AGENDA
City Council Meeting
Council Chambers, Chowchilla City Hall
130 S. Second Street, Chowchilla, CA 93610
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
Closed Session: 6:00 p.m.
Open Session: 7:00 p.m.
City Hall is open to the public for business. The City Council Chamber is OPEN to the public for City Council meetings. City Council meetings will also be available to view and participate via Zoom. Please read Page 4 of this agenda packet for Zoom login and participation information.
Agendas for all City Council meetings are posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in the kiosk just outside of City Hall, 130 S. Second St., Chowchilla, CA 93610.
Agendas for Special Meetings are posted 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Any writing or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection on the city website at www.CityofChowchilla.org.
The City of Chowchilla complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA of 1990). The Council Chambers is accessible to the physically disabled. If you need special assistance, please call (559) 665-8615, ext. 102 at least 4 days prior to a regular meeting, 1 day for a special meeting.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Mayor: John Chavez
Mayor Pro Tem: Ray Barragan
Council Members: Waseem Ahmed, Diana Palmer, Kelly Smith City staff and contract employees present at the meeting will be reflected in the minutes.
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Additions and/or Deletions:
PUBLIC ADDRESS – CLOSED SESSION
This time is reserved for members of the audience to address the City Council on items listed on the Closed Session agenda only. It is recommended that speakers limit their comments to no more than 3 minutes each.
CLOSED SESSION – 6:00 PM
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency Designated Representatives: City Administrator, Finance Director, City Attorney City Council Meeting Agenda June 14, 2022
Employee Organizations: Chowchilla Police Officer Association, Chowchilla City Employee Association, Chowchilla City Office Employees Association, Chowchilla MidManagement/Confidential Association and Non-Represented Staff OPEN SESSION – 7:00 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION:
CLOSED SESSION REPORT:
PRESENTATIONS/WORKSHOP - Section 1
• Presentation to the Chowchilla Police Department K9 Unit – Paula Hansen
PUBLIC ADDRESS
This time is reserved for members of the audience to address the City Council on items of interest that are not on the agenda and that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council.
It is recommended that speakers limit their comments to no more than 3 minutes each and it is requested that no comments be made during this period on items on the Agenda.
Members of the public who are joining the meeting via Zoom and would like to address the Council on items on the agenda should follow the policy on page 4 of this agenda packet.
The Council is prohibited by law from taking any action on matters discussed that are not on the agenda. No adverse conclusions should be drawn if the Council does not respond to public comment at this time.
COUNCIL AND STAFF VERBAL REPORTS – Section 2
2.1 COUNCIL VERBAL REPORTS
Legislative, Collaborative Agency, Ad Hoc
2.2 STAFF VERBAL REPORTS
CONSENT CALENDAR – Section 3
3.1 Approval of the May 24, 2022 City Council/Redevelopment Successor Agency Joint Meeting Minutes (McClendon)
3.2 Approval of the June 8, 2022 City Council Budget Workshop Meeting Minutes (McClendon)
3.3 Consideration and Approval of the May 2022 Check Register Report (Williams)
3.4 Consideration and Adoption of a City Council Resolution Authorizing Continued use of Remote Teleconferencing Provisions (AB 361 and Government Code Section 54953) (McClendon)
City Council Meeting Agenda June 14, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Section 4
4.1 Consideration to Adopt the Development Impact Fee Study and Implementation per Chowchilla Municipal Code Section 17.76 – Development Impact Fees (Hamilton) DEFERRED BUSINES – Section 5
NEW BUSINESS – Section 6
6.1 Consideration and Adoption of a City Council Resolution Accepting a Proposal in the Amount of $20,300.00 from Bee’s Lawn Service to Abate Non-Compliant Properties in the City and Authorize the City Administrator to Execute Necessary Documents Thereto (2022 Weed Abatement Program) (Gaumnitz)
6.2 Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution to Enter into a Facility Use Agreement with the Chowchilla Union High School District for the Use of the Facility and Swimming Pool to Provide a Recreational Swim Program for the Community and Authorizing the City Administrator or Designee to Execute Related Documents Thereto (Wisener)
ANNOUNCEMENTS – Section 7
JUNE 18 MOVIES IN THE PARK, ENCANTO, VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK, SUNSET JUNE 24 CERTIFIED FARMERS MARKET, VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK, 6PM JUNE 24 MUSIC IN THE PARK, YARD DOGS, VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK, 8PM JUNE 25 MOVIES IN THE PARK, ADDAMS FAMILY 2, VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK, SUNSET JUNE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, CANCELLED
JUNE 28 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL, 7PM
ADJOURNMENT
I, Joann McClendon, CMC, City Clerk, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda was posted at Chowchilla City Hall, 130 S Second Street, Chowchilla, CA and made available for public review on this 10th day of June, 2022 at or before 4:00pm.
Joann McClendon, CMC, City Clerk
*SPECIAL NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DUE TO
COVID-19*
Public meetings are still open to the public to attend in-person.
However, if you wish to attend remotely, please read the message below.
Consistent with AB 361 and Government Code section 54953, this meeting will be held remotely. Members of the public may access the meeting using the following information:
Zoom login instructions
Use the following url to start Zoom:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89477149564?pwd=anBPRlBNR2FhanpHejVHTXZpS2J 6dz09
Passcode: 16 63 01
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To participate by phone, dial: 1-877-853-5247
Webinar ID: 894 7714 9564
Passcode: 16 63 01
Staff highly recommends that participants log into Zoom 15 minutes before the meeting begins to perform an audio check and to make sure you have optimal internet connection.
Options to participate / view / and listen to the meeting:
• If you wish to speak on an item using the Zoom platform on your computer/laptop or smart phone, please use the “raise hand” icon and you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Please provide your name when unmuted. You will be able to speak to the Committee for up to 3 minutes.
• If you are calling in to the meeting only (no camera/video) and you wish to make a comment, press *9 to “raise your hand” and *6 to unmute yourself.
MINUTES
Special City Council / Redevelopment
Successor Agency Joint Meeting
Council Chambers, Chowchilla City Hall
130 S. Second Street, Chowchilla, CA 93610
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
Closed Session: 6:00 p.m.
Open Session: 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Mayor/Chair: John Chavez
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair: Ray Barragan
Council/Board Members: Waseem Ahmed, Diana Palmer, Kelly Smith City staff and contract employees present: City Administrator Rod Pruett, City Attorney Mary Lerner, Police Commander Jeff Palmer, Fire Chief Fred Gaumnitz, Community & Economic Development Director Mark Hamilton, Public Works Director Jason Rogers, Finance Director Kerri Williams, Deputy Director of Recreation & Community Engagement Stacy Wisener, IT System Administrator Carlos Berrocal, City Clerk Joann McClendon
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Additions and/or Deletions:
Motion by Council Member Ahmed, Seconded by Council Member Palmer to Approve the May 24, 2022 Special City Council Agenda as Presented. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
PUBLIC ADDRESS – CLOSED SESSION
None.
CLOSED SESSION – 6:00 PM
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION – Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) or (3) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9
Potential cases: 1
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION – Initiation of Litigation – Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 Paragraph (4) Subdivision (d) (deciding whether to initiate litigation)
Number of Cases: 1
3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency Designated Representatives: City Administrator, Finance Director, City Attorney Employee Organizations: Chowchilla Police Officer Association, Chowchilla City Employee Association, Chowchilla City Office Employees Association, Chowchilla MidManagement/Confidential Association and Non-Represented Staff Item 3.1
CLICK HERE
TO RETURN TO
THE AGENDA
City Council / RSA Meeting Minutes May 24, 2022
OPEN SESSION – 7:00 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION: Pastor Logan Beardsley
CLOSED SESSION REPORT: On item 1 and 2, no reportable action. Item 3 will be further discussed towards the end of the meeting.
PRESENTATIONS/WORKSHOP - Section 1
PUBLIC ADDRESS
None.
COUNCIL AND STAFF VERBAL REPORTS – Section 2
2.1 COUNCIL VERBAL REPORTS
Legislative, Collaborative Agency, Ad Hoc
Council Member Ahmed attended the Annual Law Enforcement Ceremony in Madera; participated in the fair parade; attended a Madera County Transportation and Madera County Economic Development Commission meetings.
Council Member Palmer attended a policy conference in Clovis regarding transportation and housing.
Council Member Smith participated in the parade, opening ceremony and attended the fair.
Mayor Chavez attended the Annual Police Officer Memorial Ceremony in Madera.
2.2 STAFF VERBAL REPORTS
Deputy Director of Recreation & Community Engagement Wisener reported that the City booth at fair where several employees participated; working on recreation swim program with staff; continuing with summer events; continuing process of the new website with June 14 launch.
Public Works Director Rogers attended a meeting with Caltrans and MCTC to discuss the Roundabouts project. Caltrans will now complete the environmental documents with MCTC and is working on a Cooperative agreement. All work completed by the City’s consultants will be turned over to Caltrans. Estimated completion date is July 2023. He attended the annual solid waste program review with CalRecycle. The City currently has several businesses that are noncompliant with AB 341 (Mandatory Commercial Recycling) and AB 1826 (Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling). CalRecycle is mandating all Cities bring their businesses into compliance within 6 weeks. Staff will work with Mid Valley Disposal to complete. Regarding the Police Department Security Fence project, it is substantially complete with minor punch list items to complete. The Police Department was able to move vehicles within the fenced area and use the facility. He attended a pre-construction meeting0 for the Chowchilla Humboldt Street Improvement Project. The project is anticipated to begin June 6. He had a discussion with Caltrans District 6, they are wanting to partner with the City this fall for a dump day event using Clean CA Initiative funds. I will be meeting with them in the next month to discuss further and begin planning.
City Council / RSA Meeting Minutes May 24, 2022
Community & Economic Development Director Hamilton updated the council regarding SB2 project, O’Rielys Auto Parts store, TF Tire. Attended a CalEd Conference.
Finance Director Williams working on budget and attended CPOA negotiations meeting.
Police Commander Palmer regarding the PD Fence Project, all vehicles are now pared within the enclosure, thanking the IT staff for their help. The fair was pretty quiet this year. A CSO/Dispatcher and Police Officer have recently resigned, recruitment is open.
Fire Chief Gaumnitz has been finalizing properties that need to be abated. Volunteer Firefighters participated in the Fairgrounds, washing tables, lighted the barbecue, on standby at the races, parade and fireworks show. A three-acre fire behind Reagan Elementary School.
Hamilton added he did an interview with a radio station last week and will be broadcasting once a week to help promote Chowchilla.
City Administrator Pruett attended the League of California Cities Leadership Summit along with Mayor Chavez; participated in labor negotiation meetings; attended the Spring parade and fair; reviewed the final draft on development impact fee study; attended a Measure T Steering Committee meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR – Section 3
3.1 Approval of the May 10, 2022 City Council/Redevelopment Successor Agency Joint Meeting Minutes (McClendon)
3.2 Approval of the May 16, 2022 City Council Budget Workshop Meeting Minutes (McClendon)
3.3 Approval of the May 18, 2022 City Council Special Meeting Minutes (McClendon)
3.4 Consideration and Approval of the April 2022 Financial Statements Report (Williams)
3.5 Consideration and Adoption of a City Council Resolution (40-22) Authorizing Continued use of Remote Teleconferencing Provisions (AB 361 and Government Code Section 54953) (McClendon)
3.6 Consideration and Adoption of a City Council Resolution (41-22) Adding Recreational Swim Admission Fees to the Master Fee Schedule to Offer a Community Recreational Program (Wisener)
3.7 Consideration and Approval of an Aerial Fireworks Display for July 9, 2022 at the Chowchilla Fairgrounds and Authorize the Fire Chief to Approve Necessary Documents Thereto (State and Local Permits) (Gaumnitz)
Motion by Council Member Smith, Seconded by Council Member Ahmed to Approve the Consent Calendar as Presented. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Section 4
DEFERRED BUSINES – Section 5
City Council / RSA Meeting Minutes May 24, 2022
5.1 Discussion and Direction Regarding the Former County Library and Future Use of the Facility (Rogers)
Spoke:
Dale Thomas
Mark Bozzo, ASDi
The City Council directed staff to research if the City pursues State historical recognition of the facility, and the City can’t afford either the upkeep or repair of the facility, what would be the process to then demolish the facility and what is the estimated cost in doing so.
NEW BUSINESS – Section 6
6.1 Consideration and Adoption of a City Council Resolution Declaring Surplus Property (Dodge Building Bricks) (Rogers)
Spoke:
Dale Thomas
Motion by Council Member Smith, Seconded by Mayor Chavez to Approve City Council Resolution #42-22, Declaring Surplus Property (Dodge Building Bricks). Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
6.2 Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution Amending the 2021/2022 Salary Scale to Include the Seasonal Lifeguard I & II and Pool Supervisor Classifications (McClendon) Motion by Council Member Smith, Seconded by Council Member Palmer to Approve City Council Resolution #43-22, Amending the 2021/2022 Salary Scale to Include the Seasonal Lifeguard I & II and Pool Supervisor Classifications. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
ANNOUNCEMENTS – Section 7
JUNE 14 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL, 7PM
JUNE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, CITY HALL, 7:00 PM The City Council reconvened into Closed Session at 8:19 p.m. to further discuss Item 3.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT: No reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Chavez Adjourned the May 24, 2022 City Council / Redevelopment Successor Agency Meeting at 8:51 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Joann McClendon, CMC, City Clerk Mayor John Chavez
MINUTES
Special City Council Meeting
BUDGET WORKSHOP
City Council Chamber
Chowchilla City Hall - 130 S. Second Street, Chowchilla, CA 93610 Wednesday, June 8, 2022 – 3:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: 3:02PM
Mayor: John Chavez
Mayor Pro Tem: Ray Barragan
Council Members: Waseem Ahmed, Diana Palmer, Kelly Smith City staff and contract employees present: City Administrator Rod Pruett, City Attorney Mary Lerner, Police Chief David A. Riviere, Jr., Police Commander Jeff Palmer, Fire Chief Fred Gaumnitz, Public Works Director Jason Rogers, Community & Economic Development Director Mark Hamilton, Finance Director Kerri Williams, Deputy Director of Recreation & Community Engagement Stacy Wisener, IT System Administrator Carlos Berrocal, City Clerk Joann McClendon
OPEN SESSION – 3:04 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION: Pastor Melvin
NEW BUSINESS - Section 1
1.1 City of Chowchilla 2022/23 Fiscal Year Budget Workshop (Williams) Finance Director Williams went through the PowerPoint presentation that was included in the agenda packet and answered questions from Council and public.
Spoke:
Pastor Melvin
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Chavez adjourned the Wednesday, June 8, 2022 Budget Workshop at 4:06 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Joann McClendon, CMC, City Clerk Mayor John Chavez
Item 3.2
CLICK HERE
TO RETURN TO
THE AGENDA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Item 3.3
CLICK HERE
TO RETURN TO
THE AGENDA
Meeting of: June 14, 2022
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
SUBJECT: Information Regarding Monthly Invoice Payments PREPARED BY: Kerri Williams, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS: Check list report
REVIEWED BY
ADMINISTRATOR ☒ REVIEWED BYATTORNEY ☒ REVIEWED BY FINANCE ☒ RECOMMENDATION:
Informational only. The invoices paid are shown in the attached listing of invoices.
BACKGROUND:
Presented this evening is a list of invoices paid in May 2022.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:
Informational item only.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Each item shown on the invoice list includes a description of that item and the amount of the invoice.
ALTERNATIVES:
Not applicable.
ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:
None.
6/2/2022 9:15:51 AM Page 1 of 5
Bank Transaction Report
Chowchilla, CA Transaction Detail
Issued Date Range: 05/01/2022 - 05/31/2022
Cleared Date Range: -
Cleared
Date Number Description Module Status Type Amount
Issued
Date
Bank Account: 200650906 - General Tricounties Bank
05/02/2022 62890 Noel Pineda Utility Billing Outstanding Check -48.49 05/02/2022 62891 Angela Gomes Utility Billing Outstanding Check -46.56 05/02/2022 62892 Cynthia Cortes Utility Billing Outstanding Check -125.61 05/02/2022 62893 Charlene Tovar Utility Billing Outstanding Check -127.93 05/02/2022 62894 Adolpho Santacruz Utility Billing Outstanding Check -125.52 05/02/2022 62895 Dennis Souza Utility Billing Outstanding Check -63.61 05/02/2022 62896 Egan/Tammy Burgess Utility Billing Outstanding Check -120.54 05/02/2022 62897 On Point Grading & Paving Inc Utility Billing Outstanding Check -1,203.26 05/02/2022 62898 On Point Grading & Paving Inc. Utility Billing Outstanding Check -2,006.31 05/09/2022 62899 Advanced Structural Design Inc Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,770.00 05/09/2022 62900 American Fidelity Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,237.47 05/09/2022 62901 AT & T Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,160.59 05/09/2022 62902 Badger Meter Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -63.60 05/09/2022 62903 Baker Supplies and Repairs Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -13.05 05/09/2022 62904 Bernie's Electric Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,920.00 05/09/2022 62905 Best Uniforms Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,646.92 05/09/2022 62906 BSK Associates Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -305.00 05/09/2022 62907 CA Body Works Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -484.54 05/09/2022 62908 Chowchilla DoIt Best Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -38.58 05/09/2022 62909 Chowchilla Employees Assn. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -180.00 05/09/2022 62910 Chowchilla Mid-Management Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -240.00 05/09/2022 62911 Chowchilla Office Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -135.00 05/09/2022 62912 Chowchilla Peace Officers Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,118.00 05/09/2022 62913 County of Fresno Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -255.00 05/09/2022 62914 Cummins Inc Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -766.29 05/09/2022 62915 De Lange Landen Financial Services Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,445.73 05/09/2022 62916 Diede Construction, Inc Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -99,693.00 05/09/2022 62917 Farmers Hardware Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -559.70 05/09/2022 62918 Void Check Accounts Payable Voided Check 0.00 05/09/2022 62919 Fitness Peak Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -140.00 05/09/2022 62920 Fresno Police Department Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -3,030.00 05/09/2022 62921 Grover Landscape Services Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -93.97 05/09/2022 62922 Harddog's Requisites Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -2,520.00 05/09/2022 62923 Kelly Moore Paint Company Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -524.02 05/09/2022 62924 Merced Fence Company Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -225.00 05/09/2022 62925 Navia Benefit Solutions Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -69.80 Bank Transaction Report Issued Date Range: -
6/2/2022 9:15:51 AM Page 2 of 5
Cleared
Date Number Description Module Status Type Amount
Issued
Date
05/09/2022 62926 Office Depot, Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -500.46 05/09/2022 62927 PACE Supply Corp Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -911.27 05/09/2022 62928 Pacific Gas & Electric Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -34,514.33 05/09/2022 62929 Pegboard Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -306.68 05/09/2022 62930 ProClean Supply Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -532.29 05/09/2022 62931 Prudential Overall Supply Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -103.86 05/09/2022 62932 Quad Knopf, Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -6,054.84 05/09/2022 62933 Sparkletts Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -98.32 05/09/2022 62934 Sunbelt Rentals Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,142.04 05/09/2022 62935 T & T Pavement Markings & Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -279.38 05/09/2022 62936 TF Tire & Service Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,959.72 05/09/2022 62937 Tolar Manufacturing Comapny, Inc Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -36,234.83 05/09/2022 62938 Toshiba Financial Services Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -381.71 05/09/2022 62939 U.S. Bank (PARS) Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -354.80 05/09/2022 62940 US BANK (CAL-CARD) Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -3,827.52 05/09/2022 62941 USA Bluebook Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -856.49 05/09/2022 62942 Vulcan Materials Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,093.34 05/09/2022 62943 Yamabe and Horn Engineering Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -12,368.23 05/09/2022 62944 Zoom Imaging Solutions, Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -466.14 05/17/2022 62945 Baker Supplies and Repairs Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -555.66 05/17/2022 62946 Brandley Engineering, Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -3,356.34 05/17/2022 62947 BSK Associates Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -364.00 05/17/2022 62948 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -15,715.35 05/17/2022 62949 CDW Government, Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -256.43 05/17/2022 62950 Chowchilla DoIt Best Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -31.03 05/17/2022 62951 Ewing Irrigation Products Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -382.74 05/17/2022 62952 Farmers Hardware Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -40.57 05/17/2022 62953 Grover Landscape Services Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -11,357.82 05/17/2022 62954 Healthwise Services Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -230.00 05/17/2022 62955 Home Depot Credit Services Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -710.97 05/17/2022 62956 Joshua Cobb Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -759.00 05/17/2022 62957 Kelly Moore Paint Company Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -680.74 05/17/2022 62958 Mallory Safety and Supply, LLC Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -10,814.18 05/17/2022 62959 Mark Angel Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -80.00 05/17/2022 62960 Mission Communications LLC Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -144.75 05/17/2022 62961 MuniServices LLC Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -4,516.81 05/17/2022 62962 PACE Supply Corp Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -141.85 05/17/2022 62963 Pacific Gas & Electric Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -5,128.00 05/17/2022 62964 Price Paige & Company Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -12,205.00 05/17/2022 62965 Prudential Overall Supply Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -212.36 05/17/2022 62966 S & W Auto Parts Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -36.07 05/17/2022 62967 TF Tire & Service Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -305.36 05/17/2022 62968 US BANK (CAL-CARD) Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -250.27 Bank Transaction Report Issued Date Range: -
6/2/2022 9:15:51 AM Page 3 of 5
Cleared
Date Number Description Module Status Type Amount
Issued
Date
05/17/2022 62969 Yamabe and Horn Engineering Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -6,469.85 05/19/2022 62970 Jon Merritt C/O Dan G Merritt Utility Billing Outstanding Check -54.81 05/27/2022 62971 AFLAC Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,442.02 05/27/2022 62972 American Fidelity Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,613.94 05/27/2022 62973 Baker Supplies and Repairs Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -80.04 05/27/2022 62974 Benito Rangel Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -65.00 05/27/2022 62975 Bernie's Electric Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -11,560.00 05/27/2022 62976 Blue Shield of California Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -78,121.95 05/27/2022 62977 BSK Associates Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -760.00 05/27/2022 62978 Caltronics Business Systems Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,141.92 05/27/2022 62979 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -268.91 05/27/2022 62980 Chowchilla DoIt Best Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -54.83 05/27/2022 62981 Chowchilla Employees Assn. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -180.00 05/27/2022 62982 Chowchilla Mid-Management Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -240.00 05/27/2022 62983 Chowchilla Office Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -135.00 05/27/2022 62984 Chowchilla Peace Officers Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,118.00 05/27/2022 62985 CivicPlus, Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -856.17 05/27/2022 62986 Consolidated Electrical Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -2,772.72 05/27/2022 62987 Curtis Blue Line Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -4,748.00 05/27/2022 62988 D & V Sporting Gear Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -43.10 05/27/2022 62989 Department of Justice/Acc Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -3,779.00 05/27/2022 62990 Department of Transportation Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -2,401.84 05/27/2022 62991 Divcon Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -303,211.75 05/27/2022 62992 Don's Mobile Glass Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -70.37 05/27/2022 62993 Farmers Hardware Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -24.03 05/27/2022 62994 Fastenal Company Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -285.93 05/27/2022 62995 Fitness Peak Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -140.00 05/27/2022 62996 Guadalupe Gonzalez Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -32.46 05/27/2022 62997 H & H Engineering Construction Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -215.00 05/27/2022 62998 H & R Families Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -56.00 05/27/2022 62999 Ingraham Trophies Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -75.78 05/27/2022 63000 Interstate Battery Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -482.42 05/27/2022 63001 John Chavez Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -453.46 05/27/2022 63002 Lozano Smith, LLP Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -14,721.09 05/27/2022 63003 Madera Co Auditor/Controller Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -9,062.99 05/27/2022 63004 Madera Concrete Company, Inc Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -18,751.20 05/27/2022 63005 Madera Tribune Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -455.00 05/27/2022 63006 Mallory Safety and Supply, LLC Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -679.81 05/27/2022 63007 Michael Baker International Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -2,535.00 05/27/2022 63008 Myers Stevens & Toohey & Co Inc Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -766.00 05/27/2022 63009 ODP Business Solutions, LLC Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -89.16 05/27/2022 63010 Pacific Gas & Electric Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -45,491.92 05/27/2022 63011 PARS Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -478.03 Bank Transaction Report Issued Date Range: -
6/2/2022 9:15:51 AM Page 4 of 5
Cleared
Date Number Description Module Status Type Amount
Issued
Date
05/27/2022 63012 Principal Financial Group Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -17,884.84 05/27/2022 63013 ProClean Supply Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -242.65 05/27/2022 63014 Prudential Overall Supply Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -80.90 05/27/2022 63015 Purchase Green Freson Inc Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -3,022.16 05/27/2022 63016 Quad Knopf, Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -113.60 05/27/2022 63017 Red Triangle Oil Company Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -323.72 05/27/2022 63018 S & W Auto Parts Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -316.29 05/27/2022 63019 Self Help Enterprises Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,215.00 05/27/2022 63020 State Water Resources Control Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -203.31 05/27/2022 63021 State Water Resources Control Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -80,149.78 05/27/2022 63022 Superior Pool Products, LLC Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,259.69 05/27/2022 63023 T & T Pavement Markings & Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,662.90 05/27/2022 63024 TeamCalifornia Economic Development Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -500.00 05/27/2022 63025 TF Tire & Service Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -88.00 05/27/2022 63026 TJKM Transportation Consultants Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -135.27 05/27/2022 63027 Tyler Technologies, Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -3,570.00 05/27/2022 63028 U.S. Bank (PARS) Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -181.68 05/27/2022 63029 US BANK (CAL-CARD) Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -11,324.61 05/27/2022 63030 Van De Pol Enterprises Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -13,329.94 05/27/2022 63031 Verizon Wireless Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -2,593.75 05/27/2022 63032 Vision Service Plan - (CA) Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -2,851.96 05/27/2022 63033 Vulcan Materials Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -545.02 05/27/2022 63034 West Coast Pet Memorial Service Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -156.10 05/27/2022 63035 Yamabe and Horn Engineering Inc. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,144.00 Bank Account 200650906 Total: (146) -952,644.31
Report Total: (146) -952,644.31
Bank Transaction Report Issued Date Range: -
6/2/2022 9:15:51 AM Page 5 of 5
Summary
Bank Account Count Amount
200650906 General Tricounties Bank 146 -952,644.31
Report Total: 146 -952,644.31
Cash Account Count Amount
**No Cash Account** 1 0.00
999 999-0100-0215 Cash In Bank 145 -952,644.31
Report Total: 146 -952,644.31
Transaction Type Count Amount
Check 146 -952,644.31
Report Total: 146 -952,644.31
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Item 3.4
CLICK HERE
TO RETURN TO
THE AGENDA
Meeting of: June 14, 2022
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Continued Use of Remote Teleconferencing Provisions Pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code Section 54953
PREPARED BY: Joann McClendon, City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
REVIEWED BY
ADMINISTRATOR ☒ REVIEWED BYATTORNEY ☒ REVIEWED BY FINANCE ☒ RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the continued use of remote teleconferencing provisions pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code section 54953.
BACKGROUND:
On September 16, 2021, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 361, which amends Government Code, section 54953 and permits a local agency to use teleconferencing to conduct its meetings in any of the following circumstances:
(A) the legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or (B) the legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; or (C) the legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B), that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:
In order for the City Council to continue use of teleconferencing as allowed by AB 361, it must first adopt the resolution allowing the City Council to conduct teleconferenced meetings for a period of thirty (30) days. In addition, AB 361 requires the City to continue to make specified findings every thirty (30) days thereafter. The last time this was presented on the agenda was May 24, 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None foreseen at time of report.
ALTERNATIVES:
Not adopt the resolution and revert to the original Brown Act rules for posting agendas when a member of the council remotely joins a City Council meeting.
ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:
Continue to place the item on the City Council meeting agenda every 30-days to continue with the AB361 guidelines without disruption.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION # -22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING CONTINUED USE OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCING PROVISIONS (AB 361 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chowchilla (“City Council”) is committed to open and transparent government, and full compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”); and WHEREAS, the Brown Act generally requires that a public agency take certain actions in order to use teleconferencing to attend a public meeting virtually; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that a local emergency persists due to the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has recognized the ongoing state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic and has responded by creating an additional means for public meetings to be held via teleconference (inclusive of internet-based virtual meetings); and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 361, which amends Government Code, section 54953 and permits a local agency to use teleconferencing to conduct its meetings in any of the following circumstances: (A) the legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; (B) the legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; or (C) the legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B), that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, in order for the City Council to use teleconferencing as allowed by AB 361 after October 1, 2021, it must first adopt findings in a resolution, allowing the City Council to conduct teleconferenced meetings for a period of thirty (30) days; and WHEREAS, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency for the State of California due to the COVID-19 pandemic in his order entitled “Proclamation of a State of Emergency,” signed March 4, 2020; and/or
WHEREAS, the California Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA) continues to recommend certain social distancing requirements, as described in detail in California Code of Regulations Title 8, section 3205 Covid Prevention; and/or WHEREAS, Madera County Health Officer, Dr. Simon Paul issued a letter on October 8, 2021 recommending physical distancing measures by way of utilizing teleconferencing options for public meetings to facilitate participation in public affairs and encourage participants to protect themselves and others from the COVID-19 virus; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, May 10, 2022, April 12, 2022, March 22, 2022, March 8, 2022, February 8, 2022, January 11, 2022, December 14, 2021, November 23, 2021, and October 26, 2021, the City Council continued use of the remote teleconferencing provisions originally adopted on September 28, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the state and local emergencies have caused and will continue to cause imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; and WHEREAS, the City Council is conducting its meetings through the use of telephonic and internet-based services so that members of the public may observe and participate in meetings and offer public comment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the recitals set forth above are true and correct and fully incorporated into this Resolution by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council is conducting meetings during a state of emergency and the County of Madera and OSHA recommend measures to promote social distancing.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council has determined that given the state of emergency, holding in-person only meetings would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the actions taken by the City Council through this resolution shall be applied to all City committees governed by the Brown Act unless otherwise desired by that committee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council authorizes the City Manager or their designee(s) to continue to take all actions necessary to conduct City Council meetings in accordance with AB 361 and Government Code section 54953(e) and all other applicable provisions of the Brown Act, using teleconferencing for a period of thirty (30) days from the adoption of this Resolution after which the City Council will again reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chowchilla this 14th day of June, 2022 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Mayor John Chavez
ATTEST:
Joann McClendon, CMC
City Clerk
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Item 4.1
CLICK HERE
TO RETURN TO
THE AGENDA
Meeting of: June 14, 2022
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of the Development Impact Fee Study and Implementation per CMC section 17.76 – Development Impact Fees PREPARED BY: Mark Hamilton, Community and Economic Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Development Impact Fee Study
REVIEWED BY
CITY ADMINISTRATOR ☒ REVIEWED BYATTORNEY ☒ REVIEWED BY FINANCE ☒ RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council to consider adoption of the proposed Development Impact Fee Study and authorize staff to incorporate the proposed fees into the City’s Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022/23.
BACKGROUND:
The previous Development Impact Fees study was completed in 2004 by Giersch & Associates. The study was competed approximately 18 years ago, City staff felt it was time to conduct a new study to ensure our Development Impact Fees were current with the proposed Capital Improvements described within the City’s General Plan and described in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Since the inception of the previous Development Impact Fee program, the City created nine separate impact fee zones with impact fees that vary from zone to zone; however, the impact fees are the same in several zones. The City currently charges the same impact fees per unit for development in the singlefamily and multi-family residential categories. The City’s municipal code section 17.76 outlines the process for staff to follow when either creating, establishing, or updating the City’s Development Impact Fee Structure. Section 17.76.010 describes Council’s authority to create and establish a separate development impact fee for the City.
Public facilities eligible to be funded are identified and prioritized in the most recent capital improvement program, master plans, development impact fee studies, and/or any other document adopted by the City specifying public facilities to be constructed, (all of which are referred to collectively hereinafter as the CIP studies) prepared for the City by the Public Works Director, the City Engineer and the City Attorney's offices. To assist the City with updating its development fee structure, the City contracted with NBS to assist with the preparation of this study. The methods used in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) and the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) where applicable.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:
Most municipalities review and updated their Development Fee Structure every 5 years. The City hasn’t completed a comprehensive review of is Fee Structure since 2004. The recently completed fee study demonstrates there is a funding need due to the impacts being created by the proposed developments. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for several types of public facilities provided by the City of Chowchilla and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the approach, data and methodology used in this study to calculate impact fees as well as Quimby Act park land dedication requirements and in lieu fees.
Historically, the City increased the Impact fees based annually or semi-annually per the CPI index. The increases were presented for council consideration during the annual budget process (CMC – 17.76.100 - Annual findings). Additionally, the account balances were presented as part of the AB1600 report. The impact fees are based on capital costs for facilities and other capital assets needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development. Impact fees may not be used for maintenance or operating costs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Summary of Proposed Citywide Impact Fees
Summary of Existing Impact Fees
Difference Between Existing and Proposed Citywide Impact Fees ALTERNATIVES:
To leave the Development Impact Fee Structure ‘as-is’ with no modifications.
ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:
Provided Council approves the consideration of the proposed fee updates, staff will need to complete the following:
1. Update CMC Section 17.76 -Development Impact Fees with the new categories.
2. Staff will work to incorporate the new Development Impact Fee amounts into the City’s Master Fee Schedule.
3. Staff will incorporate the Quimby Act Fee Structure into the City’s Municipal Code where applicable.
Final Report
Citywide Development Impact Fee Study
Final Report
May 11, 2022
nbsgov.com
Prepared by:
Corporate Headquarters
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.676.7516
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................S-1 Organization of the Report....................................................................................................................S-1 Development Projections ......................................................................................................................S-1 Impact Fee Analysis................................................................................................................................S-2 Impact Fee Summary .............................................................................................................................S-5 Chapter 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................1-1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................1-1 Legal Framework for Developer Fees....................................................................................................1-1 Recent Legislation..................................................................................................................................1-6 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology....................................................................................................1-8 Facilities Addressed in this Study...........................................................................................................1-9 Chapter 2. Development Data .........................................................................................................2-1 Setting ....................................................................................................................................................2-1 Study Area and Time Frame...................................................................................................................2-1 Development Types...............................................................................................................................2-1 Residential Development and Population .............................................................................................2-2 Units of Development............................................................................................................................2-3 Demand Variables..................................................................................................................................2-3 Existing and Future Development..........................................................................................................2-8 Growth Potential..................................................................................................................................2-11 Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements..................................................................................3-1 In-Lieu Fees and Impact Fees for Park Land Acquisition........................................................................3-1 Impact Fees for Park Improvements......................................................................................................3-1 The Quimby Act......................................................................................................................................3-2 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................3-2 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................3-2 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................3-2 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................3-3 Cost Per Capita.......................................................................................................................................3-5 In-Lieu Fees and Impact Fees per Unit...................................................................................................3-6 Projected Revenue.................................................................................................................................3-7 Updating the Fees..................................................................................................................................3-9 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................3-9 Chapter 4. Fire Facilities..................................................................................................................4-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................4-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................4-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................4-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................4-1 Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment .....................................................................................................4-2 Cost per Call for Service .........................................................................................................................4-3 Impact Fees per Unit..............................................................................................................................4-3 Projected Revenue.................................................................................................................................4-4 Updating the Fees..................................................................................................................................4-5 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................4-5 Chapter 5. Police Facilities...............................................................................................................5-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................5-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................5-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................5-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................5-1 Existing Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment ...........................................................................................5-2 Cost per Call for Service .........................................................................................................................5-4 Impact Fees per Unit..............................................................................................................................5-4 Projected Revenue.................................................................................................................................5-5 Updating the Fees..................................................................................................................................5-6 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................5-6 Chapter 6. Street System Impact Fees..............................................................................................6-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................6-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................6-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................6-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................6-1 Improvement Costs................................................................................................................................6-1 Cost per Peak Hour Trip.........................................................................................................................6-2 Impact Fees per Unit of Development...................................................................................................6-2 Projected Revenue.................................................................................................................................6-3 Updating the Fees..................................................................................................................................6-4 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................6-4 Chapter 7. Traffic Signal Impact Fees ...............................................................................................7-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................7-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................7-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................7-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................7-1 Traffic Signal Costs.................................................................................................................................7-1 Cost per Peak Hour Trip.........................................................................................................................7-2 Impact Fees per Unit of Development...................................................................................................7-2 Projected Revenue.................................................................................................................................7-3 Updating the Fees..................................................................................................................................7-4 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................7-4 Chapter 8. Public Buildings..............................................................................................................8-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................8-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................8-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................8-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................8-1 Existing Facilities and Vehicles...............................................................................................................8-1 Cost per Capita of Service Population....................................................................................................8-3 Impact Fees per Unit of Development...................................................................................................8-4 Projected Revenue.................................................................................................................................8-4 Updating the Fees..................................................................................................................................8-5 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................8-5 Chapter 9. Community and Recreation Centers................................................................................9-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................9-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................9-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................9-1 Existing Facilities....................................................................................................................................9-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................9-2 Impact Fees per Unit..............................................................................................................................9-3 Projected Revenue.................................................................................................................................9-3 Updating the Fees..................................................................................................................................9-3 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................9-4 Chapter 10. Storm Drainage Improvements...................................................................................10-1 Service Area .........................................................................................................................................10-1 Methodology........................................................................................................................................10-1 Level of Service ....................................................................................................................................10-1 Impact Fees per Acre ...........................................................................................................................10-1 Projected Revenue...............................................................................................................................10-2 Updating the Fees................................................................................................................................10-2 Nexus Summary ...................................................................................................................................10-3 Chapter 11. Water System Improvements .....................................................................................11-1 Service Area .........................................................................................................................................11-1 Demand Variable .................................................................................................................................11-1 Methodology........................................................................................................................................11-1 Level of Service ....................................................................................................................................11-1 System Improvement Needs................................................................................................................11-1 Cost per Gallon per Day .......................................................................................................................11-2 Capacity Charge per Unit .....................................................................................................................11-2 Projected Revenue...............................................................................................................................11-3 Updating the Capacity Charges............................................................................................................11-4 Nexus Summary ...................................................................................................................................11-4 Chapter 12. Sewer System Improvements......................................................................................12-1 Service Area .........................................................................................................................................12-1 Demand Variable .................................................................................................................................12-1 Methodology........................................................................................................................................12-1 Level of Service ....................................................................................................................................12-1 System Improvement Needs................................................................................................................12-1 Cost per Gallon per Day .......................................................................................................................12-2 Sewer System Capacity Charge per Unit..............................................................................................12-3 Projected Revenue...............................................................................................................................12-3 Updating the Sewer Capacity Charges.................................................................................................12-4 Nexus Summary ...................................................................................................................................12-4 Chapter 13. Administrative Fee .....................................................................................................13-1 Chapter 14. Implementation .........................................................................................................14-1 Adoption ..............................................................................................................................................14-1 Administration .....................................................................................................................................14-2 Requirements Imposed by AB 602.......................................................................................................14-7 Training and Public Information ..........................................................................................................14-8 Recovery of Administrative Costs........................................................................................................14-8 Appendices
Fee Comparison Appendix A
City of Chowchilla Page S-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Executive Summary
The City of Chowchilla has retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of new development on many types of City capital facilities and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. The methods used in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) and the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) where applicable.
Organization of the Report
Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees, and methods that can be used to calculate impact fees.
Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in this report.
Chapters 3 through 12 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities and calculate impact fees for those facilities. The facilities addressed in this report are listed by chapter below:
Chapter 3. Parks Land and Improvements
Chapter 4. Fire Protection Facilities
Chapter 5. Police Facilities
Chapter 6. Street Improvements
Chapter 7. Traffic Signals
Chapter 8. Public Buildings
Chapter 9. Community and Recreation Centers
Chapter 10. Storm Drainage Improvements
Chapter 11. Water System
Chapter 12. Sewer System
Chapter 13 provides the basis for the City’s administrative fee which recovers for the costs of performing routine impact fee study updates, as well as ongoing annual administration, reporting, accounting, and other services required to facilitate the impact fee program.
Chapter 14 contains recommendations for adopting and implementing impact fees, including suggested findings to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Development Projections
Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in Chowchilla and a forecast of future development out to 2040. Future development shown in Chapter 2 indicates that the City’s population could increase by about 160% to around 34,000 by 2040. Other measures of City of Chowchilla Page S-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
development such as employment and peak hour traffic are also projected to increase by 160% to 175%.
There may be some disagreement as to whether that 2040 forecast is realistic. However, the timing of that development does not affect the impact fee calculations in this study. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this report do not depend on assumptions about the rate or timing of future development. The future development projected in Chapter 2 may occur sooner or later than 2040 without affecting the validity of the impact fee calculations.
Chapter 2 also establishes values for factors such as population per unit, service population per unit, and peak hour trips per unit that are used in the impact fee calculations.
Impact Fee Analysis
The impact fee analysis for each type of facility addressed in this report is presented in a separate chapter. In each case, the relationship, or nexus, between development and the need for a particular type of facility is defined in a way that allows the impact of additional development on facility needs to be quantified.
The impact fees are based on capital costs for facilities and other capital assets needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development. Impact fees may not be used for maintenance or operating costs. Impact fees calculated in this report are shown on page S-6 of this Executive Summary.
The following paragraphs briefly discuss the methods used to calculate impact fees for the facilities addressed in this study.
Parks and Recreation Facilities. Chapter 3 of this report calculates impact fees for park land acquisition and park improvements. Three types of fees are calculated in that chapter: (1) Quimby Act fees in lieu of park land dedication which apply only to development that involves a subdivision; (2) park land impact fees which apply to residential development not involving a subdivision; and (3) park improvement impact fees which apply to all residential development.
Of the first two fees, a project would be subject to one or the other, not both.
With respect to Quimby Act in-lieu fees, this study calculates a schedule of in-lieu fees based on an estimated average cost per acre of land in the City. The alternative is to establish in-lieu fees case-by-case based on an appraisal of land value for each project. That is the method prescribed in Chowchilla’s current Quimby Act ordinance [Chowchilla Municipal Code Section 17.040.010 (E)]. However, another part of the ordinance, the method specified for determining the acreage of park land to be dedicated by a developer, does not appear to satisfy the requirements of the Quimby Act. We recommend that the existing ordinance be amended to establish park land dedication requirements consistent with the statute, using the population per unit factors shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 of this report
The impact fees calculated in Chapter 3 are based on the City’s existing level of service in terms of improved park acreage per capita. The estimated cost per acre for park land and improvements is used to determine a cost per capita which is then converted into fees per unit of residential City of Chowchilla Page S-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
development based on the estimated average population per unit for each type of residential development defined in this report. Because parks and recreation facilities are intended to serve residents of the City, these fees apply only to residential development.
Fire Protection Facilities. Chapter 4 calculates impact fees for fire protection facilities, including apparatus and vehicles, based on the existing level of service in the City. The existing level of service is defined as the relationship between the replacement value of existing Fire Department capital assets and the number of calls for service per year received by the Fire Department. That relationship is stated as a cost per call for service per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of Fire Department calls for service for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different types of development. The impact fee per unit for each type of development is calculated by multiplying the cost per call and the number of calls per unit for that type of development. Fire protection impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new development in the City.
Police Facilities. Chapter 5 calculates impact fees for Police Department facilities and vehicles based on the existing level of service in the City. The existing level of service is defined as the relationship between the replacement value of existing Police Department capital assets and the number of calls for service per year received by the Department. That relationship is stated as a cost per call for service per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed the distribution of Police Department calls for service for a full year to determine the average number of calls per unit per year generated by different types of development. The impact fee per unit for each type of development is calculated by multiplying the cost per call and the number of calls per unit for that type of development. Police impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new development in the City.
Street Improvements. Chapter 6 calculates impact fees for street system improvements based on new development’s share of the estimated costs for a set of needed improvements identified by the Director of Public Works Director consistent with the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan. Costs to be funded by Measure T revenue are excluded from the cost basis used in the impact fee calculations. New development’s proportionate share of the cost of those improvements is divided by the projected increase in peak hour trips generated by new development to get a cost per peak hour trip.
The cost per peak hour trip is converted into fees per unit of development using the number of peak hour trips per unit generated by each type of development defined in this report. Peak hour trips per unit are based on rates for the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent street from 10th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual, Trip Generation. Street impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new development in the City.
Traffic Signals. Chapter 7 calculates impact fees for new traffic signals needed to mitigate the impacts additional traffic generated by new development forecasted in this study. The total estimated cost of planned new traffic signals is divided by the projected increase in peak hour trips generated by new development to get a cost per peak hour trip.
City of Chowchilla Page S-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
The cost per peak hour trip is converted into fees per unit of development using the number of peak hour trips per unit generated by each type of development defined in this report. Peak hour trips per unit are based on rates for the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent street from 10th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual, Trip Generation. Traffic signal impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new development in the City.
Public Buildings. Chapter 8 calculates impact fees for Chowchilla’s public buildings including the Civic Center and Corporation Yard facilities as well as a small number of general government vehicles and equipment. The impact of development on the need for those facilities is represented by a service population, which is a weighted composite of resident population and employees of businesses in the City. See Chapter 2 for a more detailed discussion of service population.
Impact fees for public buildings are based on the existing level of service, defined as the asset replacement cost per capita of service population. That per-capita cost represents the amount needed from each added unit of service population to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows. The cost per capita is converted into fees per unit of development based on the estimated average service population per unit for each type of development defined in this report. Impact fees for public buildings are intended to apply all types of new development in the City.
Community and Recreation Centers. Chapter 9 calculates impact fees for community and recreation centers based on the existing level of service for those facilities in the City. The impact of development on the need for those facilities is represented by the added population associated with new residential development. The existing level of service is defined as the replacement cost of existing facilities per capita of existing population.
The cost per capita is converted into fees per unit of development based on the estimated average population per unit for each type of residential development defined in this report.
Impact fees for community and recreation centers are intended to apply only to new residential development in the City.
Storm Drainage Impact Fees. In Chapter 10, this report updates storm drainage impact fees from a 2004 Storm Drainage Master Plan by escalating them to reflect current construction costs.
Those fees are escalated using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). That index has increased by a factor of 1.813 since 2004, so that the Storm Drainage Impact Fees updated in this study show an increase of 81.3% from the 2004 fees. Because the land use categories used to define those impact fees are not consistent with the development types used for other impact fees in this study, the Storm Drainage impact fees are shown in a separate schedule from other impact fees later in this Executive Summary.
Water System Capacity Charges. Chapter 11 calculates capacity charges for water system improvements needed to serve new development in Chowchilla. The capacity charge calculations are based on the cost of three types of water system improvements: distribution system expansion, new wells, and new reservoir storage. The impact of development on the need for City of Chowchilla Page S-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
those improvements is based on added water system demand in terms of average day demand in gallons per day (GPD).
Added demand per acre for various types of development is taken from water demand projections prepared for the Water Master Plan by Yamabe and Horn Engineering, Inc. Demand per acre is converted into demand per unit using residential densities and non-residential floor area ratios consistent with the Land Use Element of the Chowchilla General Plan. Water system capacity charges are intended to apply to all new development in Chowchilla.
Sewer Capacity Charges. Chapter 12 calculates capacity charges for sewer system improvements needed to serve new development in Chowchilla. The capacity charge calculations are based on the cost of improvements needed to expand the collection system and the wastewater treatment plant. The impact of development on the need for those improvements is based on added wastewater flows in gallons per day (GPD) generated by new development.
Added wastewater flows per acre for various types of development is taken from wastewater generation projections prepared for the Sewer Master Plan by Yamabe and Horn Engineering, Inc. Wastewater generation per acre is converted into generation per unit using residential densities and non-residential floor area ratios consistent with the Land Use Element of the Chowchilla General Plan. Sewer system capacity charges are intended to apply to all new development in Chowchilla.
Impact Fee Summary
Table S.1 shows the impact fees calculated in this report, except for storm drainage fees which are shown in Table S.5. Blank areas in the table indicate that some impact fees are not calculated for non-residential development. Please note that Table S.1 shows impact fees for Public Facilities and Institutions. It is necessary to calculate those fees to account for the costs associated with those types of development. However, we understand that that City may not have the authority to charge those fees to public schools and other government facilities.
This study calculates impact fees for both park improvements and park land acquisition, as well as a fee in lieu of park land dedication as provided in the Quimby Act. The tables in this Executive Summary do not show fees for park land acquisition because the City currently calculates fees in Table S.1: Summary of Proposed Citywide Impact Fees
Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Park
Imprv Fire Police Streets
Traffic
Signals
Public
Bldgs
Com/Rec
Centers Water Sewer Total
Residential, Single-Family DU 3,821 1,018 1,056 3,120 404 2,185 566 2,498 2,282 $16,951 Residential, Multi-Family DU 2,866 819 832 1,765 229 1,639 425 1,407 1,549 $11,530 Retail/Service Commercial KSF 2,148 6,220 12,009 1,556 849 1,110 823 $24,716 Professional Office KSF 660 1,429 3,625 470 683 925 549 $ 8,340 Skilled Nursing Facility Bed 420 425 693 90 734 1,031 1,120 $ 4,513 Industrial KSF 481 216 1,671 216 243 739 567 $ 4,133
Public Facilities/Institutions KSF 2,413 6,558 2,963 384 683 505 549 $14,053 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Bed = patient bed City of Chowchilla Page S-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
lieu of park land acquisition on a case-by-case basis which means there is no way to compare existing fees with the proposed fees.
Table S.2 shows the proposed impact fees from Table S.1 with the addition of a 0.5% administrative fee to cover the cost of complying with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act for accounting, capital budgeting, fee adjustments, mandated annual reports and 5-year reviews of the impact fee program, as well as periodic impact fee update studies.
Table S.3 shows the City’s existing impact fees. The existing impact fee schedule differs from the proposed schedule in a few ways. This study calculates an impact fee for community and recreation centers, while the City does not have an existing impact fee for that purpose. The existing impact fee schedule does not have a separate fee for the professional office (Medical Arts) category. We have assumed that the City currently applies the commercial impact fees to that type of development. Also, the proposed schedule includes impact fees for Skilled Nursing facilities and for Public Facilities and Institutions, while the existing schedule does not.
It should also be noted that the City currently charges the same impact fees per unit for development in the single-family and multi-family residential categories. This study calculates separate impact fees per unit for those development types, so that the proposed impact fees for multi-family residential development are substantially lower overall than the existing fees.
Showing the City’s existing impact fees is complicated by the fact that the City has nine separate impact fee zones with impact fees that can vary from zone to zone. However, the impact fees are the same in several zones and the fees shown in Table S.3 are those that apply to the most zones.
Table S.2: Summary of Proposed Citywide Impact Fees Including Administration Fee Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Park
Imprv Fire Police Streets
Traffic
Signals
Public
Bldgs
Com/Rec
Centers Water Sewer Total
Residential, Single-Family DU 3,841 1,023 1,061 3,136 406 2,196 569 2,511 2,293 17,036 Residential, Multi-Family DU 2,880 823 836 1,774 230 1,647 427 1,414 1,557 11,588 Retail/Service Commercial KSF - 2,159 6,251 12,069 1,564 854 1,116 827 24,840 Professional Office KSF 663 1,436 3,643 472 686 930 551 8,381 Skilled Nursing Facility Bed 422 428 697 90 737 1,036 1,126 4,536 Industrial KSF 484 217 1,679 218 244 743 570 4,153
Public Facilities/Institutions KSF 2,425 6,591 2,978 386 686 507 551 14,124 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Bed = patient bed City of Chowchilla Page S-7
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Table S.4 shows the difference between the existing impact fees in Table S.3 and the proposed fees including the administrative fee from Table S.2. Numbers in parentheses indicate that the proposed fees are lower than the existing fees.
Table S.5 shows existing and proposed storm drainage impact fees. Unlike the other impact fees calculated in this study, those fees are per-acre rather than per-unit. The land use categories for those fees also differ from the development types used for other impact fees in this study, because this study simply updates the storm drainage impact fees originally calculated in 2004 by Giersch & Associates. As with the other impact fees shown above, a 2% administrative fee is added to those fees.
Table S.3: Summary of Existing Impact Fees
Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Park
Imprv Fire Police Streets
Traffic
Signals
Public
Bldgs
Com/Rec
Centers Water Sewer Total
Residential, Single-Family DU 2,276 1,751 946 3,938 238 961 0 2,282 6,267 $18,659 Residential, Multi-Family DU 2,276 1,751 946 3,938 238 961 0 2,282 6,267 $18,659 Retail/Service Commercial KSF 740 400 1,311 190 420 0 480 1,330 $4,871 Professional Office KSF 740 400 1,311 190 420 0 480 1,330 $4,871 Skilled Nursing Facility Bed $0
Industrial KSF 420 230 750 80 230 0 230 510 $2,450
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Bed = patient bed No Fee
Table S.4: Difference Between Existing and Proposed Citywide Impact Fees Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Park
Imprv Fire Police Streets
Traffic
Signals
Public
Bldgs
Com/Rec
Centers Water Sewer Total
Residential, Single-Family DU 1,565 (728) 115 (802) 168 1,235 569 229 (3,974) $ (1,623) Residential, Multi-Family DU 604 (928) (110) (2,164) (8) 686 427 (868) (4,710) $ (7,071) Retail/Service Commercial KSF - 1,419 5,851 10,758 1,374 434 636 (503) $19,969 Professional Office KSF - (77) 1,036 2,332 282 266 450 (779) $ 3,510 Skilled Nursing Facility Bed -
Industrial KSF - 64 (13) 929 138 14 513 60 $ 1,703
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Bed = patient bed No Existing Fee for Comparison
City of Chowchilla Page
S-8
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Table S.5: Proposed Storm Drainage Impact Fees
Land Use Proposed Impact Impact Fee +
Category Fee per Acre Admin Fee 1
Residential - Low Density $ 7,259 $ 7,296
Residential - Medium Density $ 9,661 $ 9,710
Residential - High Density $ 13,472 $ 13,540
Community Commercial $ 13,971 $ 14,041
Downtown Commercial $ 14,232 $ 14,303
Neighborhood Commercial $ 19,626 $ 19,724
Service Commercial $ 17,247 $ 17,333
Professional Office (Medical Arts) $ 11,106 $ 11,162
Light Industrial $ 22,093 $ 22,204
Heavy Industrial $ 22,131 $ 22,242
Public Facility $ 11,177 $ 11,233
Elementary School $ 5,212 $ 5,238
High School $ 20,014 $ 20,114 2
Proposed impact fees including the 0.5% administrative fee City of Chowchilla Page 1-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Chapter 1. Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for several types of public facilities provided by the City of Chowchilla and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the approach, data and methodology used in this study to calculate impact fees as well as Quimby Act park land dedication requirements and in lieu fees.
The methods used to calculate impact fees and in-lieu fees in this report are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution, the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000- 66025), and, where applicable, the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477).
Legal Framework for Developer Fees
This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general overview. It was not prepared by an attorney and should not be treated as legal advice.
U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution.
In two landmark cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition of development approval or imposes ad hoc exactions as a condition of approval on a single development project that do not apply to development generally, a higher standard of judicial scrutiny applies. To meet that standard, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987) and make an” individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994).
Until recently, it was widely accepted that legislatively enacted impact fees that apply to all development in a jurisdiction are not subject to the higher standard of judicial scrutiny flowing from the Nollan and Dolan decisions. But after the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St.
Johns Water Management District (2013), state courts have reached conflicting conclusions on that issue.
In light of that uncertainty, any agency enacting or imposing impact fees would be wise to demonstrate a nexus and ensure proportionality in the calculation of those fees.
Defining the “Nexus.” While courts have not been entirely consistent in defining the nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees, that term can be thought of as having the three City of Chowchilla Page 1-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan v. Tigard. The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable relationship” findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition of impact fees.
Need or Impact. Development must create a need for the facilities to be funded by impact fees.
All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate.
Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees.
The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for public facilities based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all of the information needed to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nexus.
Benefit. Development must benefit from facilities funded by impact fees. With respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees.
Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended expeditiously or refunded.
Those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time, procedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the benefit element of the nexus.
Proportionality. Impact fees must be proportional to the impact created by a particular development project. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development-related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard.
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police power is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impact fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. However, that objection is valid only City of Chowchilla Page 1-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
if the fees charged to a project exceed the cost of providing facilities needed to serve the project.
In that case, the fees would also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act.
Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development.”
The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January, 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time, the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, it is clear both in case law and statute (see Government Code Section 65913.8) that impact fees may not be used to pay for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of capital assets only.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title. Nor does it use the more common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….” To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely-accepted terms “impact fee” and “development impact fee” which both should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act.
The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re-evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the implementation chapter of this report.
Required Findings. Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee; and,
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; City of Chowchilla Page 1-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. (Applies when fees are imposed on a specific project.)
Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below.
Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund construction of certain capital improvements that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the City grows.
This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to serve additional development.
Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. In this case, we recommend that the City Council adopt this report as the public document that identifies the facilities to be funded by the fees.
Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between:
1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;
2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and,
3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
These three reasonable relationship requirements, as defined in the statute, mirror the nexus and proportionality requirements often cited in court decisions as the standard for defensible impact fees. The term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard used by courts in evaluating the legitimacy of impact fees. The “duality” of the nexus refers to (1) an impact or need created by a development project subject to impact fees, and (2) a benefit to the project from the expenditure of the fees.
Although proportionality is reasonably implied in the dual rational nexus formulation, it was explicitly required by the Supreme Court in the Dolan case, and we prefer to list it as the third element of a complete nexus.
Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements. The requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see Govt. Code Section City of Chowchilla Page 1-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
66000) or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477).
Existing Deficiencies. In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees “shall not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities,…” The legislature’s intent in adopting this amendment, as stated in the bill, was to codify the holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989), Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991).
That amendment does not appear to be a substantive change. It is widely understood that other provisions of law make it improper for impact fees to include costs for correcting existing deficiencies.
However, Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis added.) Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus.
The Quimby Act. The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), which pre-dates the Mitigation Fee Act, authorizes a city or county to require dedication of land, payment of fees inlieu of dedication, or a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval of a residential subdivision. The city or county must adopt an ordinance that includes definite standards for determining the proportion of the subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of the in-lieu fees to be paid.
Under the Quimby Act, land dedication and in-lieu fee requirements are based on the ratio of park acres to population in the jurisdiction. That ratio may not exceed three acres per thousand residents unless the existing ratio is higher, but is limited to five acres per thousand. The population added by the subdivision is determined by the number of dwelling units and the average number of persons per household.
The population and average number of persons per household in the city or county are to be based on the most recent federal census. Park acreage is to be based on the area of neighborhood and community parks in the city or county at the time of that census.
The land, fees, or combination thereof are to be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. A 2013 amendment to the Quimby Act added a provision that in-lieu fees may be used for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities in a neighborhood other than the neighborhood in which the subdivision paying the fees is located, if certain conditions are met (see paragraph (a)(3)(B) of Section 66477). “Neighborhood” is not defined in the statute.
City of Chowchilla Page 1-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
The Quimby Act requires that the legislative body adopt a general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards for parks and recreational facilities, and that the amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by future inhabitants of the subdivision.
The Quimby Act provides that if park and recreational services and facilities are provided by a public agency other than a city or county, the amount and location of park land to be dedicated or fees to be paid shall be jointly determined by that other public agency and the city or county having jurisdiction. The land or fees shall be conveyed directly to the public agency that provides park and recreational services on a communitywide level if that agency elects to accept the land or fee.
Only payment of fees may be required for subdivisions containing 50 units or less, or for condominium, stock cooperative or community apartment projects.
Recent Legislation
Several new laws enacted by the State of California in 2019 to facilitate development of affordable housing will affect the implementation of in-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this study. Below are brief overviews of some key bills passed in 2019.
SB 330 – The Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Amendments to existing law contained in SB 330 prohibit the imposition of new approval requirements on a housing development project once a preliminary application has been submitted. That provision applies to increases in impact fees and in-lieu fees, except when the resolution or ordinance establishing the fee authorizes automatic, inflationary adjustments to the fee or exaction.
AB 1483 – Housing Data: Collection and Reporting. AB 1483 requires that a city, county orspecial districts must post on its website a current schedule of its fees and exactions, as well as associated nexus studies and annual reports. Updates must be posted within 30 days.
SB 13 – Accessory Dwelling Units. SB 13 prohibits the imposition of impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) smaller than 750 square feet and provides that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The proportionality requirement means that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be calculated on a case-by-case basis during the approval process.
Existing law requires a water or sewer connection fee or capacity charge for an accessory dwelling unit requiring a new or separate utility connection to be based on either the accessory dwelling unit’s size or the number of its plumbing fixtures. SB 13 revises the basis for calculating the connection fee or capacity charge to either the accessory dwelling unit’s square feet or the number of its drainage fixture units.
AB 602 – Amendments to the Planning and Land Use Law and the Mitigation Fee Act. AB 602, which was passed and signed in 2021, adds section 65940.1 to the Planning and Land Use Law requiring cities, counties and special districts that have internet websites to post schedules of City of Chowchilla Page 1-7
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
fees, exactions and affordability requirements, annual fee reports, and an archive of nexus studies on that website, and to update that information within 30 days after any changes.
AB 602 also adds Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act imposing several new requirements for impact fees that go into effect on January 1, 2022, including:
▪ A nexus study must identify the existing level of service for each facility, identify the proposed new level of service (if any), and explain why the new level of service is appropriate.
▪ If a nexus study supports an increase in an existing fee the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
▪ Large jurisdictions (counties over 250,000 and cities within those counties) must adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study.
▪ All impact fee nexus studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin and impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing. ▪ Nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, from the period beginning on January 1, 2022.
▪ A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units in the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if the local agency makes certain findings specified in the law. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of units in the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
▪ Authorizes any member of the public, including an applicant for a development project, to submit evidence that impact fees proposed by an agency fail to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, and requires the legislative body of the agency to consider such evidence and adjust the proposed fee if deemed necessary.
SB 9, the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (“HOME”) Act. SB 9 facilitates the subdivision of existing residential lots and allows for ministerial approval (without discretionary review or hearings) of no more than two dwelling units, including duplexes, on parcels zoned for single-family dwellings if the property satisfies certain requirements. To qualify under SB 9 the property must be located within either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or for unincorporated areas, within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster.
The law allows for qualifying lot splits to be approved ministerially upon meeting certain requirements.
Each parcel may not be smaller than forty (40%) percent of the original parcel size and each parcel must be at least one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in size unless permitted by local ordinance. The parcel must be limited to residential use.
City of Chowchilla Page 1-8
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
The law does not allow demolition or alteration of certain types of dwellings, including: (a) housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to affordable levels; (b) housing subject to rent control; (c) housing that has been tenant-occupied in the last three years; or (d) housing located in a historic district. In addition, the proposed development may not demolish more than 25% of the exterior structural walls of an existing unit, unless expressly permitted by a local ordinance.
A local agency may impose objective zoning standards, subdivision standards, and design standards unless they would preclude either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area.
No setback may be required for an existing structure, or a structure constructed in the same location and dimensions as an existing structure. Otherwise, a local agency may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines. Off-street parking of up to one space per unit may be required by the local agency, unless the project is located within a half-mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, or if there is a car share vehicle within one block of the parcel. If a local agency makes a written finding that a project would create a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the environment without a feasible way to mitigate such impact, the agency still may deny the project.
It is impossible to predict how much SB 9 will affect the number of future residential units constructed in the City. Unlike recent laws dealing with accessory dwelling units, SB 9 does not address the imposition of impact fees on the new dwelling units it allows, and it appears at this point that such units would be subject to the same impact fees as other new residential development.
Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation. To some extent they are interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.
Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost allocation formula, the impact of development is measured by some attribute of development such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the impacts created by different types and amounts of development.
Plan-Based or Improvements-Driven Method. Plan-based impact fee calculations are based on the relationship between a specified set of improvements and a specified increment of development. The improvements are typically identified in a facility plan, while the development is identified in a land use plan that forecasts potential development by type and quantity.
Using this method, facility costs are allocated to various categories of development in proportion to the service demand created by each type of development. To calculate plan-based impact fees, it is necessary to determine what facilities will be needed to serve a particular increment of new development.
City of Chowchilla Page 1-9
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
With this method, the total cost of eligible facilities is divided by total units of additional demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand (e.g. a cost per capita for parks). Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by factors representing the demand per unit of development (e.g. population per unit) to arrive at a cost per unit of development.
This method is somewhat inflexible in that it is based on the relationship between a specific facility plan and a specific land use plan. If either plan changes significantly the fees will have to be recalculated.
Capacity-Based or Consumption-Driven Method. This method calculates a cost per unit of capacity based on the relationship between total cost and total capacity of a system. It can be applied to any type of development, provided the capacity required to serve each increment of development can be estimated and the facility has adequate capacity available to serve the development. Since the cost per unit of demand does not depend on the particular type or quantity of development to be served, this method is flexible with respect to changing development plans.
In this method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development. Capacity-based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems, where the cost of a system component is divided by the capacity of that component to derive a unit cost. However, a similar analysis can be applied to other types of facilities. To produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of non-residential building area), the cost per unit of capacity is multiplied by the amount of capacity required to serve a typical unit of development in each of several land use categories.
Standard-Based or Incremental Expansion Method. Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. The standard can be established as a matter of policy or it can be based on the level of service being provided to existing development in the study area.
Using the standard-based method, costs are defined on a generic unit-cost basis and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development.
Park in-lieu and impact fees are commonly calculated this way. The level of service standard for parks is typically stated in terms of acres of parks per thousand residents. A cost-per-acre for park land or park improvements can usually be estimated without knowing the exact size or location of a particular park. The ratio of park acreage to population and the cost per acre for parks is used to calculate a cost per capita. The cost per capita can then be converted into a cost per unit of development based on the average population per dwelling unit for various types of residential development.
Facilities Addressed in this Study
Impact/in-lieu fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report:
▪ Park Land and Park Improvements
City of Chowchilla Page 1-10
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
▪ Fire Protection Facilities
▪ Police Facilities
▪ Street Improvements
▪ Traffic Signals
▪ Public Buildings
▪ Community and Recreation Centers
▪ Storm Drainage System
▪ Water System
▪ Sewer System
Each of those facilities is addressed in a separate chapter of this report, beginning with Chapter
3. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in the impact fee analysis.
City of Chowchilla Page 2-1
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Chapter 2. Development Data
This chapter presents data on existing and future development that will be used to calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report.
The information in this chapter may be used to establish levels of service, analyze facility needs, and/or allocate the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various types of new development.
Land use and development data in this chapter are based on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, the City of Chowchilla 2040 General Plan and other sources noted in this chapter.
Setting
Chowchilla is located in southwestern Madera County near the junction of U. S. Highway 99 and State Route 152, approximately 20 miles southeast of Merced and 40 miles northwest of Fresno.
Chowchilla and Madera are the two incorporated cities in Madera County.
Study Area and Time Frame
The study area for the impact fee analysis is the Planning Area defined in Figure LU-1 in the General Plan Land Use Element. However, the future development identified in this chapter includes only that development that is expected to occur by 2040. See the Existing and Future Development section later in this chapter for more detail.
The timeframe for this study extends from the present time to buildout of the future development identified in this chapter. The time required for buildout will depend on the rate at which development occurs, and although future development projected in this chapter is projected to occur by 2040, the impact fee calculations do not depend on the rate or timing of development.
Development Types
The development types used in this study are listed below. ▪ Residential, Single-Family
▪ Residential, Multi-Family
▪ Retail/Service Commercial
▪ Professional Office
▪ Industrial
▪ Public Facilities/Institutions
Residential, Single-Family. Single-Family Residential includes development in the General Plan Low-Density Residential and Medium-Density Residential land use designations.
City of Chowchilla Page 2-2
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Residential, Multi-Family. Multi-Family Residential development includes development in the General Plan Medium-High Density and High-Density land use categories.
Retail/Service Commercial. Retail/Service Commercial includes development in the Downtown Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Service Commercial, Service Commercial-Highway, and commercial development in Mixed-Use land use categories.
Professional Office. The only General Plan land use category specifically addressing office uses is the Medical Arts category, which is intended to allow for medical offices near residential development. Other types of office uses are allowed in all commercial zones.
Industrial. Industrial development includes the General Plan Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial categories.
Public Facilities/Institutions. For purposes of the impact fee calculations, this category includes some, but not all uses allowed in the General Plan Public Facilities category. Uses such as government buildings, schools, libraries, fairgrounds and similar public or quasi-public uses have an impact on the need for some of the facilities and improvements covered by impact fees in this study, including street improvements and police and fire facilities. Other public facilities such as parks, cemeteries, and storm drainage basins create little or no demand for the facilities covered by impact fees and need not be accounted for in this study.
Other Development Types. Certain types of development, such as churches, hospitals and charter schools, do not fall under any of the categories listed above. These developments are not legally exempt from impact fees, but no fee is calculated in this study for such uses. Fees for such developments can be calculated on an individual basis by considering factors such as peak hour trips or police and fire calls that will be generated by a proposed project and applying those factors to the cost per call or cost per trip shown in each impact fee chapter in this report.
Residential Development and Population
The chart on the next page shows the California Department of Finance (DOF) official January 1 population estimates for the City of Chowchilla for the years from 2012 through 2019 plus the official Census count for 2020 and estimates by NBS for 2021 and 2022 based on the 2020 Census population.
It is important to note that the official DOF population estimates for Chowchilla include inmates at the two state prisons located in the City. Those inmates are classified as population in group quarters and do not directly impact the need for City facilities. The impact fee analysis in this study excludes population in group quarters and uses only household population in assessing the impacts of development on City facilities. DOF estimated that Chowchilla’s January 1, 2021 population in group quarters at 4,825, so it more than one-quarter of the City’s total population.
City of Chowchilla Page 2-3
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
This population chart shows some fluctuations in the DOF estimates between 2012 and 2016 from year to year. The reasons for that fluctuation are not clear, but they may be caused by changes in the inmate population.
The most reliable data point for
our purposes is the 2020
population which is from the 2020
Census. NBS has estimated the
2021 and 2022 population figures
based on the 2020 Census
population and the City’s recent
growth rate.
According to the official 2010 and
2020 Census population counts,
Chowchilla has grown a total of
2.56% from 18,720 in 2010 to
19,200 in 2020.
This study uses data from the U. S. Census Bureau’s 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates to calculate the population per dwelling unit factors for each category of residential development defined in this study. Those factors are shown in Table 2.1.
Units of Development
In this study, quantities of existing and planned development are measured in terms of certain units of development. Those units are discussed below.
Dwelling Units. The dwelling unit (DU) is the most commonly used measure of residential development and is the standard unit for residential development in this study.
Building Area. For non-residential development, gross building area in thousands of square feet (KSF) is used as the standard unit of development.
Demand Variables
In calculating impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attributes of development (e.g., population and vehicle trip generation) are used in those formulas to reflect the impact of different types and amounts of development on the demand for specific public services and the facilities that support those services.
Those attributes are referred to in this study as “demand variables.” Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure service demand created by various types of development, or because they are reasonably correlated with that demand.
For example, the service standard for parks in a community is typically defined as a ratio of park acreage to population. As population grows, more parks are needed to maintain the desired 0 4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Population
Year
Chowchilla Population
2012-2022
City of Chowchilla Page 2-4
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
standard. Logically, then, population is an appropriate yardstick or demand variable for measuring the impacts of development on the need for additional parks.
Similarly, the need for capacity in a street system depends on the volume of traffic the system must handle. So, the vehicle trip generation rate (the number of vehicle trips generated by each unit of development per day) is an appropriate demand variable to represent the impact of development on the street system.
Each demand variable has a specific value for each type of development. Those values may be referred to as demand factors. For example, in this study, P.M. peak hour trip volume is used as the demand factor for calculating impact fees for streets. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual (10th Edition) estimates that one single-family detached dwelling unit generates an average of 0.99 vehicle trips each weekday P.M. peak hour, so that number is used as the demand factor in calculating street improvement impact fees for singlefamily residential units.
Specific demand variables used in this study are discussed below. The values of demand factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.1 on page 2-5.
Population. Resident population is used as a demand variable to calculate impact fees for facilities like parks that are intended to serve residents of the City. Resident population is tied to residential development, so this variable reflects no demand from non-residential development.
Service Population. Population alone does not represent all of the impacts of development on facilities that serve both residential and non-residential development. A variable called service population is commonly used to represent the impact of development on facilities such as general government buildings that are impacted by both residential and non-residential development. Service population is used for that purpose in this study.
Service population is a composite variable that includes both residents of the City and employees of businesses in Chowchilla. Resident population is included to represent the impacts of residential development and employees of business in the City are included to represent the impacts of non-residential uses, such as commercial, office and industrial development.
Because the impact of one new resident is not necessarily the same as the impact of one new employee, various components of the service population are weighted to reflect their relative impacts on demand for certain types of facilities.
Service population is intended to approximate the number of people creating a demand for service on an average day. It is difficult to estimate that number precisely for several reasons.
Some residents work in the City, some residents commute to work outside the City, and some residents don’t work at paid jobs. Non-residents may be present in the City for work, shopping, recreation, or any number of other reasons.
In this study, a base weight of 1.0 would represent a resident who remains in the City at all times.
However, since that would not be a realistic assumption for most residents, the weighting of resident population is adjusted to reflect the fact that some people commute out of the City to City of Chowchilla Page 2-5
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
work, and many residents are likely to leave the City at times for shopping, recreation, or other reasons.
Our estimate of the average number of hours per week that residents spend in the City is based in part on an analysis of Census Bureau data on how many residents work in the city, how many commute to work outside the. We also assume the average resident spends eight hours a week outside the City for activities like shopping and recreation.
Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data for 2019 (the most recent available year) show that 49.6% of Chowchilla residents between ages 16 and 64 are employed. That number is relatively low, most likely because the City’s total population includes inmates in State prisons who are not counted as employed. ACS data also indicate that about 65% of employed residents work outside the City.
Assuming that out-commuters spend 47.5 hours a week (9.5 hours per day) outside the City for work and commuting and that all residents spend an average of eight hours a week outside the City for shopping and recreation leads us to the conclusion that out-commuters spend an average of 112.5 (168 – 47.5 - 8 = 112.5) hours per week in the City. Assuming other residents spend 160 (168 – 8 = 160) hours per week in the City, the weighted average for all residents is 158.6 hours per week in the City. Dividing that number by 168 hours per week gives us a weight of 0.88452 for all residents (population) of the City.
Service population weights for employees associated with different types of development are based on estimates of the number of hours per week businesses of a certain type are in operation. This study assumes that retail and service commercial businesses operate 12 hours a day, 7 days a week (84 hours). For professional offices and public facilities, that number is estimated to be 45 hours (9 hours a day, 5 days a week), and for industrial uses, 48 hours (8 hours a day, 6 days a week). The weights assigned to employees of businesses associated with various types of non-residential development are based on the hours per week of operation divided by 168 total hours per week.
Finally, for simplicity, all of the service population weights are normalized by dividing them by
0.88542 so that the final population weight equals 1.0 (0.88542 / 0.88542 = 1.0) and weights for each of the non-residential components are increased proportionately. The service population weights used in this study are shown in Table 2.0 and the service population per unit factors are shown in Table 2.1.
City of Chowchilla Page 2-6
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Peak Hour Trips. The impact of development on the City’s street system is measured in this study by the number of weekday peak hour vehicle trips (PHT) generated by development. In this study, PHT is used to measure the impact of development on the City’s street system, including roadways, intersections, bridges and traffic signals. The PHT rates used in this study are for the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent street and are taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, Trip Generation, 10th edition. The peak hour trip factors for each type of development defined in this study are shown in Table 2.1.
Police and Fire Calls for Service. The impact of development on the City’s police and fire facilities is measured by the number of calls for service per unit per year by development type. Those callsfor-service-per-unit factors are normally calculated using a random sample of calls for service for a one-year period to determine the distribution of calls by development type. Then the number of calls per year for each type of development is divided by the number of existing units for that type of development to arrive at calls per unit per year. In this study, police calls-for-service factors were analyzed using a random sample, but fire calls for service were analyzed for an entire year because the number was smaller than the sample size normally used for that that analysis.
The police and fire calls for service factors for each type of development defined in this study are shown in Table 2.1.
Note on Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Recent amendments to Section 65852.2 of the Government Code provide that impact fees may not be imposed on ADUs smaller than 750 square feet. It also establishes the following requirement for impact fees imposed on ADUs of 750 square feet or more:
“Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.” Table 2.0: Service Population Weighting
Service Population Hrs per Total Hrs Base Normalized
Component Week 1
per Week Weight 2 Weight 3
Residents 148.6 168.0 0.88452 1.000
Retail/Service Comm Employees 84.0 168.0 0.50000 0.565
Professional Office Employees 45.0 168.0 0.26786 0.303
Skilled Nursing Facility 168.0 168.0 1.00000 1.131
Industrial Employees 48.0 168.0 0.28571 0.323
Public Facilities Employees 45.0 168.0 0.26786 0.303
1 For residents, average hours per week in the City; for employees, hours of business operation per week; see discussion in text
2 Base weight = hours of operation per week / total hours per week 3 Normalized weight = Base weight / 0.88452 so that normalized resident weight = 1.0
City of Chowchilla Page 2-7
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Although it is not spelled out in Section 65852.2, we think it is obvious that when calculating ADU impact fees in cases where the primary unit is a single-family detached unit, the starting point for the proportionality calculation is the fee that applies to the single-family unit. The law also allows for ADUs on lots or parcels where the primary unit is a multi-family unit. In that situation, it seems logical that the ADU impact fee should be proportional to the impact fee that applies to the multi-family unit, but we think ADUs within multi-family developments are likely to be rare and we don’t address them further.
The formula for calculating proportional ADU impact fees would be:
Primary unit impact fee X (ADU square feet / Primary unit square feet) One thing that becomes obvious in that formula is that, for an ADU of a particular size, a larger primary unit results in lower impact fees for the ADU.
For example, if the ADU is 1,000 square feet and the primary unit is 2,000 square feet, the proportional impact fee for the ADU would be 50% of the impact fee that would apply to the primary unit. But if the primary unit is 1,200 square feet, the impact fee for the same-sized ADU would be 83.33% of the primary unit fee.
It seems likely that discrepancy is an unintended consequence of language in Section 65852.2 that was not thoroughly considered before adoption. It is also worth noting that for impact fee studies adopted after July 1, 2022, AB 602 requires that impact fees for all types of residential units must be proportionate to the square footage of a unit. Impact fees based on square footage will tend to reduce the inequity created by the proportionality language of Section 65852.2 because the fees that apply to a smaller primary unit would be less than the fees that apply to a larger primary unit. However, it may be a number of years before most cities in California adopt residential impact fees based on square footage. The City could attempt to minimize the inequities created by the ADU impact fee proportionality requirement in Section 65852.2 by adopting a policy setting a lower limit on the primary unit square footage used to calculate impact fees for ADUs.
City of Chowchilla Page 2-8
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Existing and Future Development
Tables 2.2 through 2.4 on the following pages present data on existing and future development in the City of Chowchilla. Data from those tables will be used throughout this report. Table 2.2 shows existing development as of January 2022.
The City’s estimated vacancy rate in 2021 was 8.7%. The relationship between residential units and population in the following tables assumes a more normal 5% vacancy rate.
Table 2.1: Demand Factors
Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Population
per Unit 2
Employees
per Unit 3
Svc Pop
per Unit 4
Pk Hr Trips
per Unit 5
Police Calls
per Unit 6
Fire Calls
per Unit 7
Residential, Single-Family DU 3.20 3.20 0.99 3.25 0.073 Residential, Multi-Family DU 2.40 2.40 0.56 2.56 0.058
Retail/Service Commercial KSF 2.20 1.24 3.81 19.15 0.153 Professional Office KSF 3.30 1.00 1.15 4.40 0.047
Skilled Nursing Facility Bed 0.95 1.07 0.22 1.31 0.030
Industrial KSF 1.10 0.36 0.53 0.66 0.034
Public Facilities/Institutions KSF 3.30 1.00 0.94 20.19 0.172 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area; room = guest room or suite 2 Average household population per unit based on analysis of data from U. S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey (2019, 5-Year Estimate), Tables B25032 and B25033; factors adjusted for consistency with Department of Finance 2021 population estimates 3 Employees per unit estimated by NBS using data from multiple sources including a 2001 employment density study by the Natelson Co. for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and a summary of Census Bureau data from ESRI
4 Service population per unit; see the discussion of service population weighting in the text 5 Peak hour trips per unit based on p.m. peak hour trip generation rates for the adjacent street from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual, Trip Generation , 10th Edition 6 Police calls for service per unit per year; see discussion in text 7 Fire calls for service per unit per year; see discussion in text City of Chowchilla Page 2-9
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Table 2.3 presents a forecast of future development in the City. The numbers in this table represent the difference between existing development in Table 2.2 and buildout development in Table 2.4.
Table 2.2: Existing Development January 1, 2022 - City of Chowchilla Development
Type
Dev
Acres 1
Unit
Type 2
No. of
Units 3
Population 4Employees
5 Service
Pop 6
Pk Hour
Trips 7
PD Calls
per Year 8
Fire Calls
per Year 9
Residential, Single-Family 995 DU 3,604 10,956 10,956 3,568 11,719 262 Residential, Multi-Family 91 DU 906 2,066 2,066 507 2,320 53 Subtotal Residential 1,086 4,510 13,022 13,022 4,075 14,039 315 Retail/Service Commercial 60 KSF 489 1,075 1,337 1,862 9,359 75 Professional Office 7 KSF 64 210 210 73 280 3
Skilled Nursing Facilities 8 Bed 132 125 142 29 240 6
Industrial 62 KSF 844 928 330 447 560 29
Public Facilities/Institutions 19 KSF 162 536 536 153 3,280 28 Subtotal Non-residential 156 2,874 2,554 2,564 13,719 141 Totals 1,242 13,022 2,874 15,576 6,639 27,758 456
1 Existing developed acres estimated based on existing units of development 2 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area; Bed = patient bed 3 Number of existing residential units based on the January 2021 CA Department of Finance E-5 report adjusted to 2022; existing non-residential units estimated using ESRI Business Summary employee data and employee density factors from Table 2.1
4 Existing household population adjusted to vacancy rate of 5% = existing residential units X 0.95 X population per unit from Table 2.1; Department of Finance January 2021 household population estimate = 12,505; see the discussion of vacancy rate adjustment in text
5 Existing employees = estimated by NBS based on data from ESRI 2021 Business Summary for the City; employees in Public Facilities/Institutions excludes staff at the two prisons in Chowchilla 6 Existing service population = existing units X service population per unit from Table 2.1 7 Existing peak hour trips = existing units X peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1 8 Existing police calls per year based on analysis of a random sample of calls for service for FY 2020-21 9 Existing fire calls per year based on analysis of all calls for service for CY 2020 City of Chowchilla Page 2-10
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Table 2.4 shows development in the City projected to 2040, based on population growth projections from the Housing Element of the Chowchilla General Plan. Projections of future residential units reflect a General Plan assumption that 70% of residential units in the City in 2040 will be single-family detached units, down from about 80% in 2022. Non-residential development is projected on the basis of maintaining the overall 2022 jobs per dwelling unit ratio, as well as the percentage of jobs in each non-residential development category.
Table 2.3: Added Development to 2040 - City of Chowchilla Planning Area Development
Type
Dev
Acres
Unit
Type
No. of
Units
Population Employees Service
Pop
Pk Hour
Trips
PD Calls
per Year 8
Fire Calls
per Year
Residential, Single-Family 750 DU 4,248 12,914 14,170 4,206 13,813 309 Residential, Multi-Family 374 DU 3,581 8,164 8,703 2,005 9,170 209 Subtotal Residential 1,124 7,829 21,078 22,873 6,211 22,983 518 Retail/Service Commercial 65 KSF 873 1,920 2,387 3,325 16,713 134 Professional Office 7 KSF 119 394 393 137 525 6
Skilled Nursing Facilities 13 Bed 214 203 229 47 213 4
Industrial 91 KSF 1,489 1,638 582 789 988 51
Public Facilities/Institutions 15 KSF 282 930 930 265 5,692 49 Subtotal Non-residential 191 5,085 4,522 4,563 24,132 244 Totals 1,315 21,078 5,085 27,395 10,774 47,115 762
Note: the numbers in Table 2.3 represent the difference between 2040 development in Table 2.4 and existing development in Table 2.2
City of Chowchilla Page 2-11
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Growth Potential
The numbers in the foregoing tables indicate that all measures of development in Chowchilla could more than double between 2021 and 2040. However, the impact fee calculations in this report do not depend on whether development occurs at a particular rate, or whether the amount of future development projected in the report occurs by 2040.
The fees calculated in subsequent chapters of this report are intended to pay for the capital facilities needed to serve the additional demand created by future development forecasted in this chapter, whenever it occurs.
Table 2.4: Total 2040 Development - City of Chowchilla Planning Area Development
Type
Dev
Acres 1
Unit
Type 2
No. of
Units 3
Population 4Employees
5 Service
Pop 6
Pk Hour
Trips 7
PD Calls
per Year 8
Fire Calls
per Year 8
Residential, Single-Family 1,745 DU 7,852 23,870 25,126 7,773 25,532 571 Residential, Multi-Family 374 DU 4,487 10,230 10,769 2,513 11,490 262 Subtotal Residential 2,119 12,339 34,100 35,895 10,286 37,022 833 Retail/Service Commercial 125 KSF 1,361 2,995 3,724 5,186 26,072 209 Professional Office 14 KSF 183 604 603 210 805 9
Skilled Nursing Facilities 21 Bed 346 328 371 76 453 10 Industrial 153 KSF 2,333 2,566 912 1,236 1,548 80
Public Facilities/Institutions 34 KSF 444 1,466 1,465 418 8,972 77 Subtotal Non-residential 347 7,959 7,076 7,127 37,851 385 Totals 2,466 34,100 7,959 42,971 17,413 74,873 1,218
1 2040 developed acres estimated based on projected 2040 units of development and residential densities and non-residential floor area ratios
2 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area; Bed = patient bed 3 2040 units estimated by NBS using data inputs from the General Plan 4 2040 population = residential units X population per unit from Table 2.1 5 2040 employees = non-residential units X employees per unit from Table 2.1 6 2040 service population = 2040 units X service pop. per unit from Table 2.1 7 2040 peak hour trips = 2040 units X peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1 8 2040 police calls per year = 2040 units X calls per unit per year from Table 2.1 9 2040 fire calls per year = 2040 units X calls per unit per year from Table 2.1 City of Chowchilla Page 3-1
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Chapter 3. Park Land and Park Improvements
This chapter calculates three types of park development fees, all of which apply only to residential development. Two of those fees are for park land acquisition. One applies to subdivisions, and the other applies to projects that do not involve a subdivision. Only one of the two land acquisition fees would apply to any one development project. The third fee funds park improvements and park maintenance vehicles and equipment. That fee, in addition to one of the two park land acquisition fees, applies to all residential development projects.
In-Lieu Fees and Impact Fees for Park Land Acquisition
The type of fee that may be imposed on a development project for park land acquisition depends on whether that project involves a subdivision of land.
Projects Involving a Subdivision or Parcel Map. Residential subdivisions and parcel maps are subject to the Quimby Act (Govt. Code Section 66477) which is part of the Subdivision Map Act.
The Quimby Act authorizes cities and counties in California to require subdividers to dedicate land for parks or pay fees in lieu of dedication. As detailed below, the Quimby in-lieu fees are subject to different standards and limitations than park impact fees imposed under the Mitigation Fee Act.
The Chowchilla Park Master Plan contains a statement that in-lieu fees “should be based on a formula that considers both land acquisition and construction costs.” That statement is inconsistent with the intent of an in-lieu fee. A fee in lieu of park land dedication should be based on the value of the land that would otherwise be dedicated. Such a fee should not include construction costs. In this study, park improvement costs are covered by a separate impact fee.
The City’s existing Quimby Act ordinance bases dedication and in-lieu fee acreage requirements on the density (units per acre) of a development project rather than its population. There is no way to compare the effect of that density formula with the acres-per-1,000 population standards contained in the Quimby Act.
The Quimby in-lieu fees calculated in this chapter are standardized fees based on an estimated average cost per acre for park land in the City. We propose these fees as an alternative to the approach embodied in the City’s existing Quimby Act ordinance. The City may choose not to implement the proposed in-lieu fees.
Projects Not Involving a Subdivision or Parcel Map. Residential development projects not involving a subdivision or parcel map are not subject to the Quimby Act but may instead be required to pay impact fees for park land acquisition as calculated in this chapter. Impact fees for park land acquisition are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code Sections 66000 et seq.).
Impact Fees for Park Improvements
Since in-lieu fees and impact fees for park land acquisition are based only on the cost of land and do not cover the cost of park improvements, this chapter calculates a separate impact fee for City of Chowchilla Page 3-2
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
park improvements. The cost of park maintenance vehicles and equipment is also included in the park improvement impact fees. Impact fees for park improvements are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act.
The Quimby Act
The Quimby Act contains a number of provisions that differ from the requirements for impact fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Under the Quimby Act, a city or county may, by ordinance, “require the dedication of land or impose a requirement for the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition of approval of a tentative map or parcel map….” An ordinance imposing dedication and fee requirements under the Quimby Act must contain “definite standards for determining the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu thereof.” Before imposing these requirements, the City must have adopted a general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards for parks and recreation facilities. The dedicated land and/or in-lieu fees “are to be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community parks or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision (paying the fees).”
The Quimby Act provides that only in-lieu fees, not land dedication, may be required for subdivisions of less than 50 parcels. For larger projects, the City may choose to require either land dedication or payment of in-lieu fees or a combination of the two. The Quimby Act also specifies the manner in which dedication requirements and in-lieu fees are to be calculated. See the Level of Service section below for additional detail.
Service Area
All park in-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all residential development in the City.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1.
Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. Both in-lieu and impact fees are calculated using per-capita costs discussed later in this chapter.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate park in-lieu fees and impact fees in this chapter is population.
Population is used here because the need for parks is typically defined in terms of the relationship between park acreage and population. In addition, the Quimby Act specifies that standards for City of Chowchilla Page 3-3
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
park land dedication and in-lieu fees must be based on the relationship between park acreage and population.
Population per dwelling unit varies by development type, so the average population per unit is estimated for each type of residential development defined in this study. Those individual population-per-unit factors are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.
Because added population is associated with residential development, the in-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.
Level of Service
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Chowchilla General Plan adopts a standard of
3.0 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood parks and 2.0 acres per 1,000 for community parks. However, those standards exceed the level of service allowed by current California law as explained below.
Quimby Act Standard. Park land dedication requirements and fees in lieu of dedication for residential subdivisions under the Quimby Act may be based on the existing ratio of park acres to population up to a cap of 5,0 acres per 1,000, except that the 3.0 acres per 1,000 standard may be applied if the existing level is lower. Since Chowchilla’s existing level of service, as shown in Table 3.2 is slightly less than that level, Quimby Act park land dedication requirements calculated in this chapter will be based on 3.0 acres per 1,000.
Impact Fee Standard. The level of service used to calculate park improvement impact fees and park land impact fees in this chapter is the existing level of service, defined as the existing ratio of park acres to population.
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. That section requires, after January 1, 2022, that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be compared with the existing level of service. If the level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, an explanation is required. We believe that provision would require the City to justify using a level of service higher than the existing level to calculate impact fees. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service as shown in Table 3.2 on the next page.
Table 3.1 lists the City’s existing parks and shows both City-owned park acres and acres of improved parks.
City of Chowchilla Page 3-4
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Table 3.2 calculates the existing level of service in terms of acres per capita and acres per 1,000 population for improved park land in the City. The level of service used in this chapter is based on improved park acres, not City-owned acres, because a 2019 decision by the California Court of Appeal in Boatworks, LLC v. City of Alameda found that parks not yet open to the public could not be used as the basis for establishing the existing level of service used to calculate park impact fees.
Level-of-Service Standard for Park Land In-Lieu Fees (Applies to Subdivisions). The Quimby Act provides that park land dedication and in-lieu fee requirements may be based on a minimum ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents and may be increased up to 5.0 acres per 1,000 to match the existing ratio. Because the City’s existing ratio is below 3.0 acres per 1,000, the standard used to calculate park land acquisition in-lieu fees in this study is 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents.
Level-of-Service Standard for Park Land Impact Fees (Applies to Projects Not Involving a Subdivision of Land). The standard used to calculate park land acquisition impact fees for nonsubdivision projects in this study is the existing ratio of improved park land to population as shown in Table 3.2.
Level-of-Service Standard for Park Improvement Impact Fees (Applies to All Residential Development). The standard used to calculate impact fees for park improvements in this study is the existing ratio of improved park land to population as shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.1: Existing Parks
Park Park City-Owned Improved
Name Type Park Acres Park Acres
Edward Ray Park Community 24.00 24.00
R. C. Wisener Park Neighborhood 4.50 4.50
Veteran's Memorial Park Neighborhood 2.10 2.10
Legacy Ranch Park Site Neighborhood 6.50 0.00
Total 37.10 30.60
Source: City of Chowchilla General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element with additional information provided by City staff Table 3.2: Existing Level of Service
Total Improved
Park Acres 1
Existing
Population 2
Improved Acres
per Capita 3
Improved Acres
per 1,000 4
30.60 13,022 0.00235 2.35
1 See Table 3.1
2 See Table 2.2
3 Acres per capita = existing acres / existing population 4 Acres per 1,000 population = acres per capita X 1,000 City of Chowchilla Page 3-5
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Level of Service Standard for Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment. The park improvement impact fees also include the cost of park maintenance vehicles and equipment. The standard used to calculate impact fees for park maintenance vehicles and equipment in this study is the existing replacement cost per capita. Table 3.3 lists the City’s existing park maintenance vehicles and equipment less than twenty years old with the estimated replacement cost for each item. Replacement cost is used here to represent the cost of acquiring additional vehicles and equipment needed to maintain additional park acreage as the City grows.
Cost Per Capita
Table 3.4 calculates the existing level of service for park maintenance vehicles and equipment as a cost per capita using the total replacement cost from Table 3.3 and the existing population from Table 2.2.
Table 3.3: Existing Park Maintenance Vehicles & Equipment Description
Model
Year 1
Replacement
Cost 2
9N Tractor, Ford 1959 $ 25,000.00
Chevy Colorado Pick Up Truck 2006 $ 25,000.00
Chevy Silverado 2017 $ 35,000.00
Global Electric Car 2017 $ 20,000.00
Mower, Grasshopper 2017 $ 25,000.00
Chevy Silverado 1500 LD 2019 $ 35,000.00
Chevy Silverado 1500 LD 2019 $ 35,000.00
Dump Trailer 2019 $ 10,000.00
Tractor, Kubota 2020 $ 25,000.00
Backhoe Bucket, Kabuto 2020 $ 10,000.00
Loader Bucket, Kubota 2020 $ 5,000.00
Total $ 250,000.00
1 This table excludes vehicles and equipment over 20 years old 2 Replacement cost estimated by the City of Chowchilla Public Works Department
Table 3.4: Cost per Capita - Vehicles and Equipment
Total Replacement
Cost 1
Existing
Population 2
Cost per
Capita 3
$250,000.00 13,022 $19.20
1 See Table 3.3
2 See Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = total replacement cost / existing population City of Chowchilla Page 3-6
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Table 3.5 shows per-capita costs for park land in-lieu fees, park land impact fees and park improvement impact fees, based on the acres-per-capita standard for each type of fee and the estimated cost per acre for park land and park improvements. Because different standards are used for park land in-lieu fees for subdivisions and park land impact fees for non-subdivision projects, the cost per capita is calculated separately for those fee components.
In the next section, the per-capita costs from Tables 3.4 and 3.5 are used to calculate in-lieu fees and impact fees per unit of development.
In-Lieu Fees and Impact Fees per Unit
Park Land Acquisition In-Lieu Fees (Subdivisions). Table 3.6 shows the calculation of Quimby Act park land in-lieu fees per unit of development by development type. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 3.5 and average population per dwelling unit from Table 2.1.
Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees (Non-Subdivision Projects). Table 3.7 shows the calculation of park land impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 3.5 and average population per dwelling unit from Table 2.1.
Table 3.5: Cost per Capita - Park Land and Park Improvements Fee Type
Acres per
Capita 1
Cost per
Acre2
Cost per
Capita3
Park Land In-Lieu Fees 0.00300 $ 242,000 $ 726.00
Park Land Impact Fees 0.00235 $ 242,000 $ 568.70
Park Improvement Impact Fees 0.00235 $ 500,000 $ 1,175.00 1 Acres per capita for park land in-lieu fees based on 3.0 acres per 1,000 population (0.003 acres per capita) as provided in the Quimby Act; acres per capita for other fees based on the existing level of service; see Table 3.2 2 Park land acquisition cost per acre based on recent sales of residentially zoned parcels in the City; improvement cost per acre estimated by the City 3 Cost per capita = acres per capita X cost per acre
Table 3.6: Quimby Act Park Land In-Lieu Fees per Unit (Subdivisions) Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Population
per DU 3
In-Lieu Fee
per Unit 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $726.00 3.20 $2,323.20
Residential, Multi-Family DU $726.00 2.40 $1,742.40
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 3.5
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit City of Chowchilla Page 3-7
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Park Improvement Impact Fees (All Residential Development). Table 3.8 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of development, by development type, for park improvements. The park improvement impact fees also include the cost of park maintenance vehicles and equipment.
The park improvement impact fees are calculated using the combined per-capita costs for park improvements from Table 3.5 and park maintenance vehicles and equipment from Table 3.3.
Projected Revenue
Estimating potential revenue from the park land acquisition in-lieu and impact fees is complicated by the fact that there is no way of accurately forecasting how many future residential units will be in subdivisions, which are subject to the Quimby Act in-lieu fee, and how many will be in non-subdivision projects that pay the park land acquisition impact fee. The revenue projections in Table 3.9 assume that the City will adopt the Quimby Act in-lieu fees calculated in this chapter. Chowchilla currently charges Park land in-lieu fees based on density.
For simplicity, the revenue projected in Table 3.9 assumes that all future single-family detached units will be constructed in subdivisions and that 50% of future multi-family residential units will be townhouses and condominiums that involve subdivisions.
Table 3.7: Park Land Impact Fees per Unit (Non-Subdivision Projects) Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Population
per DU 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $568.70 3.20 $1,819.84
Residential, Multi-Family DU $568.70 2.40 $1,364.88
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 3.5
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit Table 3.8: Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Population
per DU 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $1,194.20 3.20 $3,821.43
Residential, Multi-Family DU $1,194.20 2.40 $2,866.08
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 Includes combined cost per capita for park improvements and park maintenance vehicles and equipment; see Tables 3.3 and 3.5 3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit City of Chowchilla Page 3-8
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
These revenue projections also assume that future development in the City will occur as forecasted in Chapter 2 and that the fees calculated in this chapter will be adjusted periodically to keep pace with changes in costs for park land and improvements.
Table 3.10 shows projected revenue from park land acquisition impact fees. This table assumes that the park land acquisition impact fees will apply to 50% of future multi-family residential units.
Table 3.11 shows projected revenue from park improvement impact fees, including the cost of park maintenance vehicles and equipment.
Table 3.9: Projected Revenue from Park Land In-Lieu Fees Development In-Lieu Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1
per Unit 2Units 3Revenue 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $2,323.20 4,248 $ 9,868,954 Residential, Multi-Family DU $1,742.40 1,791 $ 3,119,767 Total $ 12,988,721
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 3.6
3 See Table 2.3; this table assumes that 100% of new single-family units and 50% of new multi-family units will be constructed in subdivisions 4 Projected revenue = fee per unit X future units
Table 3.10: Projected Revenue from Park Land Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1
per Unit 2Units 3Revenue 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $1,819.84 0 $ 0
Residential, Multi-Family DU $1,364.88 1,791 $ 2,443,818 Total $ 2,443,818
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 3.7
3 See Table 2.3; this table assumes that no new single-family units and 50% of new multi-family units will be constructed in non-subdivision projects 4 Projected revenue = fee per unit X future units
City of Chowchilla Page 3-9
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Updating the Fees
The in-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated cost of park land and improvements. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for parks in Chowchilla.
Table 3.11: Projected Revenue from Park Improvement Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1
per Unit 2Units 3Revenue 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $3,821.43 4,248 $ 16,233,454 Residential, Multi-Family DU $2,866.08 3,581 $ 10,263,418 Total $ 26,496,871
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 3.8
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = fee per unit X future units
City of Chowchilla Page 3-10
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City.
As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential development in Chowchilla.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the need for parksto maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional parks, the increase in population associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the park impact fees charged to a residential development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential development are based on the estimated average population per unit for that type of development in Chowchilla. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for parks in the City.
City of Chowchilla Page 4-1
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Chapter 4. Fire Facilities
This chapter calculates impact fees for fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus and equipment needed to serve future development in the area served by the City of Chowchilla (City). Where the general term “facilities” is used in this chapter, it is intended to include all types of capital assets needed by the City to carry out its mission.
At present, the City operates one fire station. The station is owned by the City has recently been expanded to include sleeping quarters, training space, and extra bays for equipment. The City anticipates that three additional stations will be needed to serve future development at buildout.
Service Area
The service area for impact fees calculated in this chapter is the Planning Area shown in the City of Chowchilla General Plan. Those fees are intended to apply to all future development in the City.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a certain type of capital facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for fire facilities in this report is calls for service per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed the 456 Fire Department calls for service logged by the City in calendar year 2020 to estimate the number of calls per unit per year generated by each type of development defined in this study. Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 shows the calls per unit per year factors derived from that analysis. Those factors are used to calculate impact fees per unit later in this chapter.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in Chapter
1. Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development.
Level of Service
In this case, the standard used to calculate impact fees is the existing level of service, defined as the replacement cost of existing fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment divided by the total 2020 calls for service to get a cost per call for service per year.
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. Among other things, after January 1, 2022, that section requires that if the level of service used in an impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, the higher level of service must be justified. Using the existing level of service as the basis for the impact fees calculated in this chapter is consistent with the requirements of AB 602.
City of Chowchilla Page 4-2
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
Table 4.1 lists the estimated replacement cost of the City’s existing fire station, including its recent expansion.
Table 4.2 lists the City’s existing firefighting apparatus and other vehicles and equipment. Costs for all vehicles and equipment reflect the estimated current dollar replacement costs as provided by City staff.
Table 4.3 summarizes the costs from the preceding tables and adds the existing cash balance of the Fire Impact Fee Fund.
Table 4.1: Existing Fire Stations
Constr Building Site Bldg Repl Est Land Impact Fee
Facility Date Sq Ft 1
Acres 2Cost 3 Cost 4Cost Basis 5
Fire Station 1 1999 5,710 0.60 $ 1,461,078 $145,200 $ 1,606,278 Fire Station 1 Expansion 2021 4,500 0.00 $ 1,166,000 $ 0 $ 1,166,000 Total $ 2,772,278
1 Existing station sourced from City asset records
2 Provided by City staff
3 Replacement cost for existing station sourced from City insured property schedule; expansion cost provided by City staff.
4 Land acquisition cost per acre based on recent sales of land in the City at $242,000 per acre 5 Impact fee cost basis = sum of building replacement cost and site cost or value Table 4.2: Existing Fire Apparatus and Vehicles
Model Replacement
Year Description Cost 1
1936 Ford Fire Engine #2 $ 0
1991 IH Navistar Fire Engine #6 $ 700,000
1995 MQ Power 125 KVA Generator $ 80,000
1999 Ford F-150 Pickup Truck $ 60,000
2000 Forklift $ 30,000
2005 Int Fire Engine #7 $ 700,000
2009 Ford F-550 4 X 4 (Mini Pumper) $ 400,000
2009 Scotty Fire Prevention Trailer $ 60,000
2016 Freightliner Water Truck $ 400,000
2017 Rosenbauer Fire Engine #4 $ 700,000
2019 Chevy Silverado Pick Up $ 60,000
2019 Dodge Ram 1500 $ 60,000
Total $ 3,250,000
1 Replacement cost provided by the City of Chowchilla
City of Chowchilla Page 4-3
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Cost per Call for Service
Table 4.4 calculates the cost per call for service for City fire facilities, apparatus and equipment using the total cost from Table 4.3 and the existing number of calls for service per year.
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 4.5 shows the calculation of fire facilities impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the cost per call for service from Table 4.4 and the calls-per-unit-per-year factors from Table 2.1.
Table 4.3: Impact Fee Cost Basis - Existing Assets
Total
Component Cost Basis 1
Existing Fire Stations $ 2,772,278
Existing Fire Apparatus and Vehicles $ 3,250,000
Fire Impact Fee Fund Balance $ 360,188
Total Cost $ 6,382,466
1 See Tables 4.1, and 4.2; DIF fund balance as of 6/30/21 Table 4.4: Cost per Call for Service
Total Existing Calls Cost per Call
Cost Basis1
for Service 2for Service 3
$6,382,466 456 $13,996.64
1 Total cost basis; see Table 4.3
2 Existing Fire calls for service per year ; see Table 2.2 3 Cost per call for service = total facility cost / existing calls for service per year
City of Chowchilla Page 4-4
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the fire facilities impact fees can be estimated by applying the fees per unit from Table 4.5 to forecasted future units from Table 2.3. Table 4.6 shows the projected revenue to buildout from the fire facilities impact fees calculated in this chapter. This projection assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2.
Table 4.5 Impact Fee per Unit
Development Cost per CFS Impact Fee
Type Units 1
CFS 2per Unit 3
per Unit 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $13,996.64 0.073 $ 1,017.51 Residential, Multi-Family DU $13,996.64 0.058 $ 818.79
Retail/Service Commercial KSF $13,996.64 0.153 $ 2,148.32 Professional Office KSF $13,996.64 0.047 $ 659.84
Skilled Nursing Facility Bed $13,996.64 0.030 $ 419.90
Industrial KSF $13,996.64 0.034 $ 481.13
Public Facilities/Institutions KSF $13,996.64 0.172 $ 2,412.85 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area 2 Cost per call for service; see Table 4.4
3 Calls for service per unit; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call for service X calls for service per unit Table 4.6 Projected Revenue
Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1
per Unit 2Units 3Revenue 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $ 1,017.51 4,248 $ 4,322,397 Residential, Multi-Family DU $ 818.79 3,581 $ 2,932,079 Retail/Service Commercial KSF $ 2,148.32 873 $ 1,874,654 Professional Office KSF $ 659.84 119 $ 78,729
Skilled Nursing Facility Bed $ 419.90 214 $ 89,716
Industrial KSF $ 481.13 1,489 $ 716,410
Total $ 10,013,986
1 DU=dwelling unit; KSF=1,000 gross squre feet of building area 2 Impact fee per unit see Table 4.5
3 Future units see Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = future units X impact fee per unit City of Chowchilla Page 4-5
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Although Table 4.5 establishes an impact fee for Public Facilities and Institutions, the City either may not have authority, or may not be likely to charge impact fees to other governmental agencies. Consequently, no projected revenue is attributed to public facilities in Table 4.6.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated replacement costs for fire facilities, with depreciation as shown in this chapter. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for fire facilities, apparatus and vehicles provided by the City of Chowchilla.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional fire facilities, apparatus and vehicles to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for those capital assets in the City. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional fire facilities, apparatus and vehicles and to serve the added demand for fire protection and other emergency services associated with new development in Chowchilla.
City of Chowchilla Page 4-6
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the demand for fire protection and other emergency services provided by the City. Without additional facilities, apparatus and equipment, the increase in demand associated with new development would negatively impact the ability of the City of Chowchilla to provide services efficiently and effectively to all development in the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the fire facilities impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated calls for service per unit per year for that type of development in the City’s service area. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the overall need for facilities, apparatus and equipment used by the City to serve development in the City.
City of Chowchilla Page 5-1
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Chapter 5. Police Facilities
This chapter calculates impact fees for police facilities needed to serve future development in the area served by the City of Chowchilla (City).
At present, the City operates one police station. The station is owned by the City has recently been improved to include a security fence around the perimeter. The City expects that future police facilities needed to serve future development will include a sub-station on the east side of State Route 99. Much of the City’s planned future development is east of SR 99, which divides the City.
As discussed in more detail below, the police facilities impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service, defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of the City’s existing police facilities and equipment and the number of calls for service generated by existing development in the City.
Service Area
The service area for impact fees calculated in this chapter is the Planning Area shown in the City of Chowchilla General Plan. Those fees are intended to apply to all future development in the City.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a certain type of capital facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for police facilities in this report is calls for service per year.
As part of this study, NBS analyzed a random sample of the 27,757 calls for service logged by the City between June 30, 2020 and June 30, 2021 to estimate the number of calls per unit per year generated by each type of development defined in this study. Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 shows the calls per unit per year factors derived from that analysis. Those factors are used to calculate impact fees per unit later in this chapter.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in Chapter
1. Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development.
Level of Service
In this case, the standard used to calculate impact fees is the existing level of service, defined as the replacement cost of existing police facilities equipment divided by the total calls for service per year to get a cost per call for service per year.
City of Chowchilla Page 5-2
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. Among other things, after January 1, 2022, that section requires that if the level of service used in an impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, the higher level of service must be justified. Using the existing level of service as the basis for the impact fees calculated in this chapter is consistent with the requirements of AB 602.
Existing Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Table 5.1 lists the replacement cost of the City’s existing police station, including its recent security fence improvement, and the cost basis used in the impact fee calculations.
Table 5.2 on the following page lists the City’s existing police vehicles and equipment. Costs for all vehicles and equipment reflect the estimated current dollar replacement costs as provided by City staff.
Table 5.1: Existing Police Station
Constr Building Site Bldg Repl Est Land Impact Fee
Facility Date Sq Ft 1
Acres 2Cost 3 Value 4Cost Basis 5
Police Station 1977 12,312 0.964 $ 5,421,817 $ 252,472 $5,674,289 Police Parking 1977 3,072 included $ 140,250 $ - $ 140,250 Security Fence 2021 - included $ 1,532,925 $ - $1,532,925 Total $7,347,464
1 Sourced from City asset records
2 Provided by City staff
3 Replacment cost sourced from current City insured property schedule; security fence cost provided by the City
4 Land acquisition cost per acre based on recent sales of land in the City at $242,000/acre 5 Impact fee cost basis = sum of building replacement cost and site value City of Chowchilla Page 5-3
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Table 5.3 summarizes the costs from the preceding tables and adds the existing cash balance of the Police Impact Fee Fund.
Table 5.2: Existing Police Vehicles and Equipment
Model Replacement
Year Description Cost 1
2004 Olympian 200KW Generator $ 46,000
2014 Cameras $ 15,980
2014 Ford Explorer $ 71,478
2014 Ford Taurus Sedan $ 42,207
2014 Ford Explorer $ 71,478
2014 Ford Explorer $ 71,478
2015 911 system $ 137,985
2015 Evidence Refrigerator $ 9,422
2016 Ford Explorer $ 71,478
2017 Ford SUV Interceptor $ 71,478
2017 Ford Interceptor Utility $ 71,478
2017 Kawasaki Pro 6 Passenger $ 18,689
2018 Ford Fusion $ 22,167
2018 Ford Fusion $ 22,894
2018 Global Electric Car $ 23,212
2018 Global Electric Car $ 23,212
2019 Ford Explorer $ 57,968
2019 F-250 Super Cab $ 53,909
2020 Ford Explorer $ 71,478
2020 Ford Explorer $ 71,478
2020 Ford Explorer $ 71,478
2020 Ford Interceptor $ 71,478
2021 Dodge Charger $ 71,478
2020 Ford Explorer SUV $ 71,478
2021 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 $ 35,200
2022 CAD RMS Computer System $ 300,297
Total $ 1,666,880
1 Replacement cost provided by the City of Chowchilla
City of Chowchilla Page 5-4
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Cost per Call for Service
Table 5.4 calculates the cost per call for service for City police facilities using the total cost from Table 5.3 and the number of calls for service per year for existing development.
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 5.5 shows the calculation of police facilities impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the cost per call for service from Table 5.4 and the calls-per-unit-per-year factors from Table 2.1.
Table 5.3: Impact Fee Cost Basis - Existing Assets
Total
Component Cost Basis 1
Existing Police Station $ 7,347,464
Existing Police Vehicles and Equipment $ 1,666,880
Total Cost $ 9,014,344
1 See Tables 5.1 and 5.2
2 Impact Fee Fund cash balance provided by City Finance Department as of 6/30/21
Table 5.4 Cost per Call for Service
Total Existing Calls Cost per Call
Cost Basis1
for Service 2for Service 3
$9,014,344 27,758 $324.75
1 Total cost basis; see Table 5.3
2 Existing calls for service per year; see Table 2.2
3 Cost per call for service = total cost basis / existing calls for service per year
City of Chowchilla Page 5-5
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the police facilities impact fees can be estimated by applying the fees per unit from Table 5.5 to forecasted future units from Table 2.3. Table 5.6 shows the projected revenue to buildout from the police facilities impact fees calculated in this chapter. This projection assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2.
Although Table 5.5 establishes an impact fee for Public Facilities and Institutions, the City either may not have authority, or may not be likely to charge impact fees to other governmental agencies. Consequently, no revenue is projected for public facilities.
Table 5.5 Impact Fee per Unit
Development Cost per CFS Impact Fee
Type Units 1
CFS 2per Unit 3per Unit 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $324.75 3.25 $ 1,055.97
Residential, Multi-Family DU $324.75 2.56 $ 831.58
Retail/Service Commercial KSF $324.75 19.15 $ 6,219.99
Professional Office KSF $324.75 4.40 $ 1,428.89
Skilled Nursing Facility Bed $324.75 1.31 $ 425.42
Industrial KSF $324.75 0.66 $ 215.57
Public Facilities/Institutions KSF $324.75 20.19 $ 6,557.96 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area 2 Cost per call for service; see Table 5.4
3 Calls for service per unit; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X calls for service per unit Table 5.6 Projected Revenue
Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1
per Unit 2Units 3Revenue 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $ 1,055.97 4,248 $ 4,485,762 Residential, Multi-Family DU $ 831.58 3,581 $ 2,977,900 Retail/Service Commercial KSF $ 6,219.99 873 $ 5,427,647 Professional Office KSF $ 1,428.89 119 $ 170,489
Skilled Nursing Facility Bed $ 425.42 214 $ 90,896
Industrial KSF $ 215.57 1,489 $ 320,977
Total $ 13,473,671
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq. ft. of building area; Bed = patient bed 2 Impact fee per unit see Table 5.5
3 Future units see Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units City of Chowchilla Page 5-6
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated replacement costs for police facilities, with depreciation as shown in this chapter. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for police facilities provided by the City of Chowchilla.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional police facilities to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for those facilities in the City.
As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional police facilities and to serve the added demand for police protection associated with new development in Chowchilla.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the demand for police protection provided by the City. Without additional facilities, the increase in demand associated with new development would negatively impact the ability of the City of Chowchilla to provide services efficiently and effectively to all development in the City.
City of Chowchilla Page 5-7
Development Impact Fee Study
April 26, 2022
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the police facilities impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that project.
The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated calls for service per unit per year for that type of development in the City’s service area. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the overall need for facilities used by the City to serve development in the City.
City of Chowchilla Page 6-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Chapter 6. Street System Impact Fees
This chapter calculates impact fees for street system improvements including street widening, intersections or roundabouts, bridges and interchanges needed to serve future development.
Service Area
The service area for impact fees calculated in this chapter is the Planning Area shown in the City of Chowchilla General Plan. Those fees are intended to apply to all future development in the study area.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. Planbased fees are calculated by allocating costs for a defined set of improvements to a defined set of land uses that will be served by the improvements. The costs used to calculate impact fees in this chapter are for improvements needed to serve future development identified in this report.
Demand Variable
In this analysis, the impact of new development on the need for street improvements is represented by new P.M. Peak Hour Trips (PHT) associated with future development. Peak hour trip generation rates are from the Institution of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 10th edition and are based on the P.M. peak hour of the adjacent street.
Level of Service
The improvements listed in this chapter are based on the level of service standard established in the Chowchilla General Plan Circulation Element. Specifically, the Circulation Element establishes an overall Level of Service (LOS) C standard but allows LOS D for peak traffic in some instances.
AB 602, adopted in 2021, requires that impact fees based on a level of service higher than the existing level of service be justified. The street system improvements on which impact fees are calculated in this chapter are based on level of service standard adopted in the General Plan Circulation Element, which has not changed since 2010.
Improvement Costs
Table 6.1 summarizes estimated costs for street, intersection, bridge and interchange improvements needed to serve future development in the City of Chowchilla. The improvements listed in Table 6.1 have been identified by the City of Chowchilla Public Works Director. The costs used in the impact fee calculations do not include costs that will be funded by Measure T.
New development’s percentage share of the City’s share of the project costs shown in Table 6.1 reflects the fact that 61.9% of projected 2040 peak hour trips will be generated by new development forecasted in this report. The remaining costs must be funded from revenue sources other than impact fees.
City of Chowchilla Page 6-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Cost per Peak Hour Trip
In Table 6.2, the total impact fee cost basis from Table 6.1 is divided by the projected number of peak hour trips to be added by new development out to 2040 to get a cost per peak hour trip.
That cost per peak hour trip will be used in the next section to calculate impact fees per unit, by development type.
Impact Fees per Unit of Development
Impact fees per unit of development are calculated in Table 6.3 for each type of development defined in this study. The cost per peak hour trip from Table 6.2 is multiplied by the number of peak hour trips per unit for each type of development to arrive at an impact fee per unit.
Table 6.1: Street Improvements
Improvement Estimated Measure T City Share of New Dev Impact Fee Type Project Cost 1Funding Project Cost 2 % Share 3
Cost Basis 4
SR 99/233 Interchange (Roundabouts) $ 19,000,000 $ 12,500,000 $ 6,500,000 61.9% $ 4,021,739 East-West SR 99 Overcrossing $ 26,000,000 $ 26,000,000 61.9% $ 16,086,957 Fig Tree Road (Widen to 4 lanes) $ 1,950,000 $ 1,950,000 100.0% $ 1,950,000 Montgomery Lake Way (Widen to 4 lanes) $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 100.0% $ 1,800,000 Chowchilla Blvd (Widen to 4 lanes) $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 100.0% $ 7,500,000 Washington Ave Widen (to 4 lanes) $ 2,600,000 $ 2,600,000 100.0% $ 2,600,000 Total Street Improvements $ 58,850,000 $ 46,350,000 73.3% $ 33,958,696 1 Project costs estimated costs by the City of Chowchilla Public Works Director; details available from the Public Works Department
2 City share of project cost = estimated project cost less Measure T funding 3 Where project costs are shared between existing and new development, the percentage of cost attributed to new development is based on the percentage of total projected 2040 generated by new development 4 Impact fee cost basis = City share of project cost X new development % share Table 6.2: Cost per Peak Hour Trip
Impact Fee Added Peak Cost per Peak
Cost Basis 1Hour Trips 2
Hour Trip 3
$33,958,696 10,774 $3,151.94
1 See Table 6.1
2 See Table 2.3
3 Cost per peak hour trip = impact fee cost basis / added peak hour trips from Table 2.3
City of Chowchilla Page 6-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the road impact fees calculated in this chapter can be projected by applying the impact fees per unit of development from Table 6.3 to forecasted future units as shown in Table 2.3. The results are shown in Table 6.4.
It is important to note that, although an impact fee for Public Facilities and Institutions is calculated in Table 6.3, the City has limited authority to impose impact fees on county or state facilities or public schools. Consequently, no revenue is shown for that development type in Table Table 6.3: Street Impact Fees per Unit
Development Cost per Pk Pk Hr Trips Impact Fee
Type Units 1
Hr Trip 2per Unit 3
per Unit 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $3,151.94 0.99 $ 3,120.42 Residential, Multi-Family DU $3,151.94 0.56 $ 1,765.09
Retail/Service Commercial KSF $3,151.94 3.81 $ 12,008.89 Professional Office KSF $3,151.94 1.15 $ 3,624.73
Skilled Nursing Facilities Bed $3,151.94 0.22 $ 693.43
Industrial KSF $3,151.94 0.53 $ 1,670.53
Public Facilities/Institutions KSF $3,151.94 0.94 $ 2,962.82 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq. feet of building area; Bed = patient bed
2 See Table 6.2
3 Peak hour trips per unit; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per peak hour trip X peak hour trips per unit Table 6.4: Street Impact Fees - Projected Revenue
Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1
per Unit 2Units 3Revenue 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $ 3,120.42 4,248 $ 13,255,548 Residential, Multi-Family DU $ 1,765.09 3,581 $ 6,320,775 Retail/Service Commercial KSF $ 12,008.89 873 $ 10,479,124 Professional Office KSF $ 3,624.73 119 $ 432,487
Skilled Nursing Facilities Bed $ 693.43 214 $ 148,158
Industrial KSF $ 1,670.53 1,489 $ 2,487,420
Total $ 33,123,512
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area; Bed = patient bed
2 Impact fee per unit; see Table 6.3
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units City of Chowchilla Page 6-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
6.4. The costs allocated to Public Facilities and Institutions amount to about 2.5% of the total impact fee cost basis shown in Table 6.1
Assuming that development occurs, and improvements are constructed, as anticipated in this study, the revenue projected in Table 6.4 would cover approximately 60% of the City’s share of improvement costs shown in Table 6.1.
Updating the Fees
Impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated costs for street system improvements. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for street system improvements needed to serve new development in Chowchilla.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for street system improvements in the City.
As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.
City of Chowchilla Page 6-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to construct improvements to the City’s street system to accommodate additional traffic associated with new development in Chowchilla.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases traffic volumes and creates a need for street system improvements to maintain an adequate level of service on the City’s street system.
Without those improvements, the increase in traffic associated with new development would subject the City to increased traffic congestion and a reduction in air quality.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the street system impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in peak hour vehicle trips associated generated by that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the P. M. Peak Hour Trip generation rate per unit for that type of development. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the City’s street system.
City of Chowchilla Page 7-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Chapter 7. Traffic Signal Impact Fees
This chapter calculates impact fees for traffic signals needed to serve additional traffic that will be generated by future development.
Service Area
The service area for impact fees calculated in this chapter is the Planning Area shown in the City of Chowchilla General Plan. Those fees are intended to apply to all future development in the study area.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. Planbased fees are calculated by allocating costs for a defined set of improvements to a defined set of land uses that will be served by the improvements. The costs used to calculate impact fees in this chapter are estimated costs for traffic signals needed to serve future development.
Demand Variable
In this analysis, the impact of new development on the need for traffic signals is represented by new P.M. Peak Hour Trips (PHT) associated with future development. Peak hour trip generation rates are from the Institution of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 10th edition and are based on the P.M. peak hour of the adjacent street.
Level of Service
The improvements listed in this chapter are based on the level of service standard established in the Chowchilla General Plan Circulation Element. Specifically, the Circulation Element establishes an overall Level of Service (LOS) C standard but allows LOS D for peak traffic in some instances.
AB 602 requires that impact fees based on a level of service higher than the existing level of service be justified. The traffic signals needed to serve future development are needed to maintain the level of service standard adopted in the General Plan Circulation Element, which has not changed since 2010.
Traffic Signal Costs
Table 7.1 summarizes estimated costs for traffic signals needed to serve new development in the City of Chowchilla. The need for traffic signals listed in Table 7.1 has been identified by the City of Chowchilla Public Works Director. The entire cost of planned new traffic signals shown in Table
7.1 is included in the impact fee calculations because the need for those signals is created by new development.
City of Chowchilla Page 7-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Cost per Peak Hour Trip
In Table 7.2, the total impact fee cost basis from Table 7.1 is divided by the number of peak hour trips forecasted to be added by new development out to 2040 to get a cost per peak hour trip.
That cost per peak hour trip will be used in the next section to calculate impact fees per unit, by development type.
Impact Fees per Unit of Development
Impact fees per unit of development are calculated in Table 7.3 for each type of development defined in this study. The cost per peak hour trip from Table 7.2 is multiplied by the number of peak hour trips per unit for each type of development to arrive at an impact fee per unit.
Table 7.1: Summary of Traffic Signals Costs
Traffic Signal Estimated New Dev Impact Fee
Location Cost 1 % Share 2
Cost Basis 3
West Robertson/Avenue 24 $ 400,000 100.0% $ 400,000
West Robertson/Palm Parkway $ 400,000 100.0% $ 400,000
West Robertson/Washington Ave. $ 400,000 100.0% $ 400,000 West Robertson/11th St $ 400,000 100.0% $ 400,000
Ave 24/Future N/S Collector $ 400,000 100.0% $ 400,000
Ave 24/Chowchilla Blvd. $ 400,000 100.0% $ 400,000
Ave 24 1/2/Road 16 $ 400,000 100.0% $ 400,000
Washington Ave/Future N/S Collector $ 400,000 100.0% $ 400,000 East Robertson Blvd/Future N/S Collector $ 400,000 100.0% $ 400,000 East Robertson Blvd/Fig Tree Road $ 400,000 100.0% $ 400,000 East Robertson Blvd/Club House Dr. $ 400,000 100.0% $ 400,000 Total Street Improvements $ 4,400,000 100.0% $ 4,400,000 1 Traffic signal costs estimated costs by the City of Chowchilla Public Works Director; details available from the Public Works Department
2 100% of the costs for future traffic signals are attributed to new development because the need for those signals is created by new development 3 Impact fee cost basis = estimated cost X new development % share Table 7.2: Cost per Peak Hour Trip
Impact Fee Added Peak Cost per Peak
Cost Basis 1Hour Trips 2Hour Trip 3
$4,400,000 10,774 $408.39
1 See Table 7.1
2 See Table 2.3
3 Cost per peak hour trip = impact fee cost basis / added peak hour trips
City of Chowchilla Page 7-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the traffic signal impact fees calculated in this chapter can be projected by applying the impact fees per unit of development from Table 7.3 to forecasted future units as shown in Table 2.3. The results are shown in Table 7.4.
It is important to note that, although an impact fee for Public Facilities and Institutions is calculated in Table 7.3, the City has limited authority to impose impact fees on county or state facilities or public schools. Consequently, no revenue is shown for that development type in Table Table 7.3: Traffic Signals Impact Fees per Unit
Development Cost per Pk Pk Hr Trips Impact Fee
Type Units 1
Hr Trip 2per Unit 3
per Unit 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $408.39 0.99 $ 404.31
Residential, Multi-Family DU $408.39 0.56 $ 228.70
Retail/Service Commercial KSF $408.39 3.81 $ 1,555.98
Professional Office KSF $408.39 1.15 $ 469.65
Skilled Nursing Facilities Bed $408.39 0.22 $ 89.85
Industrial KSF $408.39 0.53 $ 216.45
Public Facilities/Institutions KSF $408.39 0.94 $ 383.89 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Bed = patient bed
2 See Table 7.2
3 Peak hour trips per unit; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per peak hour trip X peak hour trips per unit Table 7.4: Traffic Signals Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected
Type Units 1
Fee per Unit 2Units 3Revenue 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $ 404.31 4,248 $ 1,717,510 Residential, Multi-Family DU $ 228.70 3,581 $ 818,978
Retail/Service Commercial KSF $ 1,555.98 873 $ 1,357,771 Professional Office KSF $ 469.65 119 $ 56,037
Skilled Nursing Facilities Bed $ 89.85 214 $ 19,197
Industrial KSF $ 216.45 1,489 $ 322,293
Total $ 4,291,786
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area
2 See Table 7.3
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units City of Chowchilla Page 7-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
7.4. The costs allocated to Public Facilities and Institutions amount to about 2.5% of the new development’s share of improvement costs shown in Table 6.1 Assuming that development occurs, and improvements are constructed, as anticipated in this study, the revenue projected in Table 7.4 would cover approximately 97.5% of the estimated traffic signal costs shown in Table 7.1.
Updating the Fees
Impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated cost for traffic signals. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data, vendor cost estimates or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for traffic signals necessary to serve new development in Chowchilla.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for traffic signals in the City.
As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.
City of Chowchilla Page 7-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to construct new traffic signals to accommodate additional traffic associated with new development in Chowchilla.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases traffic volumes and creates a need for additional traffic signals to maintain an adequate level of service on the City’s street system.
Without those additional signals, the City would not be able to manage the increased volumes of traffic generated by new development.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the traffic signal impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in peak hour vehicle trips associated generated by that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the P. M. Peak Hour Trip generation rate per unit for that type of development.
Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for traffic signals to manage the flow of traffic in the City.
City of Chowchilla Page 8-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Chapter 8. Public Buildings
This chapter calculates impact fees for Chowchilla’s public buildings, including the Civic Center and Corporation Yard, as well as general government vehicles.
Methodology
The method used to calculate impact feesin this chapter is the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1. The standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing level of service defined below.
Demand Variable
A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used to represent the impact of development on a particular type of facility. See Chapter 2 for a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors.
Chowchilla’s public buildings and vehicles provide services to both residential and non-residential development in the City, so the demand variable used to calculate impact fees for those facilities is service population, which represents both residential and non-residential development. See Chapter 2 for a detailed explanation of service population.
Level of Service
The standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing level of service defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of Chowchilla’s existing public buildings and vehicles and the City’s existing service population. Table 8.3 later in this chapter shows that standard as a cost per capita of service population.
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. Among other things, after January 1, 2022, that section requires that if the level of service used in an impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, the higher level of service must be justified. Using the existing level of service as the basis for the impact fees calculated in this chapter is consistent with the requirements of AB 602.
Service Area
The service area for impact fees calculated in this chapter is the Planning Area shown in the City of Chowchilla General Plan. Those fees are intended to apply to all future development in the City.
Existing Facilities and Vehicles
Table 8.1 on the next page lists the City’s existing public buildings with their estimated replacement cost and land value. Building replacement cost is used here because it will be necessary for the City to build additional public buildings to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows. The per-capita replacement cost of existing public buildings and vehicles (see City of Chowchilla Page 8-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Table 8.3) is used here as an indication of the cost of constructing additional facilities to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.
Note that in Table 8.1 the impact fee cost basis for the Civic Center is only 75% of the total cost because that facility is not at capacity. Only 75% of the existing building is currently occupied by the City. In addition, the replacement cost of the building has been reduced to account for the principal on outstanding bond debt ($3,565,000) and a loan from the General Fund ($524,552) and increased by the present value ($4,570,651) of interest cost to date on bonds used to fund construction of the Civic Center. The net effect of those adjustments is an increase of $481,099.
Table 8.2 lists the City’s existing general government vehicles with their replacement cost. As with public buildings, the per-capita replacement cost of existing vehicles is used here as an indication of the cost of maintaining the existing level of service as the City grows.
Table 8.1: Existing Public Buildings
Constr Building Site Building Est Land Existing Dev Impact Fee Facility Date Sq Ft 1
Acres 2Repl Cost 3 Value 4
Cost Share Cost Basis 5
Corp Yard Office 360 N 1st 1960 3,468 7.5 $ 715,513 $1,815,000 100% $ 2,530,513 Corp Yard Repair Shop 1950 1,598 0.0 $ 219,193 100% $ 219,193 Corp Yard Storage Shed 1950 576 0.0 $ 48,721 100% $ 48,721 Corp Yard Parks Shop 1950 1,739 0.0 $ 381,179 100% $ 381,179 Corp Yard Vehicle Shelter 2009 3,000 0.0 $ 166,724 100% $ 166,724 Corp Yard Parking Canopy 2000 1,400 0.0 $ 70,069 100% $ 70,069 Civic Center 130 S 2nd 2006 20,027 1.0 $9,155,953 $ 232,320 75% $ 7,041,205 Old Library (Surplus) 1940 7,000 0% $ 0
Total $ 10,457,604
1 Sourced from City asset records
2 Provided by City staff
3 Replacment cost sourced from current City Insured Property Schedule; Civic Center building replacement cost adjusted for outstanding debt and past interest paid on bond debt; see discussion in text 4 Land acquisition cost per acre based on recent sales of land in the City at $242,000 per acre 5 Impact fee cost basis = (building replacement cost + estimated land value) X existing development cost share City of Chowchilla Page 8-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Table 8.3 summarizes the costs from the preceding tables and adds the existing cash balance of the General City Facilities Impact Fee Fund. That balance is currently negative because of a loan from the City’s General Facilities Impact Fee Fund to the General Fund.
Cost per Capita of Service Population
Table 8.4 shows the existing cost per capita of service population for public buildings and general government vehicles and equipment based on the impact fee cost basis from Table 8.3 and the existing service population from Table 2.2. The total cost per capita shown in Table 8.4 is the overall existing level of service for the assets addressed in this chapter and is the standard used to calculate impact fees for those assets.
Table 8.2: Existing General Vehicles and Equipment
Model Replacement
Year Description Dept./Location Cost 1
2002 Ford F-250 Animal Shelter $ 40,000
2006 Ford F-250 Fleet Services $ 40,000
2014 Toyota Prius General Services $ 30,000
2014 Toyota Prius General Services $ 30,000
2001 Chevrolet Venture Van Information Services $ 25,000 150 HP Motor Corp Yard $ 15,000
Total $ 180,000
1 Replacement cost provided by the City of Chowchilla
Table 8.3: Impact Fee Cost Basis - Existing Assets
Total
Component Cost Basis 1
Existing Buildings $ 10,457,604
Existing Vehicles and Equipment $ 180,000
Total Cost $ 10,637,604
1 See Tables 8.1 and 8.2
Table 8.4 Cost per Capita
Total Existing Cost per
Cost Basis1Service Pop 2Capita 3
$10,637,604 15,576 $682.96
1 Total cost basis; see Table 8.3
2 Existing service population; see Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = total cost basis / existing service population
City of Chowchilla Page 8-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Impact Fees per Unit of Development
Impact fees per unit of development, by development type, are calculated in Table 8.5, using the cost per capita of service population from Table 8.4 and the service population per unit from Table 2.1.
Projected Revenue
Table 8.6 projects the total revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. That projection assumes that future development occurs as forecasted in this study. Revenue is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 8.5 to added units from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.
Table 8.5 Impact Fee per Unit
Development Cost per Svc Pop Impact Fee
Type Units 1
Capita 2per Unit 3per Unit 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $682.96 3.20 $ 2,185.47
Residential, Multi-Family DU $682.96 2.40 $ 1,639.10
Retail/Service Commercial KSF $682.96 1.24 $ 849.34
Professional Office KSF $682.96 1.00 $ 682.50
Skilled Nursing Facility Bed $682.96 1.07 $ 733.52
Industrial KSF $682.96 0.36 $ 242.67
Public Facilities/Institutions KSF $682.96 1.00 $ 682.50 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Bed = patient bed
2 Cost per capita; see Table 8.4
3 Service population per unit; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit City of Chowchilla Page 8-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Although Table 8.5 calculates an impact fee for Public Facilities and Institutions, the City either may not have authority or may choose not to charge impact fees to other governmental agencies. Consequently, no projected revenue is attributed to public facilities.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated replacement costs for existing general government facilities, vehicles, and equipment. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.
Table 8.6 Projected Revenue
Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1
per Unit 2Units 3Revenue 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $ 2,185.47 4,248 $ 9,283,887 Residential, Multi-Family DU $ 1,639.10 3,581 $ 5,869,633 Retail/Service Commercial KSF $ 849.34 873 $ 741,144
Professional Office KSF $ 682.50 119 $ 81,433
Skilled Nursing Facility Bed $ 733.52 214 $ 156,725
Industrial KSF $ 242.67 1,489 $ 361,333
Total $ 16,494,155
1 DU=dwelling unit; KSF=1,000 gross squre feet of building area 2 Impact fee per unit see Table 8.5
3 Future units see Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units City of Chowchilla Page 8-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to pay for the cost of public buildings and general government vehicles needed to mitigate the impact of new development in Chowchilla.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for future public buildings and general government vehicles needed to serve additional development in the City.
As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for the cost of public buildings and general government vehicles needed to maintain the existing level of service in Chowchilla as the City grows.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. All development creates a need for additional public buildings and general government vehicles. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will pay for additional assets needed to maintain the existing level of service in the City.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the public buildings and vehicles impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the amount of added service population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated service population per unit for that type of development in Chowchilla. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects that project’s proportionate share of the cost of the City’s public buildings and general government vehicles.
City of Chowchilla Page 9-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Chapter 9. Community and Recreation Centers
This chapter calculates impact fees for community and recreation center facilities needed to serve future development in the City.
Service Area
Chowchilla’s community and recreation centers serve the entire City. The service area for impact fees calculated in this chapter is the Planning Area shown in the City of Chowchilla General Plan.
Those fees are intended to apply to all future development in the study area.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for community and recreation centers is population.
Population is used as the demand variable for these fees because the need for community and recreation centers is commonly defined in terms of the size of the population to be served. Added population is used in this chapter to measure the impact of new development on the need for community and recreation center facilities.
Because population per dwelling unit varies by development type, the average population per unit is estimated for each type of residential development defined in this study. Those individual “demand factors” are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.
Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1.
Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development.
In this case, the standard is the existing level of service as discussed in the next section. This approach is used so that the community and recreation center impact fees paid by new development are based on the cost of maintaining the current level of service as the City grows.
Existing Facilities
Table 9.1 on the next page lists the City’s existing community and recreation centers with their square footage, building replacement cost and the site value for facilities not located in parks.
City of Chowchilla Page 9-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Level of Service
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for community and recreation centers.
Consequently, the level of service standard used to calculate impact fees for those facilities in this chapter is the existing level of service, that is, the relationship between the City’s existing population and the replacement cost of Chowchilla’s existing community and recreation centers.
That relationship is represented by a cost per capita, which is calculated in Table 9.2 using the impact fee cost basis from Table 9.1 and the existing population from Table 2.2 in Chapter 2.
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. Among other things, after January 1, 2022, that section requires that if the level of service used in an impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, the higher level of service must be justified. Using the existing level of service as the basis for the impact fees calculated in this chapter is consistent with the requirements of AB 602.
In the next section, the cost per-capita from Table 9.2 is used to calculate community and recreation center impact fees per unit of development, by development type.
Table 9.1: Existing Recreation Centers
Constr Building Site Bldg Repl Est Site Impact Fee
Facility Date Sq Ft 1
Acres 2
Cost 3 Value 4Cost Basis 5
Ed Ray S&L Park Community Center 1977 2,412 In Park $ 774,759 $ 0 $ 774,759 Senior Center 1950 5,081 0.802 $1,335,594 $194,084 $1,529,678 Total $2,304,437
1 Sourced from City asset records
2 Provided by City staff
3 Building replacement cost sourced from current City insured property schedule 4 Land value per acre based on recent sales of land in the City 5 Impact fee cost basis = sum of building replacement cost and site value Table 9.2 Cost per Capita
Impact Fee Existing Cost per
Cost Basis1
Population 2Capita 3
$2,304,437 13,022 $176.96
1 Total asset cost; see Table 9.1
2 Existing Population; see Table 2.2
3 Cost per Capita = total facility cost / existing population City of Chowchilla Page 9-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 9.3 shows the calculation of community and recreation center impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the cost per capita from Table 9.2 and average population per dwelling unit from Table 2.1.
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the community and recreation center impact fees can be estimated by applying the fees per unit from Table 9.3 to forecasted future units from Table 2.3. Because population is used as the demand variable in calculating these impact fees and population is a function of residential development, the fees apply only to residential development.
Table 9.4 shows the projected revenue from the community and recreation center impact fees calculated in this chapter. This projection assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated replacement costs for community and recreation center facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and Table 9.3: Recreation Center Impact Fees per Unit
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Population
per DU 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $176.96 3.20 $566.29
Residential, Multi-Family DU $176.96 2.40 $424.72
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 Cost per capita see Table 9.2
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit Table 9.4: Projected Revenue from Recreation Center Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1
per Unit 2Units 3Revenue 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $566.29 4,248 $ 2,405,590 Residential, Multi-Family DU $424.72 3,581 $ 1,520,907
Total $ 3,926,497
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 9.3
3 See Table 2.3
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit City of Chowchilla Page 9-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for community and recreation center facilities in Chowchilla.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional community and recreation center facilities to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for those facilities in the City.
As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional community and recreation center facilities to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential development in Chowchilla.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the need for community and recreation centers to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter.
Without additional community and recreation centers, the increase in population associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City.
City of Chowchilla Page 9-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the community and recreation center impact fees charged to a residential development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential development are based on the estimated average population per unit for that type of development in Chowchilla. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for community and recreation center facilities in the City.
City of Chowchilla Page 10-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Chapter 10. Storm Drainage Improvements
This chapter updates storm drainage impact fees originally calculated in 2004 by Giersch & Associates as part of a storm drainage master plan. The impact fees calculated by Giersch Associates are escalated to 2022 levels using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI).
The 2004 storm drainage impact fees used in this update are from Table 5 in a report titled “Drainage – Supplemental Report to the Findings of Compliance” by Giersch & Associates.
Service Area
The service area for impact fees calculated in this chapter is the area shown on the Master Plan – Storm Drainage System Map which is Plate 1 in the Giersch & Associates report cited above.
Methodology
The method used to calculate impact fees updated in this chapter is outlined in the Giersch & Associates report cited above
Level of Service
The level of service for storm drainage facilities used as a basis for the impact fees being updated in this chapter is explained in the Giersch & Associates report cited above. Because the master planned level of service has been in effect since 2004, it represents the existing level of service.
In 2021, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act. Among other things, after January 1, 2022, that section requires that if the level of service used in an impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service, the higher level of service must be justified. Using the existing level of service as the basis for the impact fees calculated in this chapter is consistent with the requirements of AB 602.
Impact Fees per Acre
Table 10.1 shows storm drainage improvement cost per acre by land use category as shown in Table 5 in the Giersch & Associates report. Table 10.1 also shows those costs escalated to 2022 levels using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI).
City of Chowchilla Page 10-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
In the report cited above, Giersch & Associates recommended that the City adopt impact fees that differed from the 2004 cost of improvements shown in Table 10.1. For some land use categories the recommended impact fees per acre were substantially lower than the cost per acre. For others they were higher. No explanation was given for the recommended fees. The City may choose to adopt impact fees that are lower than the 2022 cost per acre shown in Table 10.1, but fees above that level would not be justified.
Projected Revenue
This chapter does not project revenue from storm drainage impact fees because the land use categories used for the storm drainage improvement costs shown in Table 10.1 does not match the categories used in this report to forecast future development.
Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on cost estimates updated to 2022. We recommend that these fees be reviewed periodically and adjusted if necessary to reflect changes in costs. An index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index can be used for that purpose.
Table 10.1: Storm Drainage Improvement Cost per Acre
Land Use 2004 Improvement 2022 Improvement
Designation Cost per Acre 1
Cost per Acre 2
Residential - Low Density $ 4,004.00 $ 7,259.25
Residential - Medium Density $ 5,329.00 $ 9,661.48
Residential - High Density $ 7,431.00 $ 13,472.40
Community Commercial $ 7,706.00 $ 13,970.98
Downtown Commercial $ 7,850.00 $ 14,232.05
Neighborhood Commercial $ 10,825.00 $ 19,625.73
Service Commercial $ 9,513.00 $ 17,247.07
Professional Office (Medical Arts) $ 6,126.00 $ 11,106.44 Light Industrial $ 12,186.00 $ 22,093.22
Heavy Industrial $ 12,207.00 $ 22,131.29
Public Facility $ 6,165.00 $ 11,177.15
Elementary School $ 2,875.00 $ 5,212.38
High School $ 11,039.00 $ 20,013.71
1 Improvement cost per acre from Table 5 in the "Drainage - Supplemental Report to the Findings of Compliance," November 2004, by Giersch & Assoc. 2 2022 improvement cost per acre escalated from 2004 improvement cost per acre using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI); 2004 Average CCI = 7115; April 2022 CCI = 12899; The factor used to escalate improvement costs from 2004 to 2022 = 12899 / 7115 = 1.813 City of Chowchilla Page 10-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of providing drainage system improvements to serve new development in Chowchilla.
Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for future drainage system improvements needed to serve future development in Chowchilla.
As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.
Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for the cost of drainage system improvements needed to serve new development in Chowchilla.
Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. All development generates storm water runoff in proportion to the amount of impervious surface area added by development. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will pay for drainage system improvements needed to serve new development in Chowchilla as projected in Chapter 2 of this report.
Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the storm drainage impact fees charged to a development project is related to the amount of impervious cover associated with that project.
The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are City of Chowchilla Page 10-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
based on the engineer’s estimates of the amount of storm water runoff per acre associated with that type of development.
City of Chowchilla Page 11-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Chapter 11. Water System Improvements
This chapter calculates capacity charges for water system improvements needed by the City of Chowchilla to serve future development. System improvements include water distribution pipelines, ground water wells, reservoir storage and related facilities.
Service Area
The service area addressed by improvements identified in this chapter is the Planning Area identified in the Chowchilla General Plan.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate capacity charges for water system improvements in this chapter is average day demand (ADD) in gallons per day.
Methodology
This chapter calculates water system capacity charges using the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. Plan-based fees are calculated by allocating costs for specific improvements to new development served by those improvements.
Level of Service
Level of service for a water system involves a number of considerations related to water supply, water quality, storage capacity, water pressure and reliability. The improvements identified in this chapter are needed to maintain an adequate level of service as the City’s water system is expanded to serve additional development.
Government Code Section 66016.5, added by AB 602 in 2021, states that, when applicable, a nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
However, that requirement does not apply to the water system capacity charges calculated in this chapter because it excludes fees or charges pursuant to Section 66013, which governs capacity charges for water and sewer systems.
System Improvement Needs
The water system improvements needed to serve future development projected in the City’s draft Water System Master Plan are listed in Table 11.1.
City of Chowchilla Page 11-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Cost per Gallon per Day
Table 11.2 converts the total cost of water system improvements from Table 11.1 into a cost per gallon per day of average day demand using the projected increase in system capacity provided by these improvements.
Capacity Charge per Unit
Table 11.3 calculates the water capacity charge per unit for each type of development defined in this study using the cost per GPD from Table 11.2 and the GPD per unit which is based on GPD per acre from the Water Master Plan demand projections and estimated units per acre based on the Land Use Element of the Chowchilla General Plan.
Table 11.1: Water System Improvements
Cost Unit Cost per Total
Component Type Units Unit Est Cost
8" Water Main LF 210,541 $ 60.00 $ 12,632,460
8" Gate Valve EA 316 $ 3,500.00 $ 1,106,000
12" Water Main LF 424,505 $ 80.00 $ 33,960,400
12" Gate Valve EA 637 $ 4,000.00 $ 2,548,000
10% Contingency $ 5,024,686
Subtotal Water Distribution $ 55,271,546
Groundwater Well EA 38 $ 1,750,000 $ 66,500,000
Water Storage Tank (0.75 MG) EA 1 $ 2,250,000 $ 2,250,000 Water Storage Tank (1.00 MG) EA 2 $ 2,500,000 $ 5,000,000 Water Storage Tank (1.25 MG) EA 1 $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 Pressure Sustaining Valve Station EA 16 $ 150,000 $ 2,400,000 10% Contingency $ 7,890,000
Subtotal Major Water Facilities $ 86,790,000
Total $ 142,061,546
Note: Water System Master Plan and cost estimates by Yamabe & Horn Engineering Table 11.2: Cost per Gallon per Day
Water System Added System Cost per Gallon
Improvement Cost 1Capacity (GPD) 2per Day (GPD) 3
$142,061,546 25,846,327 $5.496
1 See Table 11.1
2 Added demand to be served by Water Master Plan improvements based on demand projections by Yamabe & Horn Engineering 3 Cost per gallon per day (GPD) = water system improvement costs / added system capacity in gallons per day
City of Chowchilla Page 11-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Projected Revenue
Table 11.4 on the next page projects potential revenue from the water system capacity charge using the capacity charge per unit from Table 11.3 and added units from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.
These projections are in current dollars and are based only on future development forecasted in Chapter 2 of this report.
Table 11.3: Water Capacity Charge per Unit
Development Unit Cost per GPD per Units per GPD per Cap Charge Type Type 1
GPD 2Acre 3Acre 4Unit 5per Unit 6
Residential, Single-Family DU $5.496 2,500 5.50 454.55 $ 2,498.36 Residential, Multi-Family DU $5.496 3,200 12.50 256.00 $ 1,407.08 Retail/Service Commercial KSF $5.496 2,200 10.89 202.02 $ 1,110.38 Professional Office KSF $5.496 2,200 13.07 168.35 $ 925.32 Skilled Nursing Facility Bed $5.496 3,000 16.00 187.50 $ 1,030.57 Industrial KSF $5.496 2,050 15.25 134.46 $ 739.05
Public Facilities/Institutions KSF $5.496 1,200 13.07 91.83 $ 504.72 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building area; Bed = patient bed 2 See Table 11.2
3 Water demand in gallons per day per acre from Water Master Plan demand projections by Yamabe & Horn Engineering; GPD per acre for Multi-Family Residential based on a weighted average of the estimated demand from a mix of 80% Medium-High Density residential at 3,000 GPD per acre and 20% high density residential at 4,000 GPD per acre; GPD per acre for Indus- trial based on a weighted average of the estimated demand from a mix of 45% Light Industrial at 1,500 GPD per acre and 55% Heavy Industrial at 2,500 GPD per acre; GPD per acre for a Skilled Nursing Facility is assumed to be equivalent to Medium-High Density residential development 4 Units per acre estimated by NBS based on data from the General Plan Land Use Element 5 GPD per unit = GPD per acre / units per acre
6 Water capacity charge per unit = cost per GPD X GPD per Unit City of Chowchilla Page 11-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
The total revenue projected in Table 11.4 represents only about 12.5% of the total improvement cost shown in Table 11.1 because those improvements are designed to serve substantially more development than is forecasted in this study to occur by 2040.
Updating the Capacity Charges
The water system capacity charges calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated costs for water system improvements identified in this chapter. We recommend that the charges be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
Government Code Section 66013 exempts water capacity charges from the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act Sections 66000 through 66008, including the requirement that the governing body make findings regarding the purpose and use of the charges and to establish that there is a reasonable relationship between those charges and the impacts of development subject to the charges.
However, these capacity charges have been calculated in such a way as to establish a defensible nexus in terms of the relationship between the capacity charges and the burden imposed by development on the water system.
Table 11.4: Projected Revenue - Water Capacity Charges
Development Unit Cap Charge Future Projected
Type Type 1
per Unit 2Units 3Revenue 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $ 2,498.36 4,248 $ 10,613,033 Residential, Multi-Family DU $ 1,407.08 3,581 $ 5,038,740 Retail/Service Commercial KSF $ 1,110.38 873 $ 968,935
Professional Office KSF $ 925.32 119 $ 110,405
Skilled Nursing Facility Bed $ 1,030.57 214 $ 220,194
Industrial KSF $ 739.05 1,489 $ 1,100,451
Public Facilities/Institutions KSF $ 504.72 282 $ 142,274 Total $ 18,194,032
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building area; Bed = patient bed 2 Capacity charge per unit; see Table 12.3
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = capacity charge per unit X future units City of Chowchilla Page 12-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Chapter 12. Sewer System Improvements
This chapter calculates capacity charges for sewer system improvements needed by the City of Chowchilla to serve future development. System improvements include expansion of the sewer collection system and the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
Service Area
The service area addressed by improvements identified in this chapter is the area covered by the draft Sewer Master Plan.
Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate capacity charges for sewer system improvements in this chapter is average day wastewater generation in gallons per day (GPD).
Methodology
This chapter calculates sewer system capacity charges using the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. Plan-based fees are calculated by allocating costs for specific improvements to new development served by those improvements.
Level of Service
Level of service for a sewer system involves a number of considerations related to collection system capacity, treatment capacity and effluent quality. The improvements identified in this chapter are needed to maintain an acceptable level of service as the City’s sewer system is expanded to serve additional development.
Government Code Section 66016.5, added by AB 602 in 2021, states that, when applicable, a nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
However, that requirement does not apply to the sewer system capacity charges calculated in this chapter because it excludes fees or charges pursuant to Section 66013, which governs capacity charges for water and sewer systems.
System Improvement Needs
The sewer system improvements needed to serve future development projected in the City’s draft Sewer System Master Plan are listed in Table 12.1.
City of Chowchilla Page 12-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Cost per Gallon per Day
Table 12.2 converts the total cost of sewer system improvements from Table 12.1 into a cost per gallon per day of average wastewater generation using the projected increase in sewer system capacity provided by these improvements. It should be noted that the improvements shown in Table 12.1 and the associated improvement costs shown in Table 12.2 are designed to serve substantially more future development than is shown in Chapter 2 of this report. The potential revenue projected later in this chapter is based only on the future development forecast shown in Chapter 2 and represents only a small percentage of the total improvement cost shown in Table 12.2.
Table 12.1: Sewer System Improvements
Cost Unit Cost per Total
Component Type Units Unit Est Cost
10" Gravity Main LF 33,150 $ 80.00 $ 2,652,000
12" Gravity Main LF 22,312 $ 100.00 $ 2,231,200
15" Gravity Main LF 15,251 $ 120.00 $ 1,830,120
18" Gravity Main LF 19,410 $ 130.00 $ 2,523,300
21" Gravity Main LF 15,258 $ 140.00 $ 2,136,120
24" Gravity Main LF 26,799 $ 150.00 $ 4,019,850
27" Gravity Main LF 5,577 $ 160.00 $ 892,320
36" Gravity Main LF 9,220 $ 200.00 $ 1,844,000
Sewer Manhole EA 294 $ 6,000.00 $ 1,764,000
10% Contingency $ 1,989,291
Subtotal Collection System $ 21,882,201
Lift/Pump Station Incl. Force Main EA 5 $ 600,000 $ 3,000,000 WWTP Expansion EA 11.866 $ 7,500,000 $ 88,995,000
10% Contingency $ 9,199,500
Subtotal Major Sewer Facilities $ 101,194,500
Total $ 123,076,701
Table 12.2: Cost per Gallon per Day
Sewer System Added System Cost per Gallon
Improvement Cost 1Capacity (GPD) 2per Day (GPD) 3
$123,076,701 13,731,000 $8.963
1 See Table 12.1
2 Added demand to be served by Sewer Master Plan improvements based on demand projections by Yamabe & Horn Engineering 3 Cost per gallon per day (GPD) = sewer system improvement costs / added system capacity in gallons per day
City of Chowchilla Page 12-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Sewer System Capacity Charge per Unit
Table 12.3 calculates a sewer capacity charge per unit for planned sewer system improvements using the cost-per-gallon-per-day from Table 12.2 and estimated average day wastewater generation per unit in gallons per day.
Projected Revenue
Table 12.4 projects potential revenue from the sewer system capacity charge using the capacity charge per unit from 12.3 and added units from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2. These projections are in current dollars and are based only on future development forecasted in Chapter 2 of this report.
Table 12.3: Sewer Capacity Charge per Unit
Development Unit Cost per GPD per Units per GPD per Cap Charge Type Type 1
GPD 2Acre 3Acre 4Unit 5per Unit 6
Residential, Single-Family DU $8.963 1,400 5.50 254.55 $ 2,281.60 Residential, Multi-Family DU $8.963 2,160 12.50 172.80 $ 1,548.88 Retail/Service Commercial KSF $8.963 1,000 10.89 91.83 $ 823.09 Professional Office KSF $8.963 800 13.07 61.22 $ 548.72 Skilled Nursing Facility Bed $8.963 2,000 16.00 125.00 $ 1,120.43 Industrial KSF $8.963 965 15.25 63.30 $ 567.34
Public Facilities/Institutions KSF $8.963 800 13.07 61.22 $ 548.72 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building area; Bed = patient bed 2 See Table 12.2
3 Wastewater flow in gallons per day per acre from Sewer Master Plan demand projections by Yamabe & Horn Engineering; GPD per acre for Multi-Family Residential based on a weighted average of the estimated flows from a mix of 80% Medium-High Density residential at 2,000 GPD per acre and 20% high density residential at 2,800 GPD per acre; GPD per acre for Indus- trial based on a weighted average of the estimated flows from a mix of 45% Light Industrial at 800 GPD per day per acre and 55% Heavy Industrial at 1,100 GPD per acre; GPD per acre for a Skilled Nursing Facility is assumed to be equivalent to Medium-High Density residential development
4 Residential units per acre estimated by NBS based on data from the General Plan Land Use Element; non-residential units per acre based on the following floor area ratios (FARs):
retail/service commercial FAR = 0.25; professional office and public facilities/institutions FAR =
0.30; industrial FAR = 0.35
5 GPD per unit = GPD per acre / units per acre
6 Sewer capacity charge per unit = cost per GPD X GPD per Unit City of Chowchilla Page 12-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
The total revenue projected in Table 12.4 amounts to only about 14% of the system improvement cost shown in Table 12.1, because those improvements are designed to serve substantially more development than is forecasted in this study to occur by 2040.
Updating the Sewer Capacity Charges
The sewer system capacity charges calculated in this chapter are based on the current estimated costs for sewer system improvements identified in this chapter. We recommend that the charges be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Nexus Summary
Government Code Section 66013 exempts sewer capacity charges from the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act Sections 66000 through 66008, including the requirement that the governing body make findings regarding the purpose and use of the charges and to establish that there is a reasonable relationship between those charges and the impacts of development subject to the charges.
However, these capacity charges have been calculated in such a way as to establish a defensible nexus in terms of the relationship between the capacity charges and the burden imposed by development on the sewer system.
Table 12.4: Projected Revenue
Development Unit Cap Charge Future Projected
Type Type 1
per Unit 2Units 3
Revenue 4
Residential, Single-Family DU $ 2,281.60 4,248 $ 9,692,236.80 Residential, Multi-Family DU $ 1,548.88 3,581 $ 5,546,539.28 Retail/Service Commercial KSF $ 823.09 873 $ 718,239.56 Professional Office KSF $ 548.72 119 $ 65,470.88
Skilled Nursing Facility Bed $ 1,120.43 214 $ 239,392.41 Industrial KSF $ 567.34 1,489 $ 844,770.19
Public Facilities/Institutions KSF $ 548.72 282 $ 154,677.45 $ 17,261,326.56
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building area; Bed = patient bed 2 Capacity charge per unit; see Table 12.3
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = capacity charge per unit X future units City of Chowchilla Page 13-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Chapter 13. Administrative Fee
This chapter provides a cost-of-service analysis to substantiate an administrative fee that is added to each impact fee (see Executive Summary). This charge recovers the cost of accounting, reporting and other administrative activities required by the Mitigation Fee Act, as well as the cost of periodic updates to the impact fee study.
The following table establishes an Administration Fee for the impact fee program.
The table above includes the allocated costs of program administration as established by estimated annual costs required, and the annualized costs of completing a comprehensive impact fee analysis every five years. The projected and annualized revenue assumptions were developed throughout the various chapters included in the body of this report. Two percent of the impact fee amount is a widely implemented administrative fee in California for impact fee programs.
Comparatively, the fee calculated above for the City of Chowchilla’s program is well within the range of similar fees charged for other California local government agencies.
Administrative Costs of the Impact Fee Program
Annual Administration and Reporting $ 30,250 [1]
Annual Fee Analysis and Updates $ 10,000 [2]
Total Annual Costs $ 40,250
Projected Revenue $168,401,691 [3]
Annualized Revenue $ 8,420,085 [4]
Fee Program Administration as Percent of Fees 0.50%
Notes:
[1] Annual staff cost provided by Chowchilla Finance Department [2] Estimated and amortized cost of fee/nexus every five years, [3] Estimated revenue collected from impact fees through 2040/buildout [4] 20 year annualized revenue for analysis purposes
City of Chowchilla Page 14-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Chapter 14. Implementation
This chapter of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of impact fees, and for the interpretation and application of the development impact fees and in-lieu fees calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not intended as legal advice.
Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of development approval (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.). Requirements for park land dedication and fees in lieu of dedication are governed by the Quimby Act (Government Code 66477).
Adoption
The form in which development impact fees are enacted should be determined by the City attorney. The specific requirements are different for impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act, and for park land dedication and in-lieu fees under the Quimby Act. The latter requirements must be adopted by ordinance and are subject to the same noticing and public hearing procedures as any ordinance.
Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and publichearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062a, which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice during the 10-day notice period. However, Section 66016.5 added by AB 602 in 2021 requires that impact fee nexus studies be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30-days’ notice.
Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the governing body.
Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed below and in Chapter 1 of this report.
Establishment of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, Section 66001(a), when an agency establishes fees to be imposed as a condition of development approval, it must make findings to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee; and
3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed
City of Chowchilla Page 14-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
Examples of findings that could be used for impact fees calculated in this study are shown below.
The specific language of such findings should be provided by the City Attorney. A more complete discussion of the nexus for each fee can be found in individual chapters of this report.
Sample Finding: Purpose of the Fee. The City Council finds that the purpose of the impact fees hereby enacted is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by requiring new development to contribute to the cost of public facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development.
Sample Finding: Use of the Fee. The City Council finds that revenue from the impact fees hereby enacted will be used to provide public facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City and identified in the 2022 City of Chowchilla Development Impact Fee Study by NBS.
1 Sample Finding: Reasonable Relationship: Based on analysis presented in the 2022 City of Chowchilla Development Impact Fee Study by NBS, the City Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed; and,
b. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed.
Administration
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.
Imposition of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, Section 66001(a), when an agency imposes an impact fee upon a specific development project, it must make essentially the same findings adopted upon establishment of the fees to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee; and
3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed;
1 According to Gov’t Code Section 66001 (a) (2), the use of the fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. The findings recommended here identify this impact fee study as the source of that information. Also note that Section 66016.5 (a)(6) requires that large jurisdictions adopt a capital improvement plan as part of an impact fee nexus study. However, that requirement applies only in counties of 250,000 or more, so it does not apply to Chowchilla City of Chowchilla Page 14-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
b. The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed
Per Section 66001 (b), at the time when an impact fee is imposed on a specific development project, the City is also required to make a finding to determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project on which it is imposed.
In addition, Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." The required notification could refer to the improvements identified in this study or to a capital improvement plan.
Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee, provide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90-day period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to subsequent legal challenge.
Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007(a) provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.
However, "utility service fees" (not defined, but likely referring to water and sewer connections) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, Section 66007 (a) allows the agency to choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed.
Section 66007 (b) provides two exceptions when the local agency may require the payment of fees from developers of residential projects at an earlier time: (1) when the local agency determines that the fees “will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy” or (2) the fees are “to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made.”
Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non-residential development.
Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, some cities collect impact fees for all facilities at the time building or grading permits are issued, and builders may find it convenient to pay the fees at that time.
City of Chowchilla Page 14-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Sections 66007 (c) (1) and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid.
Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 (a) mandates that fees be deposited “with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected.” Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose.
The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., street improvements).
We are not aware of any municipality that has interpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual projects. And, as a practical matter, that approach would be unworkable because it would mean that no pay-as-you-go project could be constructed until all benefiting development had paid the fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, park improvements), but not for individual projects.
Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees.
If a project has characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly. Per Section 66001 (b), there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the development on relevant public facilities.
In some cases, the agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or economic development. Such a waiver or reduction is within the discretion of the governing body but may not result in increased costs to other development projects. So, the effect of such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from sources other than impact fees.
Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of project approval, to dedicate land or construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees are charged, the City should ensure that the impact fees are adjusted so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by the development.
City of Chowchilla Page 14-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land, or construct facilities or improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such offers, and may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted. Excess contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements.
Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant City facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that impact fee.
Annual Report. Section 66006 (b) (1) requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues:
1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund;
2. The amount of the fee;
3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;
5. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
6. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;
7. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;
8. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f).
The annual report must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public, per Section 66006 (b) (2).
Refunds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Prior to 1996, The Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit impact fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693, adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that requirement in material ways.
Now, Section 66001 (d) requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and every five years City of Chowchilla Page 14-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;
2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used;
4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund, per Section 66001 (d).
Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on incomplete improvements for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to procedures specified in Section 66001 (d).
Refunds under the Quimby Act. The Quimby Act, Section a.(6)(A) requires that a City, County or other agency to which park land or in-lieu fees are conveyed or paid shall develop a schedule “specifying how, when and where it will use the land or fees or both to develop park or recreational facilities to serve residents of the subdivision…. Any fees collected under the ordinance shall be committed within five years after the payment of the fees or the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. Any fees not committed within five years must be refunded.
Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 (b) of the Mitigation Fee Act provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative, per Section 66001 (a) (2) is to identify improvements by applicable general or specific plans or in other public documents. This study identifies improvements to be funded by impact fees any may qualify as the type of public document addressed in Section 66001 (a) (2).
Indexing of In-Lieu/Impact Fees. In-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this report are based on current costs and should be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by those fees. That adjustment is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other relevant capital assets. The Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI) and Construction Cost Index (CCI) are useful City of Chowchilla Page 14-7
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
for indexing construction costs. Where land costs are covered by an impact fee or in-lieu fee, land costs should be adjusted based on changes in local land prices.
Requirements Imposed by AB 602
In 2021, the California Legislature passed AB 602 and the Governor signed it into law. AB 602 creates some new requirements for impact fees that will go into effect in 2022. The new law amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and adds Section 66016.5 to impose the following requirements:
1) A city, county or special district that has an internet website shall post on its website:
a) A current written schedule of fees, exactions and affordability requirements applicable to a proposed housing development project, and shall present that information in a manner that identifies the fees, exactions and affordability requirements that apply to each parcel and the fees that apply to each new water and sewer utility connection b) All zoning ordinances and development standards and specifying the zoning, design and development standards that apply to each parcel
c) A list of the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project, as specified in Government Code Section 69540
d) The current and five previous annual fee reports required by Government Code Section 66006 and Subsection 66013 (d).
e) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies or equivalent conducted on or after January 1, 2018.
2) The above information shall be updated within 30 days of any changes 3) A City or County shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the total amount fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate it issued. That information must be posted on the website and updated at least twice a year.
4) Before adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted. 5) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service and explain why the new level of service is appropriate
6) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
7) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage if the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish City of Chowchilla Page 14-8
Development Impact Fee Study
May 11, 2022
a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. The law outlines some possible exceptions to this requirement. 8) Large jurisdictions as defined in Section 53559.1 (d) of the Health and Safety Code (counties of 250,000 or more and cities in those counties) shall adopt a capital improvement plan as part of a nexus study.
9) All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30-days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.
10) Studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning on January 1, 2022.
Training and Public Information
Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale.
It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such as user feesfor application processing, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees should be made clear.
Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. Fees must be expended for the purposes identified in the impact fee nexus study in which they were calculated, and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended.
Recovery of Administrative Costs
To recover the cost of periodic impact fee update studies and ongoing staff costs for capital budgeting, annual reports, five-year updates and other requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, an administrative charge may be added to the impact fees calculated in this report. The Executive Summary discusses inclusion of an administrative charge to recover costs involved in administration and updating of impact fees.
APPENDIX A
Prepared by NBS for the City of Chowchilla
Fee Comparison
APPENDIX A
City of Chowchilla 2022 Impact Fee Study - Fee Comparison Development Impact Fee Type Units 1
Current Fee 2Proposed Fee 3CLOVIS 4 MADERA 5 MERCED 6KINGSBURG 7TURLOCK 8COALINGA 9 Residential - Single-Family
Parks DU $ 3,841 $ 4,260 $ 4,335 $ 1,930
Recreation Facilities DU $ 569 No Fee $ 1,428 No Fee
Fire DU $262 - $1,751 $ 1,023 $ 1,568 $ 337 $ 567 $ 489 Police DU $895 - $945 $ 1,061 $ 759 $ 542 $ 760 $ 485
Streets/Signals DU $139 - $6,048 $ 3,542 $176 - $8,433 $ 2,970 $ 3,997 $ 1,517 $1,492-$1,767 Public Buildings DU $200 - $961 $ 2,196 $ 632 $ 555 No Fee $ 2,498 $ 335 Storm Drainage DU $894 - $1,473 Per-Acre No Fee $1,132 - $3,472 No Fee $ 665 $ 2,202 $1,227-$1,970 Water DU $1,992 - 2,282 $ 2,511 $ 5,206 $ 846 $ 9,199 $ 1,776 $ 6,241 $ 2,111 Sewer DU $1,486 - $6,267 $ 2,293 $ 8,109 $1,449 - $3,525 $ 6,866 $ 5,154 $ 8,147 $ 5,713 Total Residential Single-Family $7,036 - $22,476 $ 17,036 $21,145 - $29,402 $10,578 - $14,994 $ 22,003 $ 19,417 $32,624 - $35,720 $14,523-$15,541 Residential - Multi-Family
Parks DU $ 2,880 $ 4,260 $ 2,858 $ 1,930
Recreation Facilities DU $ 427 No Fee $ 400 No Fee
Fire DU $262 - $1,751 $ 823 $ 1,568 $ 247 $ 497 $ 489
Police DU $895 - $945 $ 836 $ 759 $ 399 $ 665 $ 485
Streets/Signals DU $139 - $6,048 $ 2,004 $348 - $5,059 $ 1,823 $ 2,406 $ 1,517 $1,028-$1,374 Public Buildings DU $200 - $961 $ 1,647 $ 517 $ 169 No Fee $ 1,998 $ 329 Storm Drainage DU $894 - $1,473 Per-Acre No Fee $546 - $1,454 No Fee $ 475 Based on Acres $460-$739 Water DU $1,992 - 2,282 $ 1,414 $ 3,765 $ 452 By Meter Size $ 817 By Meter Size $ 2,111 Sewer DU $1,486 - $6267 $ 1,557 $ 6,569 $94 - $1,093 $ 5,703 By Fixture Units By Fixture Units $ 5,713 Total Residential Multi-Family $7,036 - $22,476 $ 11,588 $18,139 - $22,850 $5,732 - $7,639 $ 9,808 $ 9,700 $12,709 - $14,340 $12,728-$12,353
CITY OF CHOWCHILLA COMPARISON AGENCIES
$ 2,276
$ 2,276
$ 2,653
$ 1,945
$ 614
$ 537
$ 1,635
$ 2,044
$ 2,113
$ 2,671
$14,104 - $17,210
$10,149 - $12,410
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/11/2022 1 of 3
APPENDIX A
City of Chowchilla 2022 Impact Fee Study - Fee Comparison Development Impact Fee Type Units 1
Current Fee 2Proposed Fee 3CLOVIS 4 MADERA 5 MERCED 6KINGSBURG 7TURLOCK 8COALINGA 9
CITY OF CHOWCHILLA COMPARISON AGENCIES
Retail/Service Commercial
Parks KSF No Fee No Fee $ 580 No Fee No Fee No Fee
Recreation Facilities KSF No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee Fire KSF $730 - $740 $ 2,159 $ 648 $ 36 $ 444 $ 30
Police KSF $400 $ 6,251 $ 258 $ 72 $ 594 $ 30
Streets/Signals KSF $1,221 - 2,220 $ 13,633 $279 - $13,306 $ 985 $7787 - $10,717 $ 2,837 $1,830-$2,170 Public Buildings KSF $400 - $420 $ 854 No Fee $ 12 No Fee $ 1,694 $ 20 Storm Drainage KSF $640 Per-Acre No Fee $632 - $1,330 No Fee $ 280 Based on Acres Based on Acres Water KSF $460 - $510 $ 1,116 $ 3,730 $ 205 By Meter Size $ 1,079 By Meter Size $ 390 Sewer KSF $1,330 $ 827 $ 4,870 $60 - $363 $ 5,041 By EDUs By Fixture Units $ 380 Total Retail/Service Commercial $5,181 - $6,260 $ 24,840 $10,716 - $23,743 $2,026 - $3,027 $ 6,250 $ 7,276 $15,125 - $18,220 $2,860-$3,200 Professional Office Charged As
Commercial
Charged As
Commercial
Charged As
Commercial
Parks KSF No Fee No Fee $ 1,240 No Fee No Fee No Fee
Recreation Facilities KSF No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee Fire KSF $730 - $740 $ 663 $ 539 $ 36 $ 508 $ 30
Police KSF $400 $ 1,436 $ 261 $ 72 $ 678 $ 30
Streets/Signals KSF $1,221 - 2,220 $ 4,115 $126 - $6,067 $ 985 $ 6,429 $ 2,837 $1,830-$2,170 Public Buildings KSF $400 - $420 $ 686 No Fee $ 12 No Fee $ 1,694 $ 20 Storm Drainage KSF $640 Per-Acre No Fee $632 - $1,330 No Fee $ 280 Based on Acres Based on Acres Water KSF $460 - $510 $ 930 $ 3,730 $ 205 By Meter Size $ 1,079 By Meter Size $ 390 Sewer KSF $1,330 $ 551 $ 4,130 $60 - $363 $ 4,044 By EDUs By Fixture Units $ 380 Total Professional Office $5,181 - $6,260 $ 8,381 $10,265 - $16,206 $2,026 - $3,027 $ 11,854 $ 6,930 $7,958 - $9,672 $2,860-$3,200 $ 171
$ 195
$ 1,386
$ 1,040
$ 180
$ 180
$15,125 - $18,220
$7,958 - $9,672
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/11/2022 2 of 3
APPENDIX A
City of Chowchilla 2022 Impact Fee Study - Fee Comparison Development Impact Fee Type Units 1
Current Fee 2Proposed Fee 3CLOVIS 4 MADERA 5 MERCED 6KINGSBURG 7TURLOCK 8COALINGA 9
CITY OF CHOWCHILLA COMPARISON AGENCIES
Industrial
Parks KSF No Fee No Fee $ 440 No Fee No Fee No Fee
Recreation Facilities KSF No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee Fire KSF $420 $ 484 $ 463 $ 24 $ 197 $ 10
Police KSF $230 $ 217 $ 224 $ 72 $ 263 $ 10
Streets/Signals KSF $830 - $1,250 $ 1,897 $111 - $1,632 $ 387 $ 1,697 $ 1,639 $280-$380 Public Buildings KSF $230 $ 244 No Fee No Fee No Fee $ 423 $ 10 Storm Drainage KSF On-Site Req'd Per-Acre No Fee $ 556 No Fee $ 240 Based on Acres Based on Acres Water KSF $180 $ 743 $ 1,010 Based on Usage By Meter Size $ 178 By Meter Size By EDU Sewer KSF $510 $ 570 $ 2,270 $ 1,515 $3,535 - $4,703 By Flow & Load By Fixture Units By EDU Total Industrial $2,400 - $2,820 $ 4,154 $4,602 - $6,123 $ 2,554 $5,768 - $6,936 $ 2,827 $1,978 - $3,110 $400-$500 Notes:
Totals shown in orange do not include fees for some components that cannot be converted into the units used in this table 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area 2 Chowchilla existing impact fees vary by Zone
3 Proposed fees from the NBS 2022 Impact Fee Study; includes impact fee and administrative charge 4 Clovis fees effective July 19, 2021
5 Madera fees in effect June 15, 2021
6 Merced fees effective January 1, 2022;
7 Kingsburg fees updated October 6, 2021
8 Turlock fees updated January 1, 2022; some plan area fees cannot be separated into individual components for specific facilities 9 Coalinga fees updated August 20, 2020
$ 76 $ 90
$ 347
$1,978 - $3,110
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/11/2022 3 of 3
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Item 6.1
CLICK HERE
TO RETURN TO
THE AGENDA
Meeting of: June 14, 2022
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
SUBJECT: Council Resolution Accepting a Bid Proposal to Abate Non-Compliant Properties in the City, Authorize Abatement by Contractor, Authorizing the City Administrator to Execute Necessary Documents Thereto
PREPARED BY: Fred Gaumnitz, Fire Chief
ATTACHMENTS: Council Resolution Accepting Proposals to Abate, Copy of Submitted Bids
REVIEWED BY
ADMINISTRATOR ☒ REVIEWED BYATTORNEY ☒ REVIEWED BY FINANCE ☒ RECOMMENDATION:
Award bid to contractor as low bidder submission for abatement of non-compliant properties. Authorize Contractor to proceed with abatement and authorize City Administrator to execute necessary documents.
In the case of receiving zero bids, authorize city staff to complete abatement.
BACKGROUND:
Whenever weeds grow upon the street or sidewalk or upon or in front of private property that is injurious to the public health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or endangers the public safety by creating a fire menace, or are otherwise noxious or dangerous, this public nuisance requires abatement, pursuant to Chowchilla Municipal Code Chapters 8.02, Property Maintenance and 8.12, Weeds.
With Council’s previous authorization by Resolution No. 34-22, the annual weed abatement program is being implemented in accordance with the process outlined in the Municipal Code. The purpose of this program is to identify the existence and abatement of this type of public nuisance.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:
City Council authorized annual weed abatement program on February 22, 2022. Properties within the city limits were inspected during the month of March and a Notice of Corrective Action was sent to owners of record on March 29, 2022. Properties were again inspected and non-compliant properties posted per the municipal code. A list of 25 non-compliant properties was provided to interested contractors on May 31, 2022 with a deadline for submitting proposals no later than June 2, 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Bids for abatement of non-compliant properties will be presented with a recommendation by staff of award to a specific contractor. The bids submitted and the low bidder that was deemed responsible by staff whose total contract amount is $20,300.00. The total contract amount will be reduced based on property owner abatements prior to the contractor abating the properties. It should be noted that individual properties which were posted with a Notice to Destroy Weeds and did not comply by May 23, 2022 are responsible for remitting the citation fee of $100.00 plus the bid amount for that property if contractor abates the property.
Fire Department staff anticipates the properties needing abatement by the City will reduce prior to arrival of City approved Contractor for abatement.
ALTERNATIVES:
Not perform annual weed abatement, notices and abatement of non-compliant properties.
ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:
Consistent with past practices, the Finance Department will issue billings to these property owners. Should delinquency occur, a property lien will be filed.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # -22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,300.00 FROM BEE’S LAWN SERVICE
TO ABATE NON-COMPLIANT PROPERTIES IN THE CITY AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY
ADMINSTRATOR TO EXECUTE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS THERETO
(2022 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM)
WHEREAS, whenever weeds grow that are injurious to the public health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or endangers the public safety by creating a fire menace, or are otherwise noxious or dangerous, this public nuisance requires abatement; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to effect timely removal of all weeds so described through the City’s Weed Abatement Program, and in manner provided by law; and WHEREAS, on February 8th, 2022, the City Council authorized the annual weed abatement program with the passage of Resolution # 11-22; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Correction was issued to non-conforming properties and if abatement does not occur during time frame prescribed, the City may choose to follow Chowchilla Municipal Code Chapter 8.02, Property Maintenance & Chapter 8.12; and WHEREAS, properties were again inspected and non-compliant properties posted per municipal code between March 29th through April 26th; and, WHEREAS, no property owner appealed the posting of their property, pursuant to Chowchilla Municipal Code Section 8.02.070, Procedures for abatement of unlawful conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Public Work Department provided a list of approximately 25 non-compliant properties to interested contractors, with a deadline of submitting proposals no later than 4:00pm on June 9, 2022; and
WHEREAS, three bids were received at City Hall by June 9, 2022; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the submitted bids and made a recommendation prior to this meeting to award abatement to Bee’s Lawn Service; and WHEREAS, the Council heard this matter, received a staff report, received public testimony and deliberated on June 14, 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chowchilla hereby finds and determines the following:
1. The above recitals are true and correct;
2. Accept the bid from Bee’s Lawn Service to abate non-compliant properties from staff’s recommendation; and
3. Authorize abatement of non-compliant properties as listed on attachment
4. Authorize the City Administrator and/or his designee to execute the appropriate documents associated with this action; and
5. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chowchilla this 14th day of June, 2022 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
John Chavez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Joann McClendon, CMC
City Clerk
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Item 6.2
CLICK HERE
TO RETURN TO
THE AGENDA
Meeting of: June 24, 2022
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
SUBJECT: Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution to Enter into a Facility Use Agreement with the Chowchilla Union High School District for the use of the Facilities and Swimming Pool to Provide a Recreational Swim Program for the Community
PREPARED BY: Stacy Wisener, Deputy Director of Recreation and Community Engagement ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
Agreement
REVIEWED BY
ADMINISTRATOR ☒ REVIEWED BYATTORNEY ☒ REVIEWED BY FINANCE ☒ RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council to approve a Resolution to enter into a facility use agreement with the Chowchilla Union High School District to use their facility and pool to provide the community with a recreation swim program.
BACKGROUND:
The City and the Chowchilla Union High School District have been negotiating to develop and bring to the community an agreement to offer a recreation swim program for the community. In the past, the City of Chowchilla entered into an agreement with Chowchilla Union High School District to provide an Aquatics Program in 2007, 2008, and 2009. In October of 2009, City Council approved Resolution #92-09 to delete direct allocations for the 2010 summer aquatic program and no longer offer it to the community due to budget constraints. Staff has revisited the possibility of starting the aquatics program several times over the years, but it was deemed too costly, along with the difficulties of finding properly trained lifeguards. The staff has since discovered all the requirements to start the aquatics program to be achievable and has pursued a contract with the Chowchilla Union High School to begin the Aquatic Program for the community once again. For this year, only open swim will be offered.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:
The City of Chowchilla Recreation Department desires to promote and preserve health and general welfare, cultivate the development of good citizenship by providing adequate programs for community recreation, and provide facilities for aquatic programs and instruction. The Dower Family donated funds to High School in 1995 to construct a new swimming pool that would also allow for community access. The community has asked for this program to resume via surveys and social media comments multiple times.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact to the General fund will be $22,296. This includes the salary for 2 lifeguards and a pool supervisor. Also included in this amount is recruitment/physicals and pool supplies.
ALTERNATIVES:
Do not approve the agreement, and the City will seek to find other program services pending an increase in budget allocations.
ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:
The Chowchilla Union High School has been sent the agreement for their School Board to review and approve pending council review and approval. Once Life Guards' staffing is completed, the program will begin as quickly as possible and end the last week of July 2022.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION # -22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, CALIFORNIA TO ENTER
INTO A FACILITY USE AGREEMENT WITH THE CHOWCHILLA UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
FOR THE USE OF THE FACILITY AND SWIMMING POOL TO PROVIDE A RECREATIONAL SWIM
PROGRAM FOR THE COMMUNITY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR
DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE RELATED DOCUMENTS THERETO
WHEREAS, the City of Chowchilla is seeking to provide beneficial programs promoting health and general welfare activities for our community; and
WHEREAS, staff believes all the requirements to start the aquatics program project to be achievable; and
WHEREAS, staff has had multiple meetings with the Chowchilla Union High School District to bring the agreement to fruition; and
WHEREAS, representatives from the Chowchilla Union High School District and staff have agreed in concept to the terms of the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the community has conveyed their desire to have access to the School Districts pool facility for recreational use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chowchilla hereby finds, determines, and declares the following:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. The facility will provide adequate recreational use for the community.
3. Agrees to enter into an agreement for the use of the Chowchilla Union High School District’s pool facility to provide a recreation swim program.
4. Authorizes the City Administrator or designee, upon City Attorney approval as to form, to execute all documents necessary to complete the services on behalf of the City of Chowchilla.
5. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chowchilla this 14th day of June 2022 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
John Chavez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Joann McClendon, CMC
City Clerk
CRMA – Use of Facilities
CHOWCHILLA HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT USE OF
FACILITIES
Procedures for Submitting Requests
1. All three of the attached forms must be completed, and properly signed prior to submission to the District for approval. (Application and Permit, Agreement of User to Hold Harmless, Statement of Information)
2. Please submit all information to the office at the site you wish to use. In addition to the three forms, you must include a copy of your organizations certificate of insurance with an additional insured endorsement naming Chowchilla High School District, its officers, board members, agents and employees as additional insureds to the commercial general liability policy. If the Certificate of Insurance and additional insured endorsement is not immediately available, please attach a statement that includes a) name of the insurance company and contact person, b) date that you made a request for a certificate, and c) the estimated date the certificate will be received by the Chowchilla High School District.
Important: Prior to the scheduled event, the Certificate of Insurance and additional insured endorsement must be received by the District. The acceptable limits of coverage are $2,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 aggregate.
3. Rental fees and or charges for services will be paid for at the site to be used when the above named forms are presented and approved.
4. For information on the cancellation policy, contact the District Office.
5. If you have any questions about the procedures, please refer to them to the District Office. ____________ 1. Has the Application and Permit for use of School Facilities been received and signed? ____________ 2. Has the Agreement of User to Hold Harmless and Statement of Information been received and signed? ____________ 3. Has the Certificate of Insurance with additional insured endorsement been received? ____________ 4. Once all three forms are received, has payment been obtained (if required)? CRMA – Use of Facilities
CHOWCHILLA HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
APPLICATION AND PERMIT
FOR USE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES
Date: ____________________________ (Submit application no later than 10 days prior to date of usage.) The __________________________________ hereinafter referred to as the “Organization” is a (mark one):
1. ___ Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Camp Fire, Inc.
2. ___ Parent-Teachers’ Association
3. ___ School-Community advisory committee
4. ___ Youth sports organization
5. ___ Adult sports organization
6. ___ Other
(explain)___________________
This organization hereby applies for permission to occupy _______________________ (facility/room) at ___________________ School on __________________ (date or dates) during the hours of ________ to ________. The average attendance is estimated at ________ (number).
Admission will be charged: ____Yes ____No Amount: $
Particular instructions or facility arrangement requested is:
Insurance Information:
Company Name __________________________________ Policy Number _________________________ Additional Insureds ________________________________ Policy Amount _________________________ Expiration Date ___________________________________
Rate Calculations:
Basic Rate $___________________ x hours ____________________ Key Deposit $________________________
Date Issued ______/______/______
Date Returned ______/______/______
Additional Charges:
Set-Up ____________________
Custodial __________________
Food Services ______________
Grounds ___________________
Total Charges $______________
Refundable Key Deposit $_____________
I, ________________________________, representing ______________________________________ do acknowledge the receipt of the rules and regulations as contained in this package including Board Policy and corresponding administrative regulations related to my usage of the District facilities and hereby agree to abide by them. If the rules and regulations are not followed, I am aware that I am personally liable for any charges incurred by my group due to my negligence in not adhering to the rules and regulations. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Organization’s Representative Date
_________________________________________________________________________________________ Address Telephone
CHOWCHILLA HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT: ____________________________________________ Authorized Agent Date
CC: Site Administrator
Custodian
Applicant
Food Service
Chowchilla Union High
ADDENDUM
CHOWCHILLA HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR USE
OF SCHOOL FACILITIES
This AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect continuously unless otherwise terminated by either party. This AGREEMENT may be terminated at any time by either party hereto by giving to the other a written notice of termination to either the CITY NOTICE 130 S. 2nd Street Chowchilla CA 93610, or the Chowchilla Union High School District, 805 Humboldt Ave., Chowchilla CA 93610, as appropriate, no less than thirty (30) days prior to the intended termination date. Notices shall be provided either personally or by certified mail; return receipt requested. Notices shall be deemed given on the date personally delivered or 48 hours after deposited in the mail.
Admission will be Charged
Recreational Swim Fees: Youth (<18 Years) $1.00 Adult (>18 yrs.) $2.00 Daily Admission 16 Punch Card: Youth (<18 Years) $15.00 Adult (>18 yrs.) $30.00 Responsibilities and Fees
City of Chowchilla:
Complete the Facilities Use Permit, and provide Insurance Policy and indemnification for the pool use.
Provide Pool Supervision and Life Guards; Pool Supervisor to oversee the program, enforce the rules, and collect pool waivers and fees from attendees. The city will have two additional certified lifeguards on duty each day.
The City of Chowchilla will keep any entry fees collected to offset our program costs.
Chowchilla UHSD:
Maintain Pool Facilities according to state standards and keep records of operations as required.
Except as otherwise provided herein, the District shall be responsible for the maintenance and operations of the pool in compliance with applicable state law, including California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 20, Article 3.
CUHSD will have the pool inspected daily by staff in preparation for the use of the pool.
CUHSD will have a custodian available for the hours of 10 am. and 2 pm. Monday through Thursday for June and July to clean facilities, stock bathrooms, clear trash, open, close, and secure the facility after use.
Joint Responsibility:
The shared cost of the pool chemicals is split amongst three organizations (CUHS, Redfins, and City) for the time of usage. A portion of the testing strip cost will be shared.
After any foreign contamination matters, CUHS shall immediately close the affected public pool to be drained, and proper disinfection procedures will be completed. The cost of each incident will be shared between CUHS and the City.
Any excessive janitorial services provided by CUHSD above the scope of regular janitorial services can be charged to the City of Chowchilla.
1 AGREEMENT TO HOLD HARMLESS
This AGREEMENT TO HOLD HARMLESS (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the CITY OF CHOWCHILLA (“User”) and CHOWCHILLA HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (“District”). User and District are sometimes individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.”
User and District hereby agree to mutual indemnification. User agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the District and District’s officers, agents, and employees harmless from any claims made against the District and District’s officers, agents, employees, or volunteers for any liability, loss, expense, settlement, or judgment arising from or in any way related to User’s negligence or willful misconduct in relation to the activity described below, which may be incurred by reason of personal injury, bodily injury, death, loss of or injury to property, or loss of any other sort that may be sustained by any person or entity, including, but not limited to, either Parties’ officers, agents, or employees, and any other person or entity, regardless of whether the injury, loss, or damage occurs on or off District property.
User further agrees that with respect to the claims described herein, User will defend all claims, actions, or suits that may be brought against District and District’s officers, agents, or employees, and shall pay all costs or expenses, including attorneys’ fees incurred in the defense of such action, and shall further pay any settlement or judgment made or rendered in any such action as against District and District’s officers, agents, or employees.
District agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the User and User’s officers, agents, employees, and volunteers harmless from any claims made against the User and User’s officers, agents, employees, or volunteers, for any liability, loss, expense, settlement, or judgment arising from or in any way related to District’s negligence or willful misconduct in relation to the activity described below, which may be incurred by reason of personal injury, bodily injury, death, loss of or injury to property, or loss of any other sort that may be sustained by any person or entity, including, but not limited to, either Parties’ officers, agents, employees, or volunteers, and any other person or entity, regardless of whether the injury, loss, or damage occurs on or off District property.
District further agrees that with respect to the claims described herein, District will defend all claims, actions, or suits that may be brought against User and User’s officers, agents, employees, or volunteers, and shall pay all costs or expenses, including attorneys’ fees incurred in the defense of such action, and shall further pay any settlement or judgment made or rendered in any such action as against User and User’s officers, agents, employees, or volunteers.
In the event of concurrent negligence on the part of District or any of District’s officers, agents, employees, or volunteers, and User or any of User’s officers, agents, employees, or volunteers, the liability for any and all such claims, demands and actions in law or equity for such liability, loss, expense, settlement, or judgment shall be apportioned under the State of California's theory of comparative negligence as presently established or as may be modified hereafter.
It is further agreed that in the event of any dispute under the terms of this Agreement, a prevailing party in any action shall be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs, including such attorneys’ fees and costs as may be incurred in the prosecution or defense of any action to determine the rights or liabilities of the Parties under this Agreement, and any attorneys’ fees or costs which may be incurred prior to the institution of any action because of any dispute which may arise concerning this Agreement. 2 ACTIVITY: Community Recreation Swim Program
(This is a general description of the activity, only, and does not in any way limit the indemnity rights of the Parties, as described above.)
USER: CITY OF CHOWCHILLA CHOWCHILLA HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
AUTHORIZED AGENT OF USER WHO AGREES, AUTHORIZED AGENT OF DISTRICT WHO
ON BEHALF OF USER, TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREES, ON BEHALF OF DISTRICT, TO THE INDEMNITY AGREEMENT: TERMS OF THIS INDEMNITY AGREEMENT:
_________________________________________ _________________________________________ Signature/Title Signature/Title
Address:130 S. 2nd Street
Chowchilla, CA 93610
Telephone: (559) 665-8615
Date: June , 2022
Address: 805 Humboldt Ave
Chowchilla, CA 93610
Telephone: (559) 665-1331
Date: June , 2022
CRMA – Use of Facilities
CHOWCHILLA HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION
The undersigned, as duly authorized representative for ___________________________________, states that, to the best of his/her knowledge, the school property for use of which application is hereby made will not be used for the commission of any crime or any act which is prohibited by law.
The undersigned further declares that ____________________________________, the organization on whose behalf he/she is applying for the use of school property, upholds and defends the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of California. ________________________________________________________________________________ (Signed) (Date)
________________________________________________________________________________ (Organization) (Title)