Gonzales City Council
June 6, 2022

CITY OF GONZALES

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY
UPDATE
FINAL
MAY 6, 2022
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
This page intentionally left blank.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 1 Background and Study Objectives 1
Fee Zones 1
Facility Standards and Costs 2
Use of Fee Revenues 3
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 3
Other Funding Needed 5
Consolidation of Fee Categories 5

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 7 Public Facilities Financing in California 7
Study Objectives 7
Fee Program Maintenance 8
Study Methodology 8
Types of Facility Standards 8
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 9
Organization of the Report 10

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ............................................................... 12 Land Use Types 12
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units 12
Existing and Future Development – Existing City Impact Fee Zone 13 Occupant Densities 14
Future Growth Area Projections 15
Gonzales Agricultural Business Industrial Park 17

3. CIRCULATION SYSTEM............................................................... 19 Trip Demand 19
Trip Demand Growth 20
Planned Facilities 22
Roadway Segments 22
Intersection Improvements 22
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 25
Fee Schedule 26

4. SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES..................................................... 28 Wastewater Demand 28
EDU Generation by New Development 29
Facility Needs and Costs 31
Cost per EDU 32
Fee Schedule 32

5. WATER FACILITIES.................................................................... 34 City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
ii
Water Demand 34
EDU Generation by New Development 35
Facility Needs and Costs 37
Cost per EDU 38
Fee Schedule 38

6. POLICE CAPITAL FACILITIES ....................................................... 40 Service Population 40
Existing Facility Inventory 41
Planned Facilities 42
Cost Allocation 43
Fee Revenue Projection 44
Fee Schedule 44

7. FIRE CAPITAL FACILITIES........................................................... 46 Service Population 46
Existing Facility Inventory 47
Planned Facilities 48
Cost Allocation 49
Fee Revenue Projection 50
Fee Schedule 51

8. PARKLAND AND PARK FACILITIES................................................ 52 Service Population 52
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory 52
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 53
Park Facility Standards 54
Quimby Act Standard 54
City of Gonzales Park Facilities Standards 54
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 55
Preliminary Planned Facilities 56
Parks Cost per Resident 57
Credits 57
Use of Fee Revenue 57
Fee Schedule 58

9. GENERAL CITY FACILITIES ......................................................... 60 Service Population 60
Existing Inventory 61
Planned Facilities 62
Facility Standard 64
Existing Level of Service 64
Future Level of Service 64
Fee Revenue Projection 65
Fee Schedule 65

10. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS............................................................ 67 City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
iii
Compliance with AB 602 67
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 67
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 68 66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 70

11. IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................... 71 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 71
Inflation Adjustment 71
Reporting Requirements 71
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 73

12. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS.................................................. 74 Purpose of Fee 74
Use of Fee Revenues 74
Benefit Relationship 74
Burden Relationship 75
Proportionality 75
1 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Gonzales through buildout. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
▪ Circulation System Facilities
▪ Sanitary Sewer Facilities
▪ Water Facilities
▪ Police Capital Facilities
▪ Fire Capital Facilities
▪ Parkland and Park Facilities
▪ General City Facilities
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.

The City collects development impact fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.

The City should program development impact fee-funded capital projects through its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Fee Zones
Depending on the facility category, fees are calculated for varying geographies depending on where the planned facilities will provide service. The zones and corresponding facility categories are outlined below:
• Citywide (including the future growth area): parks and recreation facilities and general city facilities
• Two zones (Existing City zone and the future growth area): water facilities, police facilities, fire protection facilities
• Three zones (Existing City zone, Gonzales Agricultural Business Industrial Park, and the future growth area): circulation facilities and wastewater facilities Figure 1 displays a map of the fee zones.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
2 Figure 1: Impact Fee Zones
City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
3 Facility Standards and Costs
There are three approaches used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements in this study.

The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City’s existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s annual CIP and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the fire protection facilities, and parks and recreation facilities. 1 The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the circulation facilities, wastewater facilities water facilities, police facilities and fire protection facilities fees in this report. 2 The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where specific needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development’s fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. This approach is used for the general city facilities fees in this report.

Use of Fee Revenues
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, construction of infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.

In that the City cannot predict with certainty how and when development within the City will occur through buildout, the City may need to update and revise the project lists funded by the fees documented in this study. Any substitute projects should be funded within the same facility category, and the substitute projects must still benefit and have a relationship to new development. The City could identify any changes to the projects funded by the impact fees when it updates the CIP. The impact fees could also be updated if significant changes to the projects funded by the fees are anticipated.

Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. 1 Fire protection facilities fees for the existing City zone are calculated using the existing facilities standard methodology. 2 Fire protection facilities fees for the future growth area zone are calculated using the planned facilities standard methodology.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
4 Table E.1: Development Impact Facilities Fee Summary
Land Use
Circulation
System
Impact Fee
Sanitary
Sewer
Facilities
Mitigation
Fee1
Water
Facilities
Mitigation
Fee
Police
Capital
Facilities
Mitigation
Fee
Fire Capital
Facilities
Mitigation
Fee
Parkland and
Park Facilities
Mitigation Fee
(NonSubdivisions)
Parkland and
Park Facilities
Mitigation Fee
(Subdivisions)2
General City
Facilities
Total -
Subdivisions
Total - Non
Subdivisions
Existing City Limits
Residential - Fee Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Unit $ 815 $ 6,821 $ 12,944 $ 292 $ 2,493 $ 9,176 $ 9,810 $ 4,811 $ 37,986 $ 37,352 Multifamily Unit 546 5,524 10,485 236 2,019 7,429 7,942 3,894 30,646 30,133 Nonresidential - Fee per 1,000 Square Feet
Mixed Use/Commercial $ 2,265 $ 4,024 $ 5,954 $ 39 $ 658 $ - $ - $ 646 $ 13,586 $ 13,586 Industrial/Manufacturing 676 4,501 2,977 21 362 - - 355 8,892 8,892 Future Growth Area
Residential - Fee Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Unit $ 14,924 $ 10,355 $ 2,403 $ 951 $ 1,225 $ 9,176 $ 9,810 $ 4,811 $ 44,479 $ 43,845 Multifamily Unit 9,999 8,387 1,946 770 991 7,429 7,942 3,894 33,929 33,416 Nonresidential - Fee per 1,000 Square Feet
Mixed Use/Commercial $ 41,487 $ 6,110 $ 1,106 $ 128 $ 322 $ - $ - $ 646 $ 49,799 $ 49,799 Industrial/Manufacturing 12,387 6,834 553 70 177 - - 355 20,376 20,376 GABIP
Nonresidential - Fee per 1,000 Square Feet
Industrial/Manufacturing $ 3,628 $ 4,501 $ 2,977 $ 21 $ 362 $ - $ - $ 355 $ 11,844 $ 11,844 2 Quimby fees in-lieu of parkland dedication. Developments dedicating parks to the City may receive a credit against park impact fees.

Sources: Tables 3.7, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.6, 8.9, 8.10 and 9.6. 1 Nonresidential sanitary sew er impact fees are calculated case by case based on the projected w astew ater flow of a development project. Fees show n in this table are based on typical flow generation factors show n in Table 4.1.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
5 Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Gonzales.

They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City’s SOI. As shown in Table E.2, approximately $16 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop if fees are adopted at the maximum justified fee level. The “Additional Funding Required” column shows non-impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development. To the extent that the City adopts fees that are lower than the maximum justified amount, the non-fee funding requirements may increase, depending on the fee category and methodology.

The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Fee Category
Total Project
Cost
Projected
Impact Fee
Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Circulation System Impact Fees1
$ 211,141,959 $ 201,310,328 $ 9,831,631
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Mitigation Fees 99,375,000 96,821,238 2,553,762 Water Facilities Mitigation Fees 30,346,000 30,346,000 - Police Capital Facilities Mitigation Fees 4,457,900 4,457,900 - Fire Capital Facilities Mitigation Fees 10,482,000 10,482,000 - Parkland and Park Facilities Mitigation Fees2
67,174,693 67,174,693 -
General City Facilities 39,332,575 35,724,000 3,608,575 Total $ 462,310,127 $ 446,316,159 $ 15,993,968
Sources: Tables 3.3, 3.4, 4.4, 5.3, 6.4, 7.4, 7.5, 8.6, 9.5. 2 If all residential development is subject to Quimby, then the fee w ill generate the figure show n. If no residential development is subject to Quimby, then the fee w ill generate $62,832,693. 1 Remainder of Puente del Monte road extension in GABIP expected to be funded w ith Federal Economic Administration grant.

Consolidation of Fee Categories
The City’s current impact fee program has more fee categories than are included in this study.

Several of the categories are being discontinued because the City no longer has long-term facility needs. In these cases, the City will spend the fee fund balances on capacity expanding projects and will no longer collect the fees. In other cases, existing fee categories are being combined since the facilities being funded by the fees are closely related. In these cases the fund balances must be spent for the purpose they were collected. Going forward the City should establish new impact fee funds to deposit the new fee revenue which can be spent based on the 2022 facility fee categories. Table E.3 displays the existing fee categories and corresponding the 2022 fee categories examined in this report.
6 Table E.3: Impact Fee Category Consolidation
Existing Impact Fee Category 2022 Study Fee Category
Fire Capital Facilities Mitigation Fees Fire Capital Facilities Mitigation Fees Police Capital Facilities Mitigation Fees Police Capital Facilities Mitigation Fees Public Facilities Impact Mitigation Fees General City Facilities Public Use Facilities Mitigation Fees General City Facilities Aquatics Facilities Mitigation Fees Parkland and Park Facilities Mitigation Fees Animal Control Facilities Mitigation Fees Discontinued
Parkland and Park Facilities Mitigation Fees Parkland and Park Facilities Mitigation Fees Circulation System Impact Fees Circulation System Impact Fees Storm Drainage Facilities Impact Fees Discontinued
Water Facilities Mitigation Fees Water Facilities Mitigation Fees Sanitary Sewer Facilities Mitigation Fees Sanitary Sewer Facilities Mitigation Fees Source: City of Gonzales.
7 1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Gonzales. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
▪ Public Facilities Financing in California;
▪ Study Objectives;
▪ Fee Program Maintenance;
▪ Study Methodology; and
▪ Organization of the Report.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
▪ The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; ▪ Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and
▪ Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.

Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees.

Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.

Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of an impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Policy LU-1.2 of the General Plan states: “Require new development to pay its fair share of the cost of capital improvements and facilities to serve that development consistent with the policies, standards, and implementing actions of this General Plan and State law requiring a nexus between such requirements and project impacts.” The primary purpose of this report is to update the City’s impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The maximum justified fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policy stated above.

The City collects development impact fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
8 Gonzales is forecast to see significant growth within its future growth area and moderate growth within its existing City limits through this study’s planning horizon of buildout. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Gonzales has decided to continue to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds its share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and facility plans to update the City’s existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.

Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 11.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 11.

Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:

1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;

2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;

3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;

4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;

5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and

6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects.

The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.

Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
9 ▪ Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. ▪ Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility design standards.
▪ Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.

This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.

There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs in this study: the existing inventory method, the planned facilities method, and the system plan method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.

The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:

Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:

Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a longrange plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual CIP and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the fire capital facilities and parkland and park facilities fees in this report.3
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:
3 Fire protection facilities fees for the existing City zone are calculated using the existing facilities standard methodology. = cost per unit of demand
City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
10 Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is expansion of an existing library building and book collection, which will be needed only if new development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existing development, as well.

Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the circulation system facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, water facilities, police capital facilities and fire capital facilities fees in this report.
4 System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:

Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.

The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.

Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in Comprehensive Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.

This approach is used for the general city facilities fees in this report.

Organization of the Report
The determination of a development impact fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.

Chapters 3 through 9 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
4 Fire protection facilities fees for the future growth area zone are calculated using the planned facilities standard methodology.
= cost per unit of demand
= cost per unit of demand
11 ▪ Circulation System Facilities
▪ Sanitary Sewer Facilities
▪ Water Facilities
▪ Police Capital Facilities
▪ Fire Capital Facilities
▪ Parkland and Park Facilities
▪ General City Facilities
Chapter 10 describes how this nexus studies complies with the requirements of AB 602.

Chapter 11 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified development impact fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 12. 12 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2021 base year and a planning horizon of buildout.

Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
▪ The estimate of existing development in 2021 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. ▪ The estimate of total development at buildout is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any.
▪ Estimates of growth from 2021 through buildout are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.

The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.

Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types for which impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. ▪ Single Family: Detached and attached one-unit dwellings (Includes single family homes and townhomes)
▪ Multifamily: All attached multifamily dwellings including duplexes, condominiums and apartments.
▪ Commercial/Mixed Use: All commercial, retail, educational, lodging, and service development
▪ Industrial: All warehouse, distribution, manufacturing, and other industrial development.

Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both multifamily and commercial uses. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type.

The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use. If a project results in the intensification of use, at its discretion, the City can charge the project the difference in fees between the existing low intensity use and the future high intensity use.

Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
The California State Legislature recently amended requirements on local agencies for the imposition of development impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADU) with Assembly Bill AB 68 in 2021. The amendment to California Government Code §65852.2(f)(2) stipulates that local agencies may not impose any impact fees on ADU less than 750 square feet. ADU greater than 750 square feet can be charged impact fees in proportion to the size of the primary dwelling unit.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
13 Calculating Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units For ADUs greater than 750 square feet, impact fees can be charged as a percentage of the single family impact fee. The formula is:

𝐴𝐷𝑈 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑡
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑡
× 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐹𝑒𝑒 = 𝐴𝐷𝑈 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐹𝑒𝑒
In the case of an 800 square foot ADU and a 1,600 square foot primary residence, the impact fees would be 50 percent (800 square feet / 1,600 square feet = 50%) of the single family dwelling unit fee.

Existing and Future Development – Existing City
Impact Fee Zone
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet within the existing City impact fee zone in Gonzales, both in 2021 and at buildout.

Note that development at the Gonzales Agricultural Business Industrial Park (GABIP) and development occurring within the future growth area is excluded from this table and shown later in Table 2.5. The base year estimates of household residents and dwelling units comes from the California Department of Finance. The projection of dwelling units is based data from the City’s Housing Element.

The buildout projection of residents was estimated by multiplying the increase in dwelling units, by type, by the occupancy density assumptions presented below in Table 2.2.

Base year employees were estimated based on the latest data from the US Census’ OnTheMap application and exclude 34 local government (public administration) employees. Base year nonresidential square footage was based on data from the City’s General Plan. Estimates of workers and building square feet at buildout are based on data from the General Plan.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
14 Table 2.1: Existing and New Development
Existing Buildout1
Increase
Residents2
8,484 8,698 214
Dwelling Units3
Single Family 1,587 1,587 -
Multifamily 375 438 63
Total 1,962 2,025 39
Employment4
Commercial 708 708 -
Industrial 1,918 1,918 -
Total 2,626 2,626 -
Building Square Feet (1,000s)5
Commercial 280 280 -
Industrial 1,616 1,616 -
Total 1,896 1,896 -
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; City of Gonzales General Plan; City of Gonzales Housing Element; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.
2 Current population from California Department of Finance (DOF). Buildout projection based on increase dw elling units below .
3 Current values from DOF. Increase in multifamily units based on increase of dw elling units identified in Table IV-19 of the City's Housing Element less those w ithin the existing city limits w ithin the future grow th area (D'Arrigo properties). 4 Base year from OnTheMap Application. Excludes local government employees.

Future employees based on data from the General Plan. Future industrial employment grow th assumed to occur at GABIP, and presented in Table 2.5. 5 Based on Tables II-2 and II-3 from the General Plan. All nonresidential grow th w ithin existing city limits assumed to occur in future grow th area. 1 Refers to buildout of existing City boundary excluding development assumed in the future grow th area and GABIP.

Existing City (Excluding Agricultural Business Industrial Park and Future Growth Area)
Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.

Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.

This conversion is done with average household size factors that vary by dwelling unit square footage, shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factors are based on data for Gonzales from the 2019 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey, the most recent data available. The factors City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
15 are derived from Tables B25024 and B25033. The total estimated residents in each type of dwelling unit are divided by a count of each type of dwelling unit to determine the average occupants per dwelling unit. The nonresidential occupancy factors for mixed use/commercial and industrial/manufacturing land uses are based on data from the City’ General Plan.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density Assumptions
Residential
Single Family 4.20 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Multifamily 3.40 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Nonresidential
Mixed Use/Commercial 1.82 Employees per 1,000 square feet Industrial/Manufacturing 1.00 Employees per 1,000 square feet Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey, Tables B25024 and B25033; City of Gonzales General Plan; Willdan Financial Services.

Future Growth Area Projections
In addition to the existing and future development within the City’s existing boundaries, this analysis also required estimates of development within what is known as the “future growth area.” The future growth area includes areas within the current City limits, and areas in the Sphere of Influence as follows:
• Vista Lucia (SOI)
• Puente del Monte (SOI)
• D’Arrigo Brothers property
o SOI
o Rincon – Within City Limits
• Franscioni property (SOI)
Residential land use assumptions are shown in Table 2.3 and nonresidential land use assumptions are shown in Table 2.4. Land use estimates presented here are passed on the project descriptions submitted to the City for each planned development.

Note that estimates of residents per dwelling unit and employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space are consistent with the assumptions from Table 2.2.

The City will need to annex unincorporated portions of the future growth area before it can charge impact fees in those areas. The fees are calculated such that fees within the existing City impact fee zone or GABIP can be collected regardless of whether the future growth area are annexed or not.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
16 Table 2.3: Future Growth Area Residential Land Use Scenario Total
Dwelling
Units
Residents
per Dwelling
Unit
Projected
Residents
Vista Lucia Dwelling Units
Low Density 1,210 4.20 5,082
Medium Density 1,127 4.20 4,733
Medium High Density 540 3.40 1,836
High Density 528 3.40 1,795
Mixed Use 93 3.40 316
Subtotal 3,498 13,762
Puente Del Monte Dwelling Units
Low Density 596 4.20 2,503
Medium Density 619 4.20 2,600
Medium High Density 794 3.40 2,700
High Density 569 3.40 1,935
Mixed Use 45 3.40 153
Subtotal 2,623 9,891
D'Arrigo Brothers
SOI
Low Density 238 4.20 1,000
Medium Density 239 4.20 1,004
Medium High Density 102 3.40 347
High Density 102 3.40 347
Subtotal 681 2,698
Rincon1
Low Density 245 4.20 1,029
Medium Density 245 4.20 1,029
Medium High Density 105 3.40 357
High Density 105 3.40 357
Subtotal 700 2,772
Total Future Growth Area Residential Dwelling Units
Low Density 2,289 9,614
Medium Density 2,230 9,366
Medium High Density 1,541 5,240
High Density 1,304 4,434
Mixed Use 138 469
Total 7,502 29,123
Sources: Puente del Monte Project Description Annexation & Pre‐zoning Request, October 2019; Vista Lucia Project Description; City of Gonzales; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.
1 This property is w ithin the existing City limits. For the purpose of calculating impact fees and infrastructure planning it is considered in the future grow th area. It is excluded from the development projections in Table 2.1.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
17 Table 2.4: Future Growth Area Nonresidential Land Use Scenario Acres
Floor Area
Ratio1
1,000
Building
Square
Feet2
Employees
per 1,000
Building
Sq. Ft.3
Projected
Employees
Vista Lucia
Mixed Use 8.00 0.3 94 1.82 171
Total 171
Puente Del Monte
Mixed Use 6.10 0.3 72 1.82 130
Highway Commercial4 38.30 0.3 450 1.82 819
Industrial/Manufacturing 21.01 0.5 412 1.00 412
Total 1,361
D'Arrigo
Mixed Use 90.00 0.3 1,059 1.82 1,925
Franscioni
Industrial 55.00 0.5 1,078 1.00 1,078
Total Future Growth Area Nonresidential Land Use Scenario Mixed Use/Commercial 142.40 0.3 1,675 1.82 3,045
Industrial/Manufacturing 76.01 0.5 1,490 1.00 1,490
Total 3,165 4,535
1 Based on the maximum allow able FAR under the Gonzales General Plan. 2 Assumes 90% gross-to-net conversion.
3 See Table 2.2.

Sources: Puente del Monte Project Description Annexation & Pre‐zoning Request, October 2019; Vista Lucia Project Description; Gonzales General Plan, Revised 2018; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services. 4 This property is w ithin the existing City limits. For the purpose of calculating impact fees and infrastructure planning it is considered in the future grow th area. It is excluded from the development projections in Table 2.1.

Gonzales Agricultural Business Industrial Park
The land use scenario for GABIP is presented in Table 2.5. Portions of the GABIP are currently within the existing City limits. However, future phases of GABIP are outside of the City, but within the City’s sphere of influence and planning area. Buildout of GABIP will encompass 200.3 acres, in three phases.

Base year square footage within GABIP was estimated using GIS and the City’s building records.

Buildout square footage assumes a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.5 and 90% gross-to-net conversion. Existing and future employment at GABIP was estimated based on an assumption of one industrial worker per every 1,000 building square feet.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
18 Table 2.5: Gonzales Agricultural Business Industrial Business Park Land Use Scenario
Existing Buildout1
Increase
Building Square Feet (1,000s)1
482 3,926 3,444
Employment2
482 3,926 3,444
1 Base year square footage estimated using GIS and building records. Buildout square footage assumes an FAR of 0.5 and 200.3 total acres. 2 Estimates w orkers based on assumption of one industrial w orker per every 1,000 building square feet.

Sources: City of Ginzales; City of Gonzales General Plan; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.

3. Circulation System
This chapter details an analysis of the need for circulation facilities to accommodate new development. Fees are calculated for three fee zones: the existing City impact fee zone, the Gonzales Agricultural Business Industrial Park (GABIP) and the future growth area. The chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for funding of these facilities.

Trip Demand
The need for circulation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of average daily vehicle trips, adjusted for the type of trip. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of street improvements across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips.

An adjustment is made to trip generation rates to calculate trip demand. Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass-by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. This adjustment allows for a holistic quantification of trip demand that takes trip purpose into account for fee calculation purposes.

Table 3.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). The pass-by trip assumptions and trip rates come from ITE. The surveys provide one of the most comprehensive databases available of trip generation rates, pass-by trips factors for a wide range of land uses.

Table 3.1: Trip Rate Adjustment Factors
ITE Category
Pass-by
Trips1
Primary
and
Diverted
Trips1
PM
Peak
Hour
Trips2
Trip
Demand
Factor3
A B = 1 - A C D = B x C
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Single Family Housing (210) 0% 100% 1.00 1.00 Multifamily Multifamily (220) 0% 100% 0.67 0.67
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Mixed Use/Commercial Shopping Center (820) 34% 66% 4.21 2.78 Industrial General Light Industrial (110) 0% 100% 0.83 0.83 2 Average trips in the PM peak hour on a w eekday per dw elling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. 3 The trip demand factor is the product of the PM peak hour trip rate and the share of primary and diverted trips. 1 Percent of total trips. Primary trips are trips w ith no midw ay stops, or "links". Diverted trips are linked trips w hose distance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass-by trips are links that do not add more than one mile to the total trip.

Sources: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition; Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition; Willdan Financial Services.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
20 Trip Demand Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is buildout. Table 3.2 lists the existing and buildout land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated in are multiplied by the existing and future dwelling units and building square feet to determine the increase in trip demand attributable to new development. Estimates of development and trip generation are provided for the existing City impact fee zone, the future growth area and the GABIP. This allows for the calculation of separate fees for each of the three fee zones.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
21 Table 3.2: Land Use Scenario and Trip Demand
PM Peak
Trip
Land Use
Demand
Factor
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Existing City
Residential
Single Family 1.00 1,587 1,587 - - 1,587 1,587
Multifamily 0.67 375 251 63 42 438 293
Subtotal 1,962 1,838 63 42 2,025 1,880
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.78 280 778 - - 280 778
Industrial 0.83 1,616 1,341 - - 1,616 1,341
Subtotal 1,896 2,119 - - 1,896 2,119
Total Trips - Existing City 3,957 42 3,999
GABIP
Industrial 0.83 482 400 3,444 2,859 3,926 3,259
Future Growth Area
Vista Lucia
Residential
Single Family 1.00 - - 2,877 2,877 2,877 2,877
Multifamily 0.67 - - 621 416 621 416
Subtotal - - 3,498 3,293 3,498 3,293
Nonresidential
Mixed Use 2.78 - - 94 261 94 261
Subtotal Trips Vista Lucia - 3,554 3,554
Puente Del Monte
Residential
Single Family 1.00 - - 2,009 2,009 2,009 2,009
Multifamily 0.67 - - 614 411 614 411
Subtotal - - 2,623 2,420 2,623 2,420
Nonresidential
Mixed Use 2.78 - - 72 199 72 199
Commercial 2.78 - - 450 1,252 450 1,252
Industrial 0.83 - - 412 342 412 342
Subtotal - - 934 1,793 934 1,793
Subtotal Trips Puente Del Monte 4,213 4,213
D'Arrigo Brothers
Residential
Single Family 1.00 - - 1,174 1,174 1,174 1,174
Multifamily 0.67 - - 207 139 207 139
Subtotal 1,381 1,313 1,381 1,313
Nonresidential
Mixed Use 2.78 - - 1,059 2,943 1,059 2,943
Subtotal Trips D'Arrigo 4,256 4,256
Franscioni
Industrial 0.83 - - 1,078 895 1,078 895
Total Future Growth Area
Residential
Single Family 1.00 - - 6,060 6,060 6,060 6,060
Multifamily 0.67 - - 1,442 966 1,442 966
Subtotal - - 7,502 7,026 7,502 7,026
Nonresidential
Mixed Use/Commercial 2.78 - - 1,675 4,656 1,675 4,656
Industrial 0.83 - - 1,490 1,237 1,490 1,237
Subtotal - - 3,165 5,893 3,165 5,893
Total Trips - Future Growth Area - 12,919 12,919
Grand Total Trips City + FGA 4,357 15,820 20,177
Sources: Tables 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 3.1; Willdan Financial Services Existing Total at Buildout Growth to
Buildout
City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
22 Planned Facilities
Roadway Segments
Table 3.3 lists the roadway segment projects included in this analysis. The projects were identified in the City’s Sphere of Influence Circulation Study Transportation Impact Analysis, 2019. The project costs were adjusted from 2019 to May 2021, using the Engineering News Record’s (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI). Costs are shown for the future growth area and for the GABIP area.

Table 3.3: Circulation Improvement Project Costs
Roadway Segment Improvement Description1,2 Linear Feet Cost3 Future Growth Area Only Projects
3 Fanoe Rd / Herold Pk wy
New Major Arterial - 4L 2,100 $ 11,853,167
Widen Major Arterial - 2L to 4L 1,300 5,198,348
3b Arterial B to Fifth Street Widen Major Arterial - 2L to 4L 3,900 15,593,985 Widen Major Arterial - 2L to 4L 3,200 12,795,527
New Major Arterial - 4L 5,100 28,787,020
Right of Way Acquisition for Project 3a and 6a (Bassi and adjacent property) 3,500,000 6 Associated Ln
6a US 101 to Fanoe Rd Widen existing two lane road to four lane arterial 5,700 $ 29,593,697
6b Fanoe Rd to Arterial B Developer Funded 6,000
9 Gloria Rd
9a US 101 to Herold Pkwy Widen road from 2L to 4L Arterial 2,300 $ 15,390,108 9b Herold Pkwy to Arterial A Developer Funded 5,200 -
9c Arterial A to Iverson Rd Developer Funded 3,400 -
$ 122,711,853
Other projects
$ 11,535,467
1 Improvement descriptions relate to the applicable cross section. 2 (AG) denotes the usage of the applicable cross section w ith the agriculture buffer. 3 Costs adjusted from 2019 to May 2021 using ENR's Construction Cost Index. (Represents 6.002% increase) Sources: Table 28, City of Gonzales Sphere of Influence Circulation Study Transportation Impact Analysis Final Report, December 18, 2019.

Associated Ln to Arterial B
Fifth Street to Gloria Rd
3a
3c
Extend Puente Del Monte in Industrial Business Park to Fermin Lane (includes improving UPRR crossing at Alta Street)
Intersection Improvements
Table 3.4 lists the intersection projects included in this analysis. Like in Table 3.3, the projects were originally identified in the City’s 2019 circulations study and adjusted to 2021 dollars using ENR’s CCI.

Table 3.5 allocates project costs to each of the three fee zones (existing City impact fee zone, GABIP and future growth area). City staff provided the allocation factors for use in this analysis.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
23 Table 3.4: Intersection Cost Estimates
Intersection
Existing
Control
Improved
Control
Roundabout
Cost2
Ramp
Improvement
Cost
Roundabout
Cost2
Ramp
Improvement
Cost Subtotal
Contingency
and Soft
Costs Total Cost
1 Alta Street & US 101 Southern Overpass SSSC Roundabout $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 1,590,033 $ - $ 1,590,033 $ 1,033,522 $ 2,623,555 2 Alta & US 101 SB Off Ramp SSSC Roundabout 1,500,000 1,100,000 1,590,033 1,166,024 2,756,057 1,791,437 4,547,495 3 Alta / Lanini Road & US 101 SB On Ramp4,5 SSSC Roundabout 2,500,000 1,100,000 2,650,055 1,166,024 3,816,080 2,480,452 6,296,531 4 US 101 NB Off Ramp & US 101 Southern Overpass5 AWSC 4,000,000 1,100,000 4,240,088 1,166,024 5,406,113 3,513,973 8,920,086 5 Tavernetti Road & US 101 Southern Overpass AWSC - - - - - - - 6 Tavernetti Road / US 101 NB On Ramp & Gloria Road AWSC Roundabout 1,500,000 1,100,000 1,590,033 1,166,024 2,756,057 1,791,437 4,547,495 7 Alta Street / US 101 SB Off Ramp & Foletta Road4,5 AWSC Roundabout 2,500,000 1,100,000 2,650,055 1,166,024 3,816,080 2,480,452 6,296,531 8 Alta Street / US 101 Northern Overpass & US 101 SB
On Ramp AWSC 2L Roundabout 3,500,000 2,200,000 3,710,077 2,332,049 6,042,126 3,927,382 9,969,508 9 US 101 NB On/Off Ramps & US 101 Northern Overpass AWSC 3,500,000 2,200,000 3,710,077 2,332,049 6,042,126 3,927,382 9,969,508 11 Alta Street & 5th Street AWSC Signal 550,000 - 583,012 - 583,012 378,958 961,970 13 Associated Lane & Fanoe Road - - - 2L Roundabout 2,500,000 - 2,650,055 - 2,650,055 1,722,536 4,372,591 14 Fanoe Rd/Herold Parkway/5th Street/Johnson Canyon AWSC 2L Roundabout 2,500,000 - 2,650,055 - 2,650,055 1,722,536 4,372,591 15 Herold Parkway & Gloria Road TWSC Roundabout 2,000,000 - 2,120,044 - 2,120,044 1,378,029 3,498,073 16 Arterial B & Arterial A AWSC Roundabout Privately Funded - Privately Funded - - - - 17 Arterial A & Johnson Canyon Road - - - Roundabout Privately Funded - Privately Funded - - - - 18 Arterial A & Gloria Road - - - Roundabout Privately Funded - Privately Funded - - - - 19 Associated Lane & Arterial B - - - Roundabout Privately Funded - Privately Funded - - - - 20 Arterial B & Iverson Road - - - Roundabout Privately Funded - Privately Funded - - - - 21 Iverson Road & Johnson Canyon Road SSSC Roundabout Privately Funded - Privately Funded - - - - 22 Iverson Road & Johnson Canyon Road SSSC Roundabout Privately Funded - Privately Funded - - - - 23 Iverson Road & Gloria Road SSSC Roundabout Privately Funded - Privately Funded - - - - 24 US 101 SB and NB Ramps at 5th St3 AWSCs Roundabout 6,014,000 - 6,374,973 - 6,374,973 4,143,732 10,518,705 Subtotal $ 34,064,000 $ 9,900,000 $ 36,108,593 $ 10,494,219 $46,602,812 $ 30,291,828 $76,894,639 1 Existing adjacent intersections are combined into one roundabout 3 Costs taken from Omnimeans ICE Step 1 Alternatives Preliminary Opionion of Costs (December 2015) and adjusted to 2021 dollars. 4 Costs have been increased $0.5M to account for railraod crossing treatments including gates 5 Costs have been increased $0.5M to account for additional roadw ay segments betw een intersections Sources: Table 29, City of Gonzales Sphere of Influence Circulation Study Transportation Impact Analysis Final Report, December 18, 2019. 2L Roundabout1
2L Roundabout1
2 Base roundabout cost assumptions are: $1.5M single lane, $2M for single lane w ith truck lane, $2.5M for dual lane. Some interchange intersection cost estimates have been increased to account for additional constraints. These costs w ere adjusted to 2021 costs using ENR's CCI.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
24 Table 3.5: Intersection Cost Allocation
Intersection Total Cost
Percent
Allocation to
New Future
Growth Area
Development
Cost
Allocated to
Future
Growth Area
Percent
Allocation
to
Industrial
Business
Park
Cost
Allocated to
Business
Park
Percent
Allocation to
Existing City
Development
Cost
Allocated to
Existing City
1 Alta Street & US 101 Southern Overpass $ 2,623,555 83.8% $ 2,198,539 16.2% $ 425,016 0% $ - 2 Alta & US 101 SB Off Ramp 4,547,495 83.8% 3,810,801 16.2% 736,694 0% - 3 Alta / Lanini Road & US 101 SB On Ramp 6,296,531 100.0% 6,296,531 0.0% - 0% - 4 US 101 NB Off Ramp & US 101 Southern Overpass 8,920,086 83.8% 7,475,032 16.2% 1,445,054 0% - 5 Tavernetti Road & US 101 Southern Overpass - 100.0% - 0.0% - 0% - 6 Tavernetti Road / US 101 NB On Ramp & Gloria Road 4,547,495 100.0% 4,547,495 0.0% - 0% - 7 Alta Street / US 101 SB Off Ramp & Foletta Road 6,296,531 100.0% 6,296,531 0.0% - 0% - 8 Alta Street / US 101 Northern Overpass & US 101 SB On Ramp 9,969,508 83.8% 8,354,448 16.2% 1,615,060 0% - 9 US 101 NB On/Off Ramps & US 101 Northern Overpass 9,969,508 83.8% 8,354,448 16.2% 1,615,060 0% - 11 Alta Street & 5th Street 961,970 0.0% - 100.0% 961,970 0% - 13 Associated Lane & Fanoe Road 4,372,591 100.0% 4,372,591 0.0% - 0% - 14 Fanoe Road / Herold Parkway & 5th Street / Johnson Canyon Road 4,372,591 100.0% 4,372,591 0.0% - 0% - 15 Herold Parkway & Gloria Road 3,498,073 100.0% 3,498,073 0.0% - 0% - 24 US 101 SB and NB Ramps at 5th St 10,518,705 64.0% 6,734,953 16.2% 1,704,030 19.8% 2,079,722 $ 76,894,639 $ 66,312,033 $ 8,502,885 $ 2,079,722
Sources: City of Gonzales; Tables 3.4; Willdan Financial Services.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
25 Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, representing the value of facilities, divided by a measure of demand. In this case, all fees are first calculated as a replacement cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit (cost per unit) and employment space (cost per 1,000 square feet or room) fees by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.

Table 3.6 displays the calculation of the cost the cost per trip demand unit for each fee zone.

Allocated costs from Tables 3.3 and 3.5 are summarized in the table. For the future growth area and GABIP zones, the allocated costs are divided by the growth in trips for each zone from Table

3.2 to determine the costs per trip attributable to growth. For the existing City impact fee zone, existing fund balances were subtracted from the costs allocated to the zone, and the net cost of facilities is allocated to both existing and new development. The net cost is divided by all trip demand from the existing City identified in Table 3.2 to determine the cost per trip to drive the fee calculation.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
26 Table 3.6: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Future Growth Area Only
Segment Costs $122,711,853
Intersection Costs 66,312,033
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs $ 189,023,886 Growth in Trip Demand 12,919
Cost per Trip $ 14,631
GABIP
Intersection Cost $ 8,502,885
Segment Cost1
3,750,000
Total $ 12,252,885
Growth in Trip Demand 2,859
Cost per Trip $ 4,286
Existing City
Intersection Cost $ 2,829,722
Segment Cost1
750,000
Total $ 3,579,722
Less Existing Fund Balance 382,971
Net Cost $ 3,196,751
Total Trip Demand at Buildout2
3,999
Cost per Trip $ 799
Sources: Tables 3.2, 3.3 and 3.5.
1 Allocated to Puente Del Monte extension in GABIP/existing city. Remainder to be funded w ith Federal Economic Administration grant.
2 Cost of facilities in existing City allocated to both existing and new development. Fee revenue from new development estimated at $33,558 through buildout.

Fee Schedule
Table 3.7 shows the maximum justified circulation facilities fee schedule for each of the three fee zones. The City can adopt any fee up to these amounts. The maximum justified fees are based on the costs per trip identified in. Table 3.6 for each fee zone. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 3.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development. The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
27 adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 3.7: Maximum Justified Circulation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Trip
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Demand
Factor Base Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Future Growth Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family $14,631 1.00 $ 14,631 $ 293 $ 14,924
Multifamily 14,631 0.67 9,803 196 9,999
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Mixed Use/Commercial $14,631 2.78 $ 40,674 $ 813 $ 41,487 $ 41.49 Industrial 14,631 0.83 12,144 243 12,387 12.39
Existing City
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family $ 799 1.00 $ 799 $ 16 $ 815
Multifamily 799 0.67 535 11 546
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Mixed Use/Commercial $ 799 2.78 2,221 $ 44 $ 2,265 $ 2.27 Industrial 799 0.83 663 13 676 0.68
Industrial Business Park
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Industrial $ 4,286 0.83 3,557 71 $ 3,628 $ 3.63
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.6.
1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
28 4. Sanitary Sewer Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for sanitary sewer facilities to accommodate growth within three zones in the City of Gonzales. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a wastewater facilities impact fee to fund wastewater facilities that serve new development.

Wastewater Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased wastewater demand provide the basis for calculating the sanitary sewer facilities fee. The need for wastewater facilities improvements is based on the wastewater demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of wastewater improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 4.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates come from the City’s 2019 Wastewater Master Plan and the GABIP EIR. Estimates of flow generated per capita and per acre of nonresidential development are converted to flow per dwelling unit and per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space based on estimates of residents per dwelling unit and floor area ratio assumptions, respectively.

Flow for each land use is them compared to the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit to calculate equivalent dwelling units (EDU). EDU factors express wastewater flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit. This allows for a calculation of wastewater demand in uniform service units and allows for an equitable allocation of facility costs.

Table 4.1: Wastewater Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation1 Density2
Average
Flow
Generation/

DU & KSF
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 55 4.20 231 1.00
Multifamily 55 3.40 187 0.81
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Mixed Use/Commercial 1,600 11.76 136.04 0.59
Industrial/Manufacturing3 3,000 19.60 153.05 0.66
3 Gallons per acre per day established in the GABIP EIR. 1 Gallons per capita per day for residential. Gallons per acre per day for nonresidential. 2 Persons per dw elling unit for residential, thousand square feet per acre for nonresidential.

Assumes FAR of 0.3 for mixed use/commercial, 0.7 for institutional, 0.5 for industrial, and 90% gross to net conversion.

Sources: Table 2 Wastew ater Generation by Land Use, City of Gonzales Existing City Plus Sphere of Influence Wastew ater Master Plan; Tables 2.2 and 2.4, Willdan Financial Services.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
29 EDU Generation by New Development
Table 4.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through buildout. The EDU factors from Table 4.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from presented in Chapter 2 for each of the three wastewater fee zones to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
30 Table 4.2: Sanitary Sewer Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU
Factor1
Existing
(DU/
1,000 SF)
Projected
Growth
(DU/ 1,000 SF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth
in
EDUs Total
Existing City
Residential
Single Family 1.00 1,587 - 1,587 - 1,587
Multifamily 0.81 375 63 304 51 355
Subtotal 1,962 63 1,891 51 1,942
Nonresidential
Commercial 0.59 280 - 165 - 165
Industrial 0.66 1,616 - 1,066 - 1,066
Subtotal 1,896 - 1,232 - 1,232
Total - Existing City 3,122 51 3,173
GABIP
Industrial 0.66 482 3,444 318 2,273 2,591
Future Growth Area
Vista Lucia
Residential
Single Family 1.00 - 2,877 - 2,877 2,877
Multifamily 0.81 - 621 - 503 503
Subtotal - 3,498 - 3,380 3,380
Nonresidential
Mixed Use 0.59 - 94 - 55 55
Subtotal - 94 - 55 55
Subtotal EDUs Vista Lucia - 3,435 3,435
Puente Del Monte
Residential
Single Family 1.00 - 2,009 - 2,009 2,009
Multifamily 0.81 - 614 - 497 497
Subtotal - 2,623 - 2,506 2,506
Nonresidential
Mixed Use 0.59 - 72 - 42 42
Commercial 0.59 - 450 266 266
Industrial/Manufacturing 0.66 - 412 - 272 272
Subtotal - 934 - 580 580
Subtotal EDUs Puente Del Monte - 3,086 3,086
D'Arrigo Brothers
Residential
Single Family 1.00 - 1,174 - 1,174 1,174
Multifamily 0.81 - 207 - 168 168
Subtotal - 1,381 - 1,342 1,342
Nonresidential
Mixed Use 0.59 - 1,059 - 625 625
Subtotal EDUs D'Arrigo Brothers - 2,440 - 1,966 1,966
Franscioni
Industrial 0.66 - 1,078 - 712 712
Future Growth Area
Residential
Single Family 1.00 - 6,060 - 6,060 6,060
Multifamily 0.81 - 1,442 - 1,168 1,168
Subtotal - 7,502 - 7,228 7,228
Nonresidential
Mixed Use/Commercial 0.59 - 1,675 - 988 988
Industrial/Manufacturing 0.66 - 1,490 - 983 983
Subtotal - 3,165 - 1,971 1,971
Total - Future Growth Area - 9,200 9,200
Grand Total EDUs City + FGA 3,441 11,524 14,964
1 Per dw elling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Tables 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 4.1, Willdan Financial Services.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
31 Facility Needs and Costs
Table 4.3 identifies the planned wastewater treatment facilities identified in the Wastewater Master Plan. The net result of the improvements is an increase of 2.5 million gallons of treatment capacity. Costs are allocated to the three zones based on the amount of capacity projected to serve each zone at a cost per gallon of $28.95.

Table 4.3: Treatment Plant Project Costs and Allocation to Future Development
Costs to Expand the Treatment Plant Capacity from 1.3-3.8MGD Install New Groundwater Monitoring Wells at WWTP $ 75,000 Industrial Pretreatment Program (first five years) 450,000 Sludge Removal at WWTP 2,900,000
Line WWTP Ponds 2,300,000
Improve Aeration at WWTP 1,800,000
Land Acquisition for IW Reclamation Facility 3,650,000
Construct IW System and Treatment Facility 22,000,000
Improvements needed to expand MWWTP from 2.9 to 3.8 MGD 39,200,000 Total Cost $ 72,375,000
Total Additional Capacity 2,500,000
Cost per Gallon (based on 2.5 million gallons) $ 28.95
Cost Allocated to Future Growth Area for 1.8-MGD Capacity $ 52,110,000 Cost Allocated to Industrial = .6-MGD Capacity 17,370,000 Cost Allocated to the City = .1-MGD 2,895,000
Source: Kimley Horn 2019 Master Plan.

Table 4.4 displays the allocated costs from Table 4.3 for each zone, plus conveyance and recycled water costs which are only being incurred by the City in order to serve new development in the future growth area. The total costs allocated to each zone are then divided by the gallons of daily flow allocated to each zone to determine the cost per gallon needed to provided wastewater facilities to each zone. These costs per gallon drive the fee schedule calculation.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
32 Table 4.4: Allocation of Sanitary Sewer Facilities Costs Phased Improvements for Future Growth Area Total
Future
Growth Area GABIP Existing City
Treatment Costs $ 72,375,000 $ 52,110,000 $ 17,370,000 $ 2,895,000 Conveyance Improvements for Future Growth Area 17,000,000 17,000,000 - - Add Recycle wastewater capability to IW Facility 10,000,000 10,000,000 - - Total $ 99,375,000 $ 79,110,000 $ 17,370,000 $ 2,895,000 Allocated Gallons of Capacity 2,500,000 1,800,000 600,000 100,000 Cost per Gallon $ 43.95 $ 28.95 $ 28.95
Sources: Table 4.3, City of Gonzales.

Cost per EDU
The costs per gallon of flow from Table 4.4 are multiplied by 231 gallons, the flow generated by a single family home, to determine the cost per EDU. Table 4.5 displays these calculations for each impact fee zone.

Table 4.5: Cost per EDU
Existing City
Cost per Gallon $ 28.95
Gallons per EDU 231
Cost per EDU $ 6,687
GABIP
Cost per Gallon $ 28.95
Gallons per EDU 231
Cost per EDU $ 6,687
Future Growth Area
Cost of Planned Facilities $ 43.95
Growth in EDUs 231
Cost per EDU $ 10,152
Sources: Tables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fees for wastewater facilities for each zone are shown for residential land uses in Table 4.6 and for nonresidential land uses in Table 4.7. For residential land uses the cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the residential EDU factors shown in Table 4.1. For nonresidential land uses the fee is expressed as a cost per gallon of wastewater discharge. Fees must be calculated on a case-by-case basis using the cost per gallon and the projected wastewater flows for each nonresidential development project.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Study Update
33 The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Table 4.6: Maximum Justified Sanitary Sewer Facilities
Residential Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Base Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Existing City
Residential - Fee per Dwelling Unit
Single Family $ 6,687 1.00 $ 6,687 $ 134 $ 6,821
Multifamily 6,687 0.81 5,416 108 5,524
Future Growth Area
Residential - Fee per Dwelling Unit
Single Family $ 10,152 1.00 $ 10,152 $ 203 $ 10,355
Multifamily 10,152 0.81 8,223 164 8,387
1 Persons per dw elling unit.

Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.5.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Table 4.7: Maximum Justified Sanitary Sewer
Facilities Nonresidential Impact Fee Schedule
Impact Fee Zone
Cost per
Gallon
Admin
Charge
(2%)
Total Cost
per Gallon
Existing City $ 28.95 $ 0.58 $ 29.53
GABIP 28.95 0.58 29.53
Future Growth Area 43.95 0.88 44.83
Source: Table 4.4.
34 5. Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for water system facilities to accommodate growth within two fee zones within the City of Gonzales. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development in each zone and water facilities impact fees to fund water facilities that serve new development.

Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased water demand provide the basis for calculating the water facilities fee. The need for water facilities improvements is based on the water demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of water improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 5.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates come from the City’s 2019 Water Master Plan. Estimates of flow generated per capita and per acre of nonresidential development are converted to flow per dwelling unit and per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space based on estimates of residents per dwelling unit and floor area ratio assumptions, respectively.

Flow for each land use is them compared to the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit to calculate equivalent dwelling units (EDU). EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit. This allows for a calculation of water demand in uniform service units and allows for an equitable allocation of facility costs.

Table 5.1: Water Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation1 Density2
Average
Flow
Generation/

DU & KSF
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 80 4.20 336 1.00
Multifamily 80 3.40 272 0.81
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Mixed Use/Commercial 1,800 11.76 153.05 0.46
Industrial/Manufacturing 1,500 19.60 76.52 0.23
1 Gallons per capita per day for residential. Gallons per acre per day for nonresidential. 2 Persons per dw elling unit for residential, thousand square feet per acre for nonresidential.

Assumes FAR of 0.3 for mixed use/commercial, 0.7 for institutional, 0.5 for industrial, and 90% gross to net conversion.

Sources: Table 2 Water Demand Factors, City of Gonzales Existing City Plus Sphere of Influence Water Master Plan; Tables 2.2 and 2.4, Willdan Financial Services.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
35 EDU Generation by New Development
Table 5.2 shows the estimated EDU generation within each area of the City from new development through buildout. The EDU factors from Table 5.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Chapter 2 to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development.

Note that water facilities fees are calculated for two zones: the existing City (including GABIP) and the future growth area.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
36 Table 5.2: Water Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU
Factor1
Existing
(DU /1,000 SF)
Projected
Growth
(DU/ 1,000 SF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth
in
EDUs Total
Existing City
Residential
Single Family 1.00 1,587 - 1,587 - 1,587
Multifamily 0.81 375 63 304 51 355
Subtotal 1,962 63 1,891 51 1,942
Nonresidential
Commercial 0.46 280 - 129 - 129
Industrial 0.23 1,616 - 372 - 372
Subtotal 1,896 - 500 - 500
Total - Existing City 2,391 51 2,442
GABIP
Industrial 0.23 482 3,444 111 792 903
Future Growth Area
Vista Lucia
Residential
Single Family 1.00 - 2,877 - 2,877 2,877
Multifamily 0.81 - 621 - 503 503
Subtotal - 3,498 - 3,380 3,380
Nonresidential
Mixed Use 0.46 - 94 - 43 43
Subtotal - 94 - 43 43
Subtotal EDUs Vista Lucia - 3,423 3,423
Puente Del Monte
Residential
Single Family 1.00 - 2,009 - 2,009 2,009
Multifamily 0.81 - 614 - 497 497
Subtotal - 2,623 - 2,506 2,506
Nonresidential
Mixed Use 0.46 - 72 - 33 33
Commercial 0.46 - 450 - 207 207
Industrial/Manufacturing 0.23 - 412 - 95 95
Subtotal - 934 - 335 335
Subtotal EDUs Puente Del Monte - 2,841 2,841
D'Arrigo Brothers
Residential
Single Family 1.00 - 1,174 - 1,174 1,174
Multifamily 0.81 - 207 - 168 168
Subtotal - 1,381 - 1,342 1,342
Nonresidential
Mixed Use 0.46 - 1,059 - 487 487
Subtotal EDUs D'Arrigo Brothers - 3,821 - 1,829 1,829
Franscioni
Industrial 0.23 - 1,078 - 248 248
Future Growth Area
Residential
Single Family 1.00 - 6,060 - 6,060 6,060
Multifamily 0.81 - 1,442 - 1,168 1,168
Subtotal - 7,502 - 7,228 7,228
Nonresidential
Mixed Use 0.46 - 1,675 - 770 770
Industrial/Manufacturing 0.23 - 1,490 - 343 343
Subtotal - 3,165 - 1,113 1,113
Total - Future Growth Area - 8,341 8,341
Grand Total EDUs City + FGA 2,502 9,184 11,686
1 Per dw elling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Tables 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 5.1, Willdan Financial Services.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
37 Facility Needs and Costs
Table 5.3 identifies the planned water facilities identified in the Water Master Plan. All improvements are needed to accommodate demand from new development, so the two impact fee zones will fully fund the total cost of the identified improvements.

Table 5.3: Water Facilities Costs to Serve New Development Item Quantity Units Unit Price Total
Existing City Water Line (Upgrades)
10" PVC (under paving) 860 LF $ 200 $ 172,000
12" PVC (under paving) 180 LF 225 40,500
18" DIP Transmission Main 12,450 LF 275 3,423,750
Well 6 Hydropnuematic Tank 1 EA 500,000 500,000
New 0.5MG Tank and Booster Pump 1 EA 750,000 750,000
New Well 7 and Pump 1 EA 1,500,000 1,500,000
Hard Cost Subtotal $ 6,386,250
10% Design $ 638,625
10% CM/Inspection 638,625
15% Contractor Profit, Bonds, Insurance Overhead 957,938

2.5% General Admin & Legal 159,656
Soft Cost Subtotal 2,395,000
30% Contingency 1,915,875
Existing City Total $ 10,698,000
Future Growth Area Backbone Water System
12" PVC (natural ground) 21,800 LF $ 90 $ 1,962,000
18" DIP (natural ground) 13,900 LF 120 1,668,000
New Well and Pump 2 EA 1,500,000 3,000,000
Pressure Reducing Stations 4 EA 25,000 100,000
New 3.0 MG Storage Tank 1 EA 4,500,000 4,500,000
Booster Pump and Hydropnuematic Valves 1 EA 500,000 500,000 Hard Cost Subtotal $ 11,730,000
10% Design $ 1,173,000
10% CM/Inspection 1,173,000
15% Contractor Profit, Bonds, Insurance Overhead 1,759,500

2.5% General Admin & Legal 293,250
Soft Cost SUBTOTAL 4,399,000
30% Contingency 3,519,000
Future Growth Area Total $ 19,648,000
Total $ 30,346,000
Source: City of Gonzales Existing City Plus Sphere Of Influence Water Master Plan Appendix, Cost Estimate Back-Up Data, June 2019.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
38 Cost per EDU
Table 5.4 calculates a cost per EDU associated by dividing the total cost of projects allocated to new development identified in Table 5.3 by the growth in EDUs identified in Table 5.2 for each zone.

Table 5.4: Cost per EDU
Existing City and GABIP
Cost of Planned Facilities $10,698,000
Growth in EDUs 843
Cost per EDU $ 12,690
Future Growth Area
Cost of Planned Facilities $19,648,000
Growth in EDUs 8,341
Cost per EDU $ 2,356
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for water facilities is shown in Table 5.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 5.1.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
39 Table 5.5: Water Facilities System Development Fee
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Base Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Existing City and GABIP
Residential - Fee per Dwelling Unit
Single Family $12,690 1.00 $ 12,690 $ 254 $ 12,944
Multifamily 12,690 0.81 10,279 206 10,485
Nonresidential - Fee per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Mixed Use/Commercial $12,690 0.46 $ 5,837 $ 117 $ 5,954 $ 5.95 Industrial/Manufacturing 12,690 0.23 2,919 58 2,977 2.98 Future Growth Area
Residential - Fee per Dwelling Unit
Single Family $ 2,356 1.00 $ 2,356 $ 47 $ 2,403
Multifamily 2,356 0.81 1,908 38 1,946
Nonresidential - Fee per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Mixed Use/Commercial $ 2,356 0.46 $ 1,084 $ 22 $ 1,106 $ 1.11 Industrial/Manufacturing 2,356 0.23 542 11 553 0.55
1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.4; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
40 6. Police Capital Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of police capital facilities. Fees are calculated for two zones: the existing City impact fee zone, plus GABIP and for the future growth area. A fee schedule is presented based on the planned facilities standard of police facilities in the City of Gonzales to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs, since the identified facilities represent a lower standard than currently exists. New development will fully fund the identified facilities through this impact fee.

Service Population
Police facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for police facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for public safety facilities.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
41 Table 6.1: Police Capital Facilities Service Population Residents Workers
Service
Population1
Existing City
Existing 8,484 2,626 9,298
New Development 214 - 214
Buildout 8,698 2,626 9,512
GABIP
Existing - 482 149
New Development - 3,444 1,068
Buildout - 3,926 1,217
Future Growth Area
Existing 30 - -
New Development 29,123 4,535 30,529
Buildout 29,153 4,535 30,529
Total
Existing 8,514 3,108 9,447
New Development 29,337 7,979 31,811
Buildout 37,851 11,087 41,258
Weighting factor2

1.00 0.31
1 Service population is equal to residents plus w eighted w orkers.

Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
2 Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non-w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31) Existing Facility Inventory
The City’s police facilities inventory is comprised of a police station built in 2010. At that time, the station was oversized by 40% to accommodate anticipated growth in the future growth area.

Table 6.2 displays the total value of the existing facilities and allocates that value to the existing City and to the future growth area.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
42 Table 6.2: Existing Police Capital Facilities Inventory Facility Inventory Units Unit Cost1 Value
Police Department
Land 0.15 acres $200,000 $ 29,904
Police Building 10,000 sq. ft. 600 6,000,000
Subtotal $6,029,904
Total Value of Existing Facilities $6,029,904
Allocation to Existing City Limits $3,617,942
Allocation to Future Growth Area1
$2,411,961
Sources: City of Gonzales; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Existing Police Station w as constructed in 2010 and w as oversized by 40% to accommodate some of the grow th in the future grow th area.

Planned Facilities
Table 6.3 summarizes the planned public safety facilities needed to serve the City, as identified by City staff. A community video surveillance system is planned to serve the entire City and the future growth area. A new substation, vehicles and equipment are needed to serve the future growth area. City staff estimates that 30% of the video surveillance project is needed to serve the existing City. The table displays the costs allocated to the existing City and to the future growth area.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
43 Table 6.3: Planned Police Capital Facilities
Facility Quantity Units Unit Cost Value
Existing City, GABIP and Future Growth Area
Community Video Camera System1 Lump Sum 290,000 $ 290,000 Future Growth Area
Police Substation
Land 0.50 acres $200,000 $ 100,000
Police Building 5,000 sq. ft. 600 3,000,000
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment 5,000 sq. ft. 90 450,000 Subtotal $ 3,550,000
Vehicles and Equipment
Vehicles 6 65,000 $ 390,000
Computers and related gear installed
in patrol vehicle 6 15,000 90,000
Radios (belt-mounted) 6 3,000 18,000
Police Body Cameras 6 550 3,300
Computer stations in PD HQ and
substation 6 2,500 15,000
Computer Rack with gear for VPN
connection back to main City server Lump Sum 10,000 10,000 Firearms (rifles and shotguns) 12 550 6,600
Speed-feedback Radar trailer 1 25,000 25,000
Animal Control Truck 1 60,000 60,000
Subtotal $ 617,900
Total Cost of Planned Facilities $ 4,457,900
Allocation to Existing City Limits $ 87,000
Allocation to Future Growth Area1$ 4,370,900
1 City staff estimates 70% of his project is needed to serve development in the Future Grow th Area and the remainder is needed to serve the existing City.

Sources: City of Gonzales; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Table 6.4 shows the calculation of the planned facilities standard per capita for police facilities.

This approach is used because the planned facilities in each fee zone represent a lower standard per capita than is currently provided by the City. New development can fully fund all the identified facilities.

This cost per capita standard is calculated by dividing the total cost of facilities in each zone by the growth in service population to buildout for each zone, respectively. The cost per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the cost per worker.

But for new development in the future growth area, the City would not be building another police station, so costs for that station are allocated solely to the future growth area.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
44 Table 6.4: Police Capital Facilities Standards
Future Growth Area
Allocation of Existing Facility to Future Growth Area $2,411,961 Allocation of Planned Facilities to Future Growth Area 4,370,900 Total $6,782,861
Service Population Growth (Residents + Weighted
Workers) 30,529
Facility Standard per Resident $ 222
Facility Standard per Worker1 69
Existing City and GABIP
Net Value of Planned Facilities $ 87,000
Service Population Growth (Residents + Weighted
Workers) 1,282
Facility Standard per Resident $ 68
Facility Standard per Worker1
21 1
Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use police facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of police facilities to serve new development. The fee revenue will equal the cost of planned facilities in Table 6.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 6.5 shows the maximum justified police facilities fee schedule for each zone. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
45 Table 6.5: Police Capital Facilities Fee - Maximum Justified Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / 1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.

Future Growth Area
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family $ 222 4.20 $ 932 $ 19 $ 951
Multifamily 222 3.40 755 15 770
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Mixed Use/Commercial $ 69 1.82 $ 125 $ 3 $ 128 $ 0.13
Industrial/Manufacturing 69 1.00 69 1 70 0.07
Existing City and GABIP
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family $ 68 4.20 $ 286 $ 6 $ 292
Multifamily 68 3.40 231 5 236
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Mixed Use/Commercial $ 21 1.82 $ 38 $ 1 $ 39 $ 0.039
Industrial/Manufacturing 21 1.00 21 - 21 0.021
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.4; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 46 7. Fire Capital Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of fire protection facilities. Fees are calculated for two zones: the existing City impact fee zone plus GABIP and for the future growth area. A fee schedule is presented based on the planned facilities standard of fire facilities in the future growth area, and the existing standard in the existing City plus GABIP zone.

Service Population
Fire protection facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for fire protection facilities.

To calculate service population for fire protection facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. A worker is weighted at 0.61 of one resident to reflect the lower per capita need for fire services associated with businesses. The specific 0.61 per worker weighting used here is derived from an analysis of fire services demand by residential versus nonresidential land uses in other agencies in California.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
47 Table 7.1: Fire Capital Facilities Service Population Residents Workers
Service
Population1
Existing City
Existing 8,484 2,626 10,086
New Development 214 - 214
Buildout 8,698 2,626 10,300
GABIP
Existing - 482 294
New Development - 3,444 2,101
Buildout - 3,926 2,395
Future Growth Area
Existing 30 - -
New Development 29,123 4,535 31,889
Buildout 29,153 4,535 31,889
Total
Existing 8,514 3,108 10,380
New Development 29,337 7,979 34,204
Buildout 37,851 11,087 44,584
Weighting factor2

1.00 0.61
1 Service population is equal to residents plus w eighted w orkers.

Source: Tables 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Service population w eighting factors based on service call data w eighted by the relative proportions of residential and nonresidential land use from another Willdan municipal client in California, since local data w as not available.

Existing Facility Inventory
The City’s fire protection facilities inventory is comprised of a single fire station, various apparatus, vehicles, and equipment. In total the City nearly $5.9 million worth of fire protection facilities. Table 7.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of fire protection facilities.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
48 Table 7.2: Existing Fire Capital Facilities Inventory Inventory Units Unit Cost Value
Fire Station - 325 Center Street
Land 0.12 acres $200,000 $ 23,600
Station 6,500 Sq. Ft. 500 3,250,000
Reserve Vehicle Parking and Storage 2,800 Sq. Ft. 250 700,000 Subtotal $3,973,600
Vehicles and Apparatus
Engine 8111 $ 725,000
Patrol 8151 60,000
Rescue 8161 675,000
Water Tender 8141 250,000
Subtotal $1,710,000
Equipment
Breathing apparatus $ 80,000
Hose 30,000
Radios 50,000
Miscellaneous tools and rescue equipment 30,000
Subtotal $ 190,000
Total Value of Existing Facilities $5,873,600
Sources: City of Gonzales; Contra Costa Fire Protection District; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 7.3 summarizes the planned fire protection facilities needed to serve the City, as identified by City staff. The City plans to build a new fire station, expand its fleet of vehicles, and expand its inventory of equipment to add capacity to serve the future growth area. The total cost of the identified facilities is $9.1 million. The City will also have to identify facilities to serve the existing City.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
49 Table 7.3: Planned Fire Capital Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Value
Future Growth Area Fire Station
Land 1.00 acres $ 200,000 $ 200,000
Station 10,000 Sq. Ft. 500 5,000,000
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment 10,000 Sq. Ft. 65 650,000 Computer Rack with gear for VPN connection
back to main City server Lump Sum 10,000 10,000
Subtotal $5,860,000
Future Growth Area Vehicles and Apparatus
Type 1 Fire Engine 1 650,000 $ 650,000
Type 3 Fire Engine 1 450,000 450,000
75-foot aerial apparatus or quint 1 1,200,000 1,200,000 Type 6 Fire Engine or rescue squad 1 400,000 400,000
Breathing apparatus Lump Sum 150,000
Hose Lump Sum 50,000
Radios Lump Sum 75,000
Misc tools and rescue equipment Lump Sum 100,000
Backup generator 1 200,000 200,000
Subtotal $3,275,000
Total Value of Planned Facilities $9,135,000
Sources: City of Gonzales.

Cost Allocation
Table 7.4 shows the calculation of the fire facilities standards per capita for the existing City and for the future growth area. The standard for the existing City is based on the existing inventory method. The value of existing facilities is divided by the existing service population to determine an existing cost per capita. New development will maintain this level of service through the impact fee.

The standard for the future growth area is calculated using the planned facilities methodology.

The facilities identified are needed only to serve new development. If no new development were occurring in the future growth area, then the City would not need to build these facilities. As such, new development must fully fund the identified facilities though the impact fee. The cost standard is calculated by dividing the cost of the planned facilities by the growth in serve population in the future growth area.

The cost per capita for each zone is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.61 to determine the cost per worker. The resulting standard is the cost standards are used to drive the impact fee calculations for each zone, respectively.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
50 Table 7.4: Fire Capital Facility Standards
Existing City and GABIP
Value of Existing Facilities $ 5,873,600
Existing Service Population (Residents +
Weighted Workers) 10,086
Cost per Capita $ 582
Facility Standard per Resident $ 582
Facility Standard per Worker1 355
Future Growth Area
Value of Planned Facilities $ 9,135,000
Growth in Service Population (Residents +
Weighted Workers) 31,889
Cost per Capita $ 286
Facility Standard per Resident $ 286
Facility Standard per Worker1
174
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.61.

Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use fire protection facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of fire protection facilities to serve new development. Table 7.5 details a projection of fee revenue for the existing City zone based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 7.1. The City should program fire protection facilities fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process. The fee will generate $1.3 million thorough buildout within this zone.

The fee in the future growth area will generate revenue equal to the total cost of the planned facilities from Table 7.3.

Table 7.5: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Existing City and GABIP
Cost per Capita $ 582
Growth in Service Population to Buildout 2,315
Fee Revenue $ 1,347,000
Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.3.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
51 Fee Schedule
Table 7.6 shows the maximum justified fire protection facilities fee schedule forth existing City and for the future growth area. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 7.6: Fire Capital Facilities Fee - Maximum Justified Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / 1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.

Existing City and GABIP
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family $ 582 4.20 $ 2,444 $ 49 $ 2,493
Multifamily 582 3.40 1,979 40 2,019
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Mixed Use/Commercial $ 355 1.82 $ 645 $ 13 $ 658 $ 0.66 Industrial/Manufacturing 355 1.00 355 7 362 0.36
Future Growth Area
Residential
Single Family $ 286 4.20 $ 1,201 $ 24 $ 1,225
Multifamily 286 3.40 972 19 991
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 174 1.82 $ 316 $ 6 $ 322 $ 0.32
Industrial/Manufacturing 174 1.00 174 3 177 0.18
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.4; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 52 8. Parkland and Park Facilities
The purpose of the parkland and park facilities impact fee is to fund the acquisition of parkland and creation of park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of parkland and park facilities per resident. The fee is calculated Citywide, including the existing City limits and the future growth area.

Service Population
Parkland and park facilities in Gonzales primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 8.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for parkland and park facilities.

Table 8.1: Parkland and Park
Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing City
Existing 8,484
New Development 214
Buildout 8,698
Future Growth Area
Existing 30
New Development 29,123
Buildout 29,153
Total
Existing 8,514
New Development 29,337
Buildout 37,851
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 2.3.

Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory
The City of Gonzales maintains several park facilities throughout the city. Table 8.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2021. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the inventory includes a total of 19.22 acres of parkland.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
53 Table 8.2: Parkland Inventory
Total
Acreage
Existing Parkland
Central Park 2.06
Centennial Park 7.00
Meyer Park 3.00
Canyon Creek Park 3.50
Canyon Creek Tot Lot 0.43
Venice Park 0.25
Skate Park 2.98
Total - Existing Parkland 19.22
Source: City of Gonzales.

Table 8.3 displays the City’s inventory of special use facilities, including a pool and recreation center. The total cost of these facilities is divided by the existing park acres to determine an existing special use facilities cost per acre.

Table 8.3: Special Use Facilities Inventory
Quantity Units Unit Cost1 Value
Community Pool 1 Pool $3,500,000 $3,500,000
Vosti Recreation Center 3,600 Sq. Ft. 350 1,260,000
Total $4,760,000
Exsiting Park Acres 19.22
Special Use Facilities Cost per Acre $ 247,703
Source: City of Gonzales.

Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 8.4 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Gonzales. The land cost assumption was based on an analysis of recent land sales within the City of Gonzales and is consistent with other chapters in the report. An estimate of $500,000 per acre for standard parkland improvements is conservative and based on data from other Willdan clients. The special use facilities cost per acre is also included in addition to the cost of standard park improvements.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
54 Table 8.4: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre Share
Special Use Facilities $ 247,703
Standard Park Improvements 500,000
Subtotal - Improvements $ 747,703 78.9%
Land Acquisition 200,000 21.1%
Total Cost per Acre $ 947,703
Sources: Willdan Financial Services.

Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded park facilities. Information regarding the City’s existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.

The most common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on a jurisdiction’s existing inventory of park facilities, or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.
5 Quimby Act Standard
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction’s existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).

The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction’s adopted general or specific plan standards.

The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.

The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated.

The Quimby Act allows use of in-lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.

Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements including recreation facilities, and rehabilitation of existing parkland and park facilities.

City of Gonzales Park Facilities Standards
Table 8.5 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. In total the City has an existing parkland standard of 2.26 acres per 1,000 residents. The fee analysis in this report will be based on maintaining a 2.26 acre per 1,000 5 California Government Code §66477.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
55 service population standard as new development adds demand for parks in Gonzales. Fees for subdivisions are calculated at the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents.

Table 8.5: Parkland Standards
Total Developed Parkland 19.22
Existing Service Population (Residents) 8,514
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Capita) 2.26
Quimby Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 3.00
Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.2.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 8.6 shows the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, new development must fund the purchase and improvement of between 66.30 and 88.01 parkland acres, at a total cost ranging between $62.8 and $67.2 million.

The facility standards and resulting fees under the Quimby Act are higher because development will be charged to provide 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 2.26 acres of improvements, whereas development not subject to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide only 2.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 2.26 acres of improvements. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 8.6 presents the range of total facility costs that may be incurred depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
56 Table 8.6: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total Range1
Parkland (Quimby Act), Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) 2 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) A 3.00 2.26
Service Population Growth to Buildout B 29,337 29,337
Facility Needs (acres) C = (B / 1,000) x A 88.01 66.30
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 200,000 $ 747,703
Total Cost of Parkland To Serve New Development E = C x D $ 17,602,000 $ 49,572,693 $ 67,174,693 Parkland and Improvements - Mitigation Fee Act 3
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) F 2.26 2.26
Service Population Growth to Buildout G 29,337 29,337
Facility Needs (acres) H = (G / 1,000) / F 66.30 66.30
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 200,000 $ 747,703
Total Cost of Parkland To Serve New Development I = H x D $ 13,260,000 $ 49,572,693 $ 62,832,693 Note: Totals rounded to the thousands.

Sources: Tables 8.1, 8.4 and 8.5.
3 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Parkland and improvements are charged at the existing standard.
1 Values in this column show the range of the cost of parkland acquisition and development should all development be either subject to the Quimby Act, or to the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. 2 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Quimby Act (Subdivisions of 50 units or more).

Parkland charged at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents; improvements charged at the existing standard.

Preliminary Planned Facilities
The City’s has preliminarily identified two parkland and park facilities projects. Table 8.7 summarizes the projects costs. The City will have to identify additional projects to maintain the existing standard of parks and recreation facilities as new development adds demand for facilities. Project costs were provided by City staff based on analogous projects in other jurisdictions.

Table 8.7: Preliminary Planned Facilities
Cost
New Aquatic Facility (30-meter x 25-yard pool
and Family Recreation pool) $15,000,000
Canyon Creek Park - Phase 2 5,875,000
Total $20,875,000
Source: City of Gonzales.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
57 Parks Cost per Resident
Table 8.8 shows the cost per capita of providing new park facilities at the Quimby standard, and the existing facility standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements.

The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of three fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition. This fee is payable by residential development not occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland improvements. This fee is payable by all residential development.

A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, not both. All development projects pay the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for park improvements.

Credits
Developments that build and dedicate parkland to the City can receive a credit against their Quimby and park impact fee requirements. The park facility standards and occupant density assumptions per unit can be used to calculate the parkland needed to satisfy the requirements for a given number of dwelling units. A credit is then given for the number of acres dedicated relative to the acres needed to meet a development project’s parkland standard requirements.

Table 8.8: Parkland and Park Facilities Cost Per Resident Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 747,703 Standard (acres per 1,000 residents) B 3.00 2.26 2.26
Total Cost Per 1,000 capita C = A x B $ 600,000 $ 452,000 $ 1,689,800 Cost Per Resident D = C / 1,000 $ 600 $ 452 $ 1,690
Sources: Tables 8.4 and 8.5.

Land
Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use parkland and park facilities mitigation fee revenue to purchase parkland, recreational facilities and to construct improvements to add to the system of facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide new facilities and to intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development. The City should program parks and recreation facilities fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
58 Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for both land acquisition and improvement. This investment factor (shown in Table

5.7) is the investment per resident based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards.

Table 8.9 and 8.10 show the maximum justified parkland and park facilities fee based on the policy standard of 3.0 acres per capita under the Quimby Act and under the existing Mitigation Fee Act standard, respectively. The costs per resident from Table 8.8 are converted to a fee per dwelling unit using the occupancy density factors from Table 2.2. The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 8.9: Parkland and Park Facilities Fee ScheduleSubdivisions (Quimby Act) A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D
Cost Per Base Admin
Land Use Capita Density Fee Charge1Total Fee
Single Family
Parkland $ 600 4.20 $ 2,520 $ 50 $ 2,570
Improvements 1,690 4.20 7,098 142 7,240
Total $ 2,290 $ 9,618 $ 9,810
Multifamily
Parkland $ 600 3.40 $ 2,040 $ 41 $ 2,081
Improvements 1,690 3.40 5,746 115 5,861
Total $ 2,290 $ 7,786 $ 7,942
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 8.8.
1 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
59 Table 8.10: Parkland and Park Facilities Fee ScheduleNon-Subdivisions (Mitigation Fee Act) A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D
Cost Per Base Admin
Land Use Capita Density Fee Charge1
Total Fee
Single Family
Parkland $ 452 4.20 $ 1,898 $ 38 $ 1,936
Improvements 1,690 4.20 7,098 142 7,240
Total $ 2,142 $ 8,996 $ 9,176
Multifamily
Parkland $ 452 3.40 $ 1,537 $ 31 $ 1,568
Improvements 1,690 3.40 5,746 115 5,861
Total $ 2,142 $ 7,283 $ 7,429
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 8.8.
1 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 60 9. General City Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of general city facilities. A Citywide fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of general city facilities in the City of Gonzales to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
General city facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 9.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for general city facilities.

While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for general city facilities.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
61 Table 9.1: General City Facilities Service Population Residents Workers
Service
Population1
Existing City
Existing 8,484 2,626 9,298
New Development 214 - 214
Buildout 8,698 2,626 9,512
GABIP
Existing - 482 149
New Development - 3,444 1,068
Buildout - 3,926 1,217
Future Growth Area
Existing 30 - -
New Development 29,123 4,535 30,529
Buildout 29,153 4,535 30,529
Total
Existing 8,514 3,108 9,447
New Development 29,337 7,979 31,811
Buildout 37,851 11,087 41,258
Weighting factor2 1.00 0.31
1 Service population is equal to residents plus w eighted w orkers.

Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
2 Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non-w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31) Existing Inventory
The general city facilities inventory is comprised of City Hall, City Council Chambers, the public works corporation yard and land for the future community center complex. In total the City owns over $7 million worth of general city facilities. Table 9.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of general city facilities.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
62 Table 9.2: Existing General City Facilities Inventory Facility Quantity Units Unit Cost1 Value
City Hall
Land 0.33 acres $200,000 $ 65,600
Building 3,650 sq. ft. 500 1,825,000
Subtotal $1,890,600
Council Chambers
Land 0.12 acres $200,000 $ 24,000
Building 4,410 sq. ft. 500 2,205,000
Subtotal $2,229,000
Public Works Corporation Yard
Land 0.33 acres $200,000 $ 65,600
Building 7,200 sq. ft. 300 2,160,000
Subtotal $2,225,600
Community Center Complex at 5th Street/Galiban Court
Land 3.30 acres $200,000 $ 660,000
Total Value of Existing Facilities $7,005,200
Source: City of Gonzales.

Planned Facilities
Table 9.3 summarizes the planned general city facilities needed to serve the City, as identified by City staff. The City plans to build a new community center, to expand City Hall and to expand the corporation yard to accommodate new development. The total cost of the identified facilities net of secured funding is $39.3 million.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
63 Table 9.3: Planned General City Facilities
Facility Quantity Units Unit Cost1 Value
Community Center Complex at Fifth Street/Gabilan Court
Hard Costs
Community Center 12,000 sq. ft. $ 850 $ 10,200,000
Library 6,000 sq. ft. 850 5,100,000
Teen Innovation Center 5,000 sq. ft. 850 4,250,000
Gymnasium 12,000 sq. ft. 625 7,500,000
Fixtures, Furnishings & Equipment 3,700,000
Utilities 1,250,000
Subtotal $ 32,000,000
15% Contingency 4,800,000
Total $ 36,800,000
Soft Costs
Design $ 3,500,000
CM/Inspection/Testing 3,500,000
CEQA and Technical Studies 300,000
Commissioning 90,000
Subtotal $ 7,390,000
15% Contingency 1,108,500
Total $ 8,498,500
Grand Total $ 45,298,500
Less Secured Funding1
(14,810,000)
Net Cost of Community Center Complex $ 30,488,500
City Hall Expansion
Hard Costs
Building 3,650 sq. ft. 700 $ 2,555,000
Soft Costs
Design $ 255,500
CM/Inspection/Testing 320,000
CEQA and Technical Studies 40,000
Permits 20,000
Subtotal $ 3,190,500
15% Contingency 478,575
Total $ 3,669,075
Corporation Yard Expansion
Hard Costs
Building 7,200 sq. ft. 500 $ 3,600,000
Soft Costs
Design $ 360,000
CM/Inspection/Testing 450,000
CEQA and Technical Studies 60,000
Permits 30,000
Subtotal $ 4,500,000
15% Contingency 675,000
Total $ 5,175,000
Total Cost $ 39,332,575
Source: City of Gonzales.
1 Measure X financing = $9,000,000, State Funding = $5,000,000 Community Development Block Grant = $810,000.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
64 Facility Standard
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study requirements that went into effect of January 1, 2022, 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.” Table 9.4 expresses the City’s current general city facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City’s service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 9.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City can fund the planned facilities that have been identified and approved by the City Council, and have received state, grant and CDBG funding.

Table 9.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 7,005,200
Existing Fund Balance 74,761
Total $ 7,079,961
Existing Service Population (Residents +
Weighted Workers) 9,447
Cost per Capita $ 749
Facility Standard per Resident $ 749
Facility Standard per Worker1 232
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Future Level of Service
Table 9.5 shows the calculation of the system facilities standard per capita for general city facilities. This is the standard that will be achieved once new development has occurred and the planned facilities have been realized. This cost is calculated by dividing the total value of all existing and planned facilities by the service population at buildout. The cost per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the cost per worker.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
65 Table 9.5: General City Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 7,005,200
Value of Planned Facilities 39,332,575
Total System Value (Buildout) $46,337,775
Future Service Population (Buildout) 41,258
Facility Standard per Resident $ 1,123
Facility Standard per Worker1
348
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use general city facilities fee revenue to acquire capital assets and equipment to add to the system of general city facilities to serve new development. Table 9.6 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table

9.1. The City should program general city facilities fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process. The City must fully fund the facilities in Table 9.3 by the planning horizon or else new development will have been charged to high a fee.

Table 9.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 1,123
Growth in Service Population (2019 - Buildout) 31,811
Fee Revenue $ 35,724,000
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 39,332,575
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified $ (3,608,575)
Sources: Tables 9.1, 9.3 and 9.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 9.7 shows the maximum justified general city facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
66 In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 9.7: General City Facilities Fee - Maximum Justified Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / 1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.

Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family $ 1,123 4.20 $ 4,717 $ 94 $ 4,811
Multifamily 1,123 3.40 3,818 76 3,894
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Mixed Use/Commercial $ 348 1.82 $ 633 $ 13 $ 646 $ 0.65 Industrial/Manufacturing 348 1.00 348 7 355 0.36
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 9.4; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
67 10. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Three key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the 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.
66016.5. (a) (4) 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 fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study’s compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service

1. For fees calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service. These fee categories are the fire capital facilities (existing City plus GABIP zone) and the parkland and park facilities. The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita is shown in each corresponding chapter.

2. For fees calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensure that the level of service does not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the circulation system impact fees, sanitary sewer mitigation fees, water facilities mitigation fees, police capital facilities fees and fire capital facilities fees (future growth area).

For the circulation system impact fees all projects included in these fees either met the City’s congestion level of service standards at the time they were added to the impact fee program or a share of project costs representing existing development’s share of project responsibility has been excluded from the fee analysis and will be funded through other sources. Impact fees charged under this program will serve to ensure that the LOS does not fall below LOS C or D depending on the type of facility.

For water and sanitary sewer mitigation fees, the planned facilities were identified through master planning efforts as projects needed to provide adequate service and accommodate increases in water and sewer demand associated with new development.

For police capital facilities fees in the future growth area, there is no existing level of service because the area is not currently occupied. The planned facilities in the future growth area are needed to ensure adequate police response in the area as it develops.

For fire capital facilities fees the future growth area is a new service area and there is no existing level of service because the area is not currently occupied. The planned facilities in the future growth area are needed to ensure fire response in the area as it develops.

3. For the fees calculated under the system standard methodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the facility level of service. The fees calculated under this methodology are the general city facilities fees. The increased level of service is required City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
68 to fund new development’s fair share of facilities identified and approved by the City Council. New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of service represented by the planned facilities. The City will have to fund existing development’s share of the increase level of service through any other funding source. The general city facilities fee chapter includes a table that shows the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita.
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Table 10.1 summarizes a review of the assumptions from the City’s prior 2005 impact fee study.

The table displays the study base year, planning horizon, population growth and current investment equity of the City’s inventory of facilities.

Table 10.1: Review of 2005 Study
Base Year 2005
Planning Horizon Buildout
Assumed Population Growth 4312
Current Investment Equity
Fire Capital Facilities Mitigation Fees $ 5,062,704
Police Capital Facilities Mitigation Fees 2,776,736
General Facilities Impact Mitigation Fees 5,035,031
Public Use Facilities Mitigation Fees 2,188,744
Aquatics Facilities Mitigation Fees 2,100,000
Animal Control Facilities Mitigation Fees 255,720
Parkland and Park Facilities Mitigation Fees 11,785,833 Circulation System Impact Fees 13,585,886
Storm Drainage Facilities Impact Fees 3,469,071
Total $46,259,725
Source: City of Gonzales 2005-06 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Table 10.2 displays impact fee revenue, by fee category since FY2015. The City has averaged slightly more than $1 million per year in total annual fee revenue.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
69 Table 10.2: Historical Fee Revenue
20/21 19/20 18/19 17/18 16/17 15/16 14/15
Total (FY2015
through
FY2021)
Annual Average
(FY2015 through
FY2021)
Parkland and Park Facilities $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,082.05 $ 10,082.05 $ 1,440.29 Storm Drainage 31,802.40 - 33,950.00 - - 1,782.00 131.08 67,665.48 9,666.50 Animal Control - - - - - - 172.23 172.23 24.60
Aquatic Facilities - - - - - - 1,357.14 1,357.14 193.88 Public Uses Mitigation Impact Fees - - - - - - 1,693.83 1,693.83 241.98 Public Facility Impact Fund 38,364.80 - 19,110.00 - 23,275.00 2,693.25 2,508.64 85,951.69 12,278.81 Water 36,091.42 462.30 89,175.85 116,437.19 55,396.29 9,437.89 5,429.02 312,429.96 44,632.85 Circulation System 120,647.20 72,884.33 187,480.00 548,201.64 - 47,467.30 3,264.30 979,944.77 139,992.11 Sanitary Sewer 3,084,955.10 2,001,806.63 110,505.54 24,440.65 58,766.47 6,198.70 16,277.41 5,302,950.50 757,564.36 Police Capital Facilities 6,057.60 - 65,510.00 28,232.19 19,715.00 8,545.50 1,186.20 129,246.49 18,463.78 Fire Capital Facilities 20,192.00 108,965.89 8,470.00 49,596.61 24,875.00 11,907.37 2,703.97 226,710.84 32,387.26 Total $ 3,338,110.52 $ 2,184,119.15 $514,201.39 $766,908.28 $182,027.76 $88,032.01 $ 44,805.87 $ 7,118,204.98 $ 1,016,886.43 Source: City of Gonzales.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
70 66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities within each facility fee chapter. Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City’s current adopted CIP. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study. 71 11. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect.

Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.

Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the California Construction Cost Index (https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-DivisionResources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation. The California Construction Cost Index is based on data from the Engineering News Record and is aggregated and made available for free by the State of California.

The fee amounts can be adjusted based on the change in the index compared to the index in the base year of this study (2021).

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. Note that decreases in index value will result in decreases to fee amounts.

While fee updates using inflationary indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available.

Reporting Requirements
The City will comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

Table 11.1 summarizes the annual and five-year reporting requirements identified in the Mitigation Fee Act.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
72 Table 11.1: Mitigation Fee Act - Annual and Five-year Administrative Requirements CA Gov't Code
Section Timing Reporting Requirements1
Recommended
Fee Adjustment
66001.(d)
The fifth fiscal year following the
first deposit into the account or
fund, and every five years
thereafter
(A) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. (B) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
(C) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements.
(D) Designate the approximate dates on which supplemental funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Comprehensive
Update
66006. (b) Within 180 days after the last
day of each fiscal year
(A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee.
(C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended including share funded by fees.
(F) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence.
(G) A description of any potential interfund transfers. (H) The amount of refunds made (if any).

Inflationary
Adjustment
1 Edited for brevity. Refer to the government code for full description.

Sources: California Government Code §6601 and §6606.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
73 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City should maintain a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs. A CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.

The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects if those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City’s facilities and provide benefit to new development. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly. 74 12. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Development impact fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of impact fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments.

The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the development impact fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act.

Purpose of Fee
▪ Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).

Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees documented by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development.

Use of Fee Revenues
▪ Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).

Fees documented in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City’s sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: circulation facilities, wastewater facilities, water facilities, police facilities, fire protection facilities, parks and recreation facilities, and general city facilities.

Benefit Relationship
▪ Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).

The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities, infrastructure and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development.

Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.

City of Gonzales Development Impact Fee Update Study
75 Burden Relationship
▪ Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For some facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted differently than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development.

The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standard sections of each facility category chapter.

Proportionality
▪ Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).

The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project’s size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.

See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the maximum justified facilities fees.