/M0a L" LAM Penben"
kw-
8776.000
00
00
i0
so
00
so
00
so
00
so
LIPIb00 Loa LNa elpsnol ab 13
wasswas nee.
i1.s14000
01.604400
so
00
s0
so
s'
so
so
"Ass.aw
so
Is*a47 UdL4seNtammwt
*260.000
s0
>0
so
s0
w
so
OD
so
s0
s0
WFOW Loa Late F~ Flow
*166000
s0
s0
so
*0
so
w
so
so
so
so
ReaaaOw L
wpow Lea LAY Uww Ememoarl
Lam*
0176.000
s0
s0
w
s0
s0
s0
so
*0
so
s0
umse aoMesaaplexCorwwam.
Mow
s4
s0
so
00
s0
so
so
so
s0
s0
4iss1/1 Bombe*Complex, F, ewnenf
8107.000
s0
s0
s0
s0
so
so
s0
10
00
40
oanoawlun elw.L
OaM IX 6osW8 Complex*Ad*
etuolurw
*12A00
so
!b
40
so
p
so
s0
s0
so
s0
WMt3 aotlEas Complex pemin0.
811.000
so
so
00
s0
so
so
so
s0
s0
so
11#10%4 8M1110s Cempax"V de
601.000
so
so
s0
so
so
so
s0
s0
s0
s0
pa 10*w
WMIS aaaem an**" a ft,
s12LM
s0
so
s0
so
so
so
*0
so
s0
so
L10MIn0.
wmn 810dtrrn new aex
844.000
so
s0
so
so
30
00
s0
so
0o
*o
Ii40at7 aaaum P=►M La Leads"
"1.000
so
so
so
so
s0
s0
so
so
so
so
a L14116r14
Pawfa*
aeries mmms irmw . 11a o..a P-- 1m'm� 'w1 pa" MWWR MONK P+" i "of' ..0 it .r..o 1+>•1
TABLE 9-4
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS AND RECREATION
Wfta Illus Mal AQWa"
t13s.000
s0 s0
ta6rD.anrwal
/006144
so
01P10)t0 s,a0uwAd0e6aa1 s4Mins
104.000
0D s0
MPH= ON Pat GAwW s4a4tw A
86.000
00 s0
00700;1 0% Pak New Plypeaad
146.000
OD so
s0701t Rao r" Parar4W fa4b,D
10.000
as so
018004 Rau Pak M. -P rim
F-edn
07.000
b 40
WIN" Kau Pal FJIsa0a1 s0p104a0
113.000
s0 s0
011701 AiiialrPak MMita,
1/20,000
f0 so
0@6020 0raal7 PartIn44 6o a eua
tv.000
s0 so
NO
s0
s0
0 wow Asoy Part upgmd4 f3aaYb
tm,A00
s0 s0
OP6tllt Zmmfu1d H10Yaaeirt0lr
loom
:24000
to so
i ram Zvo RMOupraMBmbw
0MAW
s0 f0
s0
s0
00
IIPi0s1 Nab Park 414w.rU pparane
tso4400
s0 s0
0 RM Me Pat Comftw r tu"4
11.184.000
s0e;000 so
2x1016 wwrwk4prall.l oho.
*22_404
00 s0
6417046 s40r Palk FmWc&a ghak
ata0irr"
661.000
to to
104010 !1610 Paltfa0D001nnond N
s4000
s0 s0
1 FRW Farr440 Pak 10wYear4
A 0140ala4N
3374.000
s0 so
0 flow 14ry Pak to-26*0
al tn0ra.a0a0"
0406.000
s404600 so
loom
Moa
"aw"
leow"
/006144
so
40
s6
so
so
so
so
s0
so
s0
s0
00
so
so
s0
so
s0
0D
s0
60
40
s0
so
s0
so
so
s0
s0
s0
so
s0
so
s0
s0
so
10
so
s0
s0
00
so
s0
so
s0
m
to
0
0
to
>D
so
40
s0
s0
so
6o
s0
so
"
so
s0
s0
A
1D
60
p
s0
s0
s0
s0
s0
so
so
so
so
so
s0
so
s0
:D
so
SD
so
s0
so
so
w
so
so
s0
40 s0 so to s0
01mro1
so 80
s0
s0 s0
so
s0 s0
so
so s0
"
s0 s0
s0
00 so
s0
so s0
so
s0 s0
s0
so so
to
$0 s0
s0
f0 00
30
so s0
t0
so so
so
40 4064.000
s0
s0 40
s0
s0 40
s0
so 4o
so
30 s0
so
s0 b
104000
NAM r#Nmi $am » am Se omi w" own amw baw ftmw
TABLE 9-4 ojr2ml
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
PARKS AND RECREATION
Pfto*ooa
CW.%.Cm"
cm
kv4d
F..
WMM W"4100 P" WVMM-00%
$30
53041300
so
so
so
so
so
so
83".30o
so
40
Wma N" " rot a ow,.rYq
SZ726.000
111.2W4W
so
so
so
so
$0
so
so
111.26,40
so
Wft*l Alft As Pot A Pod
$MGM
$009lw
so
so
so
so
so
80
so
w
seegaDo
Wma Nsw"ftk&c.mmmlq
bgkfto
S%706A=
M400.000
so
so
00
so
so
so
so
0
m4o0j000
kwfw43 Nmnrwk, p
w
so
so
so
so
so
so
was.=
sullm
MFVW" An& " Fwt woaw...w
v1.1
ema.40
ft
so
so
so
so
so
so
somwo
to
MrfW" Am 07 Ftl V
skomm
1".9mme
so
so
so
so
$1.60.100
so
so
so
so
UFM" EmnWft Pwk Olwgwl pwk
knwo—WrAL
sawma
&2W.2m0
so
so
so
so
so
$120.000
$120,000
so
so
W"VAA &WWvftft00mW4$X
"A"Am
S6.06SA00
$0
40
00
ft
so
so
to
so
*SX8.000
swfoa F-u-bhw—*~ftp"
$119A00
$W2.ft0
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
$102.700
Wma mmommWommarook
$119AW
$142A0
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
$102.700
wvm 0-0mk Pok b"pw,"."%
8300.000
gmwo
so
so
so
so
8D
so
so
4120.300
4129X0
wmn mown opme caw"
1 JOL d
MON
so
so
so
so
SD
so
so
so
so
30
mpm" ftftwo "m" uum-w
PWAW
so
so
SD
9D
so
so
so
6D
so
so
UPFWW ftwhh" so— cW C..
CONK
saes.000
m
s0
so
so
so
$0
so
6
so
so
MPH= *mt*@&p"om"c"
IN -1 v
81AWA0$
0
$D
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
to
&WVW "w*Am Sq.r. AW"*..
64A04.06
so
so
so
so
so
so
10
a
so
so
[TOTAL PARKMI MC.
$360m.=
17
Pfto*ooa
fin
a.
company picnics, and company teams participating in softball -leagues. Thus,
each and every land use uses and/or benefits from Park and -Recreation
facilities and is appropriately part of the fee program.
Relationship of Park and Recreation Projects to --land Uses
Once the relationship between the faciliti'e`s to be constructed and the% and
uses has been established, the burdeni_of financing is to be distributed` -:to
each land use in proportion to the►Wuse of, or benefit from, the
improvements. This is accompJ,1s; "d through the use of a Residpkial Acre -
Equivalent (RAE) schedule. ARAE schedule indicates the re1itive
responsibility to pay f4mpravements for each land use category in relations
to the single family.,dftached residential category.
3y definition, ani acre of low density single family,-6"ached dwelling units
has a RAE factor of 1.0. All other land use cairies have RAE factors that i
show their-oark usage relative to one acre of 16W -\,density single family
detached dwelling units. The RAE sche;hd-,r*
p siiQws`a-reasonable relationship
betwden the cost of the required park - tion projects and financing.:-
burden placed on each land use--
The
se,The RAE schedule that has 4i5ee,�-cf6* oped for the Park and Recreati ort- Fee is
shown in Table 9-5. '\`
Recommended Fmt
The:.--:summary\Parks and%Recreation fee is shown in Ta ltl 9-5. The total fee is
$12;62.1 per 16 +` �eii`s i ty residential acre. For_ -Parks and Recreation the cash
flow`ts such that a portion of the fee subjeaV to contingent reimbursement is
not rezoired.
f_
ri
�7
THiS .5 a r.R 1 D1'C:J F -N :
rT IS
m.
.00
fy
!M
TABLE 9-5 22-tian-91
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
PARKS AND RECREATION
Charge Per Unit
Portion Not Portion
Subject To Subject To
i Contingent Contingent
Land Use Categories Unit RAE Reimbursement Reimbursement Total
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$12,021
$0
$12.021
Medium Density
Acre
1.43
$17,178
$0
$17,178
High Density
Acre
2.80
533,619
$0
$33,619
East Side Residential
Acre
1.10
$13,197
$0
513,197
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Acre
1.00
$12,021
$0
$12,021
Medium Density
Acre
1.43
$17,178
$0
$17.178
High Densly
Acre
2.80
$33,619
$0
$33,619
COMMEF JAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Acre
0.32
$3,816
5o
$3,816
General Commercial
Acre
0.32
$3,816
So
$3,816
Downtown Commercial
Acre
1.68
$3,816
$0
$3,816
Office Commercial
Acre
0.54
$6,543
$0
$6.543
INDUSTRIAL
Ught Industrial
Acre
0.23
$2,726
$0
$2,726
Heavy Industrial
Acre
0.33
33.953
$0
$3.953
Industrial Reserve
Acre
0.23
$2,726
$0
$2,.'26
NOW. Dollar aeoounts wo In constant January 1. 1 oeo dollars.
Swigs: Nolo a Assodates and Angus MoOonald 5 Associates.
w
er
a.
CHAPTER 10 -
*" GENERAL CITY FACILITIES,'
i�
�• OVERVIEW
Level of Service
The current staffing level W!! ervice provided by the City.,oflodi for general
city services (e.g. City,,-ranager, finance department) is1:25'full Time.
Equivalents (FTEs) par'000 persons serve¢. The cyrxent spiti,standard is
f" 229 square feet per --FTE. These standards were usq&-isfthe basil for
calculating the.percentage of additions to City,4 1,1-Afiat would be
appropriately -charged to either new or existing#velopment.
}� Existing` Deficiencies
.Table 10-1 presents the resul"f the �W sting deficiency analysis. In the
case of the City Hall addii; nth the staffing standard and the space
kn standard are increased ¢vert the(-j1)Lrptng period. As a result, a portion
(27.8x) of the addition igirr=fit be -funded from development impact fees.
`PLANNED GENSK-.t TY FA;'ILMES
r,. Ir%7able 102', a listing of General City Facilitie�s,�_Projects is provided.
Included in thk.14,ii:ing are those capital imprgveaients and expenditures
identified by tity Department heads in their-Lbiudget forecasts for 2006/7.
0
ESTIMATED COST AAM PHASING %
A sumnary`�;of the phasing of pro4ac.`ts funded by the fee program is provided in
�- Table 10-2" Phasing of the projects is based upon the forecast of units
constructed oyer the Generali Plan period.
r
DEVELOPMENT IMPACTfEE�
Relationship of New Development to General City Facilities Projects
A reasonable relationship must be established between: (1) the fee's use and;
(2) the type of development on which the fee is imposed. To establish such a
relationship, it must be shown that the type of development that is going to
t^ be charged the fee actually uses, is served by, or benefits from the public
facilities that are to be financed by the fee revenue.
jTHIS Is a. rr : `7 G+JCUMFL!r.
+ i5 Cv�1iF4Ei�' IT IS' 5U8.__'
TABLE 10-1 n -Jan -at
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ANALYSIS
GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
Change End
Current 1989/90 - State
Personnel Units 1989/90 2007/08 2007/08
Administration Persons
13
8
21
Finance (w/o Purchasing) Persons
28
14
42
Purchasing (FT) Persons
5
3
8
PurcharAng(PT) Persons
1
-1
0
Data Processing Persons
5
13
18
Building (CDD) Persons
6
5
11
Planning (CDD) Persons
5
4
9
Public Works Persona
19
9
28
Totals
6.0
5.0
11.0
82
55.0
137
5.0
4.0
9.0
FTE Change End
Conversion Current 1989190 - State
Personnel Units (1) Factor 1989/90 2007/08 2007/08
Administration
FTE
100%
13.0
8.0
21.0
Finance (w/o Purchasing)
FTE
100%
28.0
14.0
42.0
Purchasing (FT)
FTE
100%
5.0
3.0
8.0
Purchasing (P1)
FTE
50%
0.5
(0.5)
0.0
Data Processing
FTE
100%
5.0
13.0
18.0
Building (CDD)
FTE
100%
6.0
5.0
11.0
Planning (CDD)
FTE
100%
5.0
4.0
9.0
Public works
FTE
100%
19.0
9.0
28.0
Total Units
81.5
55.5
137.0
Building Area Square Feet
18,657
14,448
33.105
Taal Persons Served
64,996
35,842
92.996
Staffing Standard:
FTEs per 1.000 Persons Served
1.28
0.19
1.47
Space Standard:
Area Per Employee (FTE)
228.92
12.72
241.64
Source: Nolo 8 Aaodatse and Angus McDonald i& Aaaodataa
TABLE 10-1 22 -Jan -01
(Cont-)
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
GENERAL CITY FACILITIES
Existing Future Future
IDescription of Item Population Additions Total I
GENERAL GOVERNMENT PERSONS SERVE
63.676
29,320
92,996
SERVICE CAPACITY
General Government Employees (Full
81.5
55.5
137.0
Time Equivalent (FTEs))
General Government Buildings (Sq. Ft.)
18,657
14,448
33,105
SERVICE STANDARD
Current Service Standard,
General Government Employees Per
1.3
1,000 Persons Served
Building ft FL Per Employee
228.9
Target Service Standard
General Government Employees Per
1.5
1,000 Persons Served
Building Sq. FL Per Employee
241.6
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CAPACITY REQUIRED
Additional Employees (Full Time
12.3
43.2
55.5
Equivalent TM)
Additional Building Area (Sq. FL)
For Existing Employees
1.037
1.037
For Now Employees
2,974
10,437
13,411
Total 4.011 10,437 14.448
Burden on New and Existing Development 27.8% 72.2% 100.
Cost of New Facilities Iftlarem �!.;i jEjA
Note: Dollar mounts are In constant January 1. 1990 dollars.
Source: Nolte & Associates and Angus McDonald & Associates.
..� ...�► wraur I�� $--a pow pa" iii" MIS IIS Im ■a saw am Io m" w
TABLE 10-2 o1mro1
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
GENERAL CITY DEPARTMENT
Fad -AW
Aeps D -W"- COMIC&& bipaol
IWMFJbW Cpl Fore 1900$61 "elm /512!30 Isow" 10"1156 1as61W Iseals7 1W7-ao02 2002-2W
1$CR0o1
Clgr NO R4fnodd end AdOMm.
$6,214000
i3,041M
30
s70o,000
$7WAN
so
a
a
so
411,84kmo
so
OCFMW
Ch4o C5aW PmWw La Evwwim
sm.000
so
so
so
so
s0
so
f2 kwo
so
$0
13 K Chwck
GCF6kli
CINO Censor PwkMg La Eapwmlm
$794000
s234000
$0
s0
so
s0
so
s0
so
s0
&23"00
217 VA Efw.
9CFb
AquMdml. dSnaWaf, dselpn
{061,000
$201.000
so
s6
30
so
so
so
so
so
sm o00
tlap4e0on.4nd oon5suatlon
107 a 100 K 8droal 8t
9CF%ft
Clraw a wmh nut oww4lm
662,000
$76,000
so
$28400
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
9CFMG
Pobb Wmb AM a "afa1
$6614000
5304000
so
so
so
1300.000
so
so
so
so
s0
"dwo e
9CFIW
Owomd4foo8a.
sw,No
swwo
so
so
$06,000
so
so
30
so
to
so
ACFIM
PropwV-wbM-
$mom
{213.000
so
so
30
so
so
so
so
so
621300
2q E. Loclubrd 8L
QCFl500
Pwtbo Lala Voow0rn11,
s70,000
$MOW
so
so
so
s0
so
$0
so
so
s70,000
HE 9a of Loaalwd and
8asoklm.
0"10
&wast tbfuy
s2.000,00"
62.0 %ON
so
so
so
so
so
to
so
Mow.=
m
6CFb11
pubo Wort Taub
s760,000
s760.o00
"4,100
$K100
6".100
$44,100
$4{,foo
614.100
$41.100
$2MSW
6220,700
GCF1012
Pub90 Msrla Hoops and 9a4ana
plS000
5719.000
*42.1p
342,100
"4';100
142.100
"42.100
94zloo
*4zm
SVO.300
4310.000
1$ M13
h*k WAA A"CWW"OM
600.000
s00000
"6,300
waw
$6.300
34300
s43oo
$6.300
W300
626,900
$26,400
ElCF014
50"30 Wab M1a4. Of6w EWI*. d
306.500
a940oo
13.000
33,900
$3.9W
sa.$1$
sxwo
$&NO
aa.$00
!19.700
sla,a00
OCF1019
Heanor. Woo. Ctsa Equoawd
9181.700
$1$1.7'0o
$10,700
$10,700
slo.7oo
$10,700
$10.700
$10.700
sso,7oo
363„400
s63.4o0
43cm7s
Fkn nao Cwnpulaf CA$ 400'
672.000
Mom
$4.100
74.200
$4.100
04.200
$4.200
$4.200
$t.TOo
621.=
s"'400
peeps 1 Of 2
nift-Ot in-- ;mignon t--4 P-104 PM -q P" &A=
0=0 SM0 0" M" ' WOO tYilrrl WAM AW.
TABLE 1G-2 0102ml
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
GENERAL CITY DEPARTMENT
oldwAud
1*4 COFA&Ucfto
W.&W Cad Fes *@@am tfst= "MZW NOW" "mill" lamills, MINNOW IS107-210102 00242W
0CF*17 F"Pap— MwAbft
84,400.000 84A00.000
8300.000
wo'c"
ilMOAN IZIOADO
=MAW
6200.000
swkim
$1.300.000
$11ANAW
Comm abegral VMS updam, Joe?
al"Atf, 4W.010
0207,010
so
so
so 0131
so
so
so
so
COUWW Five Year Updaft b ft Ow
020.000 now
so
670.000
so
so so
so
so
so
a
plm Im.
caawom me Yom updam 0 fin ewow
Mm 120.000
so
so
120.000
a so
so
so
so
so
p1m, mu
PWMWM blowitud lm I p and
11nA06 MAN
so
so
00
so 60
so
120.000
$0
so
8pea90edm-1907.
F&MUM Sma"d Dr&AW and
6P"16Aodwa-20oz
020,000 42kM
so
so
40
so so
so
so
120.000
so
MMWAM SWWod OmWnp and
620.000 120.000
so
$a
so
00 so
so
so
so
129.000
[TOTAL MY FACkn"
115 %1.219
an
!Wwc
~202
General City Facilities benefit all land uses in the City of Lodi. These
facilities provide the space and services necessary for governmental
administration. General City administrative services are provided to
businesses and employees, as well as to residents of Lodi:
Relationship of Land Uses to General City Facilities Projects
2
Once the relationship between the facilitiesrfo be constructed and ttti� iand
uses has been established, the burden of,ffnancing is to be distributee to
each land use in proportion to their ,-us�i of, or benefit from, the -
improvements. This is accomplishqo'�i;hrough the use of a Residential Acre
Equivalent (RAE) schedule. A RAfschedule indicates the relative
responsibility to pay for mRrovements for each land use,-, in relation_
to the single family detghed residential category. ff_ %'
z�
By definition, an.acre of low density single fami,Wdet4thed dwelling units `.
has a RAE factor-bf 1.0. All other land use czateggr,.fes have RAE factors that
show their benefit from general city facilities,_'r-eiative to one acre of low
density single family detached dwelling units. The RAE schedule shows a
reasonable relationship between the cote' -cif -the required general City
faci'f ities projects and the financing ,burden` -laced on each land use.
The RAE schedule that has been developed for the General City Facilities is
shown in Table 10-3. -
`•,Recommended Fees =
ilie. sumaary:i;neral City Facilities fee is shown in TaK2�10-3. The total fee
iv -0,273 per._-Aow:density residential acre. For =General City Facilities, the
castf--flow is stick -'that a portion of the fee subjeet to contingent
reimbursement j1 required.
73
74
� cnAr`T o0ouwo"-1 uu7/-IS
ptcrco IT 's'SuBJEcr TO A.%;oc !
-----------
APPENDIX A
FORECAST OF KqppED ACREAGE FOW*
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAK-,
C>
5L F!:,
77
_.7a r4 .... "seen.- .. MWASe ... 410 -..Pull/ ... #Oiow-- .111 li --- il�- ;- N ---MM 4M --- t
TABLE
GENERAL PUU �GRE M F*CAST
CITY OF LODI�P} 7 FACILITIES FINAR�ING PLM
F�
Existing Existing �. •
As Of As OF (�}}% •� 1997/90- 2002/03- Total Total
Lesd On Categories Ilulta 1987/90 1909!90 199Q/91 1991/92 3esL� 1993/94 1994/95 1 • 1990/97 2001!02 2000107 Forecast 2006/67
RESIDENTIAL
\�
�'
Lor Drafty
Low
xadiva Density
Acres
Acres
2,085
159
2.111
1$sR
5
1
S
0
<�. 3
..0 111
a
0
0 0
0 0
0
�%y o
0
0
0
0
13
1
2,244
194
Nigh Density
Aeras
162
1
4
0
':
"
0
0 0
0
0
0
4
111
East Side Residential
Acres
0
4\
3
0
0
. A
0 0
}0
0
0
3
7
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
FR - Lor Density
Acres
00
96
72
51
Std +�
52 52
52%
2119
325
1042
1042
FN - Ndim Density
Acres
0
0
0
5
3
j
3 3
4 4
3 G
4 Qy
19
23
21
26
87
63
87
83
PR - High Density
Acres
0
0
!�
8
4
r~
r i
I Wham IdeMtal
2,406
2.595
123
97
81
6 80
80
2 395
1.257
3,852
n
t
O
�
14
Aerie
149
155
13
�
3
3
3
3
21
21
93
238.
OF�
Acres
Acres
Acres
las
19
65
198
22
a9
0
0
0
O -A
0
0
0
I
0
0
1
0
1
L
0
1
0
0
2
0
` 0
2
L
0
9
197
22
95
VI
422
459
13
nG 4
4
4
S
23
23 \
93
552
T 1a1
13
I��
Ap'.�4�
Lygit trial
W-9 Itrial
Acres
Acres
221
333
M
492
4
3
5
4
3
2
3
3
4 4
3 3
25
20
32
25
65
86
340
556
al Reserve
Acres
0
0
21
26
13
17
21 21
[i
129
158
429
429
`
A
\13
T4 risl
554
755
29
35
17
29 29
29
174
1
S79
1.333
City of Lodt Public Yorks Department.
t
•. RP24Z-B
o6
f
APPENDIX 8
FORECAST OF CONSTRUCTED UNITS
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
O
77
THIS I'S A O? 1F7 DC"CUM&4T UNT!l. REMEW
F'-. IT J'Z SUBJEC7. TOP �'HANGF_
TABLE B-1
GENERAL PLAN GROWTH FORECAST. -'-
CITY OF LODI PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
Residential Growth Phasing
Avg. Density
7 up
New
Net 'Total
Phase
"PR' Area kni
Parks
MLI
IVA
i
1
Southeast; E/Stkrt St. 150
lo
X
980
1
Batch; W/Lwr;'34i. 85
85 ✓
595
I
Towne; W/LwO'. Sac, S/Turner 78.3
75.3
527
I
N/Centpy'-, E/Lwr. Sac 51
51
357
I
S/Cefffury(frontage), E/Lwr.Sac 52
44
308
Subtotal
2,767
2
S/Century,E/Lwr.Sac.(Iess 01)
0
164
1,148
1,
Bridgetown; N/Turner
0
61
427
2
N/Kettl eman, E/L J 1 100
3
97
679,
.0
2
N/Century, E/Lwr. tic Uis-"04) 0
j
0
3
2
N/Kettl eman, WL4�.�.Fiic 52
0
52
364
2,618
946total
'Sac,N/Kettleman(less 02) 163
W/L*k,
13
1,050
3
S/Kittleman-;:-flAwr. Sac 280
I
270
1,890
Subtotal
3,154
Totals 1,2
47
1,189
8,325
8,325
Iii
ftdustrial Area
Total New Parl(i
89
AWN
75
1;
TH;c DRAFT 00CUMEN1. UNTIL RE;Ea:rae
COMPLETED !T IS"SLISJE.Cl T?:,
7T
VA
sub
TABLE B-2
TOTAL Kiril BLT/YR
TOTAL DU4!J-REMAIN
AT END OF YPR
% PHASE BLOOUVYR
PHASE I I I
TOTAL DU'S - 3,154
fOTAL DU BLT/YR
TOTAL DWS REMAIN
AT END OF YEAR
74
292 450 1,876
2,326 1,876 0
11 17 _zz
100
515 2,G39
2,639 0
16
84
GENERAL PLAN ACREAGE GROWTH FORECAST
CITY OF LODI PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
1991/92 1992/93
1993/94
1994/95 1995/96
1997/2002 2*/2006-7
_.1.936/97
MAXIMUM NO. OF
-424
Ou's BLT/YR
1,344
416.,f 433 442
4500
2,391 Z;639
PHASE 1
TOTAL DU'S 2,767
TOTAL DU
BLT/YR
1,344
416 424 433 --�-T50
To-jrAL,Z(f'S REMAIN
AT END OF YEAR
1,423
1,007 583,,1 so;-' o
%% PHASE
tj!
BLDOUT/YR
" 1 15 16
s\
100
KWE II
. :14
"c
TAlrjCn rut, c 2
TOTAL Kiril BLT/YR
TOTAL DU4!J-REMAIN
AT END OF YPR
% PHASE BLOOUVYR
PHASE I I I
TOTAL DU'S - 3,154
fOTAL DU BLT/YR
TOTAL DWS REMAIN
AT END OF YEAR
74
292 450 1,876
2,326 1,876 0
11 17 _zz
100
515 2,G39
2,639 0
16
84
TABLE 10 — 3 917aeo/
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
GENERAL CITY. DEPARTMENT
emss4a, on rnutEra F11ti�1a«1
Ia."
cm
F"
1o00m
1o9Um
tslma"
1993"
lawn
taosm
1993$7
tW-2=
mm—,=71
4G700t Cai HA H4.."
84,216.909
M402AN
so
$704000
SM.=
90
s0
b
M
91,0029-
M
am"= 7LbC41"p"he
$2MAM
97!0.900
aD
R
M
so
so
ZO
82Wm
w
s9
LW E*oW-
91"m a b474.w Pwwq
9236AC"
82MA00
s0
M
s0
p
80
b
s0
so
$734000
!w Ei0..r -
sem" Miylw"+91.i—ml
s7a1A00
$711,000
so
so
M
a0
M
n
M
aD
s49/.o09
K aired 80.4
SWIM Gp attltr Itra
avow=
$62000
-4000
s0
924000
i0
s0
0
$0
s0
$0
>D
lti4117m1s WAfta
99/9.000
9009.000
s0
s0
s0
1200,000
A
s0
p
M
b
9C1"$7 arrlvftft —"
avy.
am.000
994999
so
90
994000
so
so
so
so
s9
so
91CFi F -p ff vAMo.,
9213.00
9213.009
s0
s0
s0
s0
M
30
s0
s0
a2M.000
217E 3.w41m4
6CFWW Miy Lo- I - Mtitw
8708700
370.000
s0
s0
M
s0
M
s0
s0
s9
s74000
s..k4etaase*.
Gown b—*Lb 7
32900.900
skme.000
s3
3o
so
30
30
90
s9
s2A04o00
30
aefti1 r.rs.w.I/
$"CAN
8700,000
"4.100
s41.Wo
$".to0
"4,100
944, too
"►.100
3/1.100
3724900
s7247w
ecsi 3 F.r414*. .
$713.000
$719.000
"2t90
842199
$42.100
842,100
642W0
$42,100
s42W0
3714300
32WA00
Kma rAfty 1a"
830.000
330.o0D
34300
$axe
96"
33.200
35.3DD
34900
s4300
823.600
32!.409
QcFm" rwwov*.39
"U"
Mao
Man
33.900
PAM
32.M0
AMC
t3,M9
33,999
$14300
at"A00
_+�.. ""�--:'r�1A�'.._- �..��:..-�---��►.'-_p�._....�.----{dill. _t,;iy�...���,--• --_.�.,ay_:..:p,ur„F:.�..:y,.,r„i_...
TABLE 10 — 3 wram
DEVELOPMr:NT RELATED COSTS AND PHASING
GENERAL CITY DEPARTMENT
aeXMLanFROA=wwws
pr.bw
cow
r« NN1"
Is"" logo Nara+
Nwws
"ok" Is"M
Naaoaa
aoeo aoor I
*QRM FbwAo
ON1,7oo
{Ntm mme
own* aN.70o 0100"
$K)a
49k70o 010.NO
"mm
a60.�00
0000 AA.A*fn
SrAm
frAm okm
wAN w.7oo auoa
aa,7w
a.Aoa ssroo
aalAoa
MAN
aajNY ►wpwr.ra0y
"AWNS"
SIAOSA a Mlim
CIMA0a 020Aw paws 1200AN
$=*Am smok
o
N.=QAoa
N mA0a
COWAN Yrw rin-NN
00gA10
SmAn smow
00 w so
00
so
00
so
w
Ocown IrMaow%p
OwiOwM
sakm
swim M
i7a aaa so w
r
as
w
w
so
coommt
000.000
p4aea M
00 pO.Ow w
p
p
w
w
so
Ru
Amemon SWAWamobw--4
0.7A00
IlImAoo 0o
p w so
so
40 820AN
Oa
0o
iy�o�oorr•• rlOr.
INIIKOOOQ OO�M OiOaMpM
�erWa->tai
170A"
soma M
00 O w
M
p
p
a7aAw
p
r Wa10M0. Or0WICINOWM0
soles o
000.00a so
so 00 as
0o
so
w
so
070.000
P-001,
�O
-�U
,. e7�-"k c�
i�. yak
•r-�
fVAN.
ALRYFAdIlT�3
115,581,219
:1 .
8:300181
131.
aaOtfMt