Grover Beach City Council
June 24, 2024

Agenda Item No. 15

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: June 24, 2024 FROM: Matthew Bronson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Megan Martin, Community Development Director Greg Ray, Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Consideration of the 2024 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study; and Direction on Related Changes to the Master Fee Schedule and Article X (Revenue and Taxation), Chapter 13 (Development Impact Fee Ordinance) of the Grover Beach Municipal Code

RECOMMENDATION
1) Consider and adopt the 2024 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study; and if adopted; 2) Direct staff to prepare a Resolution to update the City’s Master Fee Schedule; and 3) Direct staff to prepare an Ordinance amending the Grover Beach Municipal Code (GBMC) Article X (Revenue and Taxation), Chapter 13 (Development Impact Fee Ordinance).

BACKGROUND
The City has a Development Impact Fee (DIF) schedule that identifies fees charged to developers to mitigate the impacts of development upon public facilities. DIFs are essential to mitigate the impacts of growth and development within the City. These fees have supported numerous projects to date, including storm drain construction on South 5th Street and Mentone Avenue between 8th-13th Streets; South Oak Park Rehabilitation project; Industrial Area Sewer project (Highland Avenue); Mentone Basin Park improvements; 16th Street roadway improvements; Ramona Garden Park improvements; 16th Street Park improvements; and Sewer System Upgrades. These fees allow the City to reduce the need to subsidize impacts of development from the City’s General Fund, existing water and wastewater rate payers and other funds which are needed to provide essential City services and complete capital improvement projects.

Overview and Authority to Collect Development Impact Fees A DIF is a monetary “exaction” charged by a local government agency to an applicant in connection with approval of a development project. Its purpose is to defray all or a portion of the cost for public facilities constructed or upgraded to mitigate the impacts of growth resulting from a development project. The legal requirements for a DIF program are set forth in Government Code Section 66000-66025 (the “Mitigation Fee Act” or “AB 1600” requirements). A summary of the legal framework and case law that shaped DIFs is provided as Attachment 6.

The power to exact DIFs arises from the City’s police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare (Cal. Const., Art. XI, Section 7). This police power allows a city to act in the interest of its citizenry and enact and enforce ordinances and regulations in compliance with State law. The authority to collect DIFs is granted to City’s by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Staff Report: Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 2 June 24, 2024
Creation of a Valid Development Impact Fee Program
To prepare a valid DIF program, a city must consider where areas of growth may occur within the community and the scope of public improvements that will be required. Establishing an impact fee requires:
(1) Projecting the future growth that will be served;
(2) Identifying the current and projected level of service for each public facility; (3) Identifying any additional facilities or improvements that will be needed to accommodate future growth; and
(4) Allocating the costs of providing the needed public facilities between the existing population and the new population.

A city’s General Plan typically serves as its guideline in projecting future growth and may specify the size and level of service at which certain types of public infrastructure must be maintained.

The Mitigation Fee Act encourages the use of a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to assist in scheduling and implementing the services and improvements funded through impact fees (Government Code Section 66002).

The City programs development impact fee-funded capital projects through its adopted Five-Year CIP. Using the CIP allows the City to identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. The Five-Year CIP is prepared in compliance with the City’s adopted General Plan and matches available City resources to the Council’s approved list of capital and major maintenance projects shown in Attachment 3. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City ensures a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

The City’s Five-Year CIP does not include sufficient funding to address the needs of the City’s municipal facilities including the Police Station and City Hall and instead is primarily focused on water, sewer, streets, and parks infrastructure needs. Given the escalation of maintenance needs and the cost to add capacity to the City’s aging facilities, the City completed a Facilities Condition and Needs Assessment (FCNA) prepared by Roesling Nakamura Terada (RNT) Architects. The FCNA included City Hall, the Emergency Operations Center, the Police Department, the Ramona Garden Park Community Center and the Community Center at Trouville. The FCNA provides a detailed analysis of City facilities as a baseline as well as the needs related to future growth. The FCNA was presented to the Council on September 25, 2023 and the Council provided policy direction to pursue Option 2 to reconstruct the Police Station and City Hall at their current sites at an estimated cost of $16.7 million which is not funded at this time.

Current Development Impact Fee Program
On December 4, 1995, the City adopted Ordinance No. 95-10, adding Chapter 13 to the Grover Beach Municipal Code Article X to establish DIFs. On June 2, 2005, the City approved recommendations regarding adjustments to increase Water System, Storm Water System, and Wastewater System Development Impact Fees in the Master Fee Schedule. On July 5, 2005, the City adopted a subsequent Resolution (Resolution No. 05-49) to include Transportation, Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, and Administrative Development Impact Fees in the Master Fee Schedule.

In mid-2005, in response to an increase in development activity at that time, the Council directed staff to analyze fees relating to Transportation, Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, Administration, and Parks and Recreation for potential updates. The City engaged with Tuckfield and Associates, Staff Report: Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 3 June 24, 2024

a financial consulting firm, who assisted in completing a Development Impact Fee Study and Update Report. On February 6, 2006, the Council adopted by Resolutions (Resolution No. 06-11) updated impact fees for Transportation, Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, and Administration.

Parks and Recreation impact fees were later adopted by Resolution (Resolution No. 06-45) on June 5, 2006, finalizing the schedule components and establishing the City’s current schedule for DIFs. These fees are collected at the time a building permit is issued and the fees have not been updated since then.

FY 2023-24 DIF Funds are shown in the following table with balance at the beginning of the current fiscal year along with total revenues, expenses and the current ending balance excluding fourth quarter transfers for project expenses:

Fund Beginning Balance Total Revenues Total Expenses Ending Balance 250 - Transportation Development Impact Fee 115,285.14 73,527.71 3,080.23 185,732.62 251 - Law Enforcement Development Impact 13,533.99 8,126.38 1,822.66 19,837.71 252 - Administrative Development Impact Fee 27,805.96 5,345.19 2,451.45 30,699.70 253 - Fire Development Impact Fee Fund 13,602.63 7,464.05 2,451.45 18,615.23 254 - Stormwater Development Impact Fee 148,073.26 14,892.83 2,451.45 160,514.64 255 - Wastewater Development Impact Fee 232,917.80 68,927.69 5,684.50 296,160.99 256 - Parks Facilities Development Impact Fee 216,718.93 108,494.80 150,552.09 174,661.64 257 - Recreation Facilities Development Impact 49,525.25 9,949.11 2,451.43 57,022.93 258 - Water Development Impact Fee Fund -1,110.53 56,395.24 2,451.45 52,833.26 Total: 816,352.43 353,123.00 173,396.71 996,078.72
During FY 2023-24, the City expended a total of $173,396 to support the Ramona Garden Park Rehabilitation Project and Sewer Upgrade for Existing and Future Flows. These projects were funded by the Parks Facilities, Recreation Facilities, and Wastewater DIF. 2024 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
State law now requires updates to local government DIF schedules through a comprehensive review every eight years to account for existing development and future growth as well as to reflect changes in the adopted CIP. The City’s DIF schedule was last updated in 2006; however, the eight-year requirement did not go into effect until 2022.

Given the need to update the costs that development pays for future public facilities, the City engaged with Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) in late 2022 to prepare an updated DIF Nexus Study (the “Study”), included as Attachment 2. The Study provides a quantified basis for the imposition of DIFs and demonstrates the required nexus between the impact created by new development and the amount of the fee relative to the City’s capital projects. It also quantifies the projected burden that new development will create on the City’s infrastructure. The City chose to program its DIF through the Five-Year CIP and FCNA, and the findings within the Study enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities that will accommodate future growth and development in the City through 2050 as envisioned in the City’s General Plan.

The public facilities and improvements included in the analysis are divided into distinct categories and reflect those same categories established in 2006: Administrative Facilities, Law Enforcement Facilities, Fire Protection, Parks, Recreation, Water, and Sewer. The proposed new DIF schedule is shown in the table on the following page. These fees would support all or a portion of the identified capital projects in the Study.

Staff Report: Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 4 June 24, 2024

Nexus Study Major Highlights
Below are highlights of the Study for the Council’s consideration:
• Maximum Justified Fee Amounts: 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, infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment. Table E.1 from the Study summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. • New Development Facility Needs and Costs: There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs: the System Plan Method (benefits existing and new development; new development does not pay for existing deficiencies), the Planned Facilities Method (planned facilities will serve new development), and the Existing Inventory Method (funds expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development). Staff recommends the following methods be utilized for each corresponding category:
o System Plan Method: Administrative, Law Enforcement, and Recreation Facilities o Planned Facilities Method: Water and Wastewater Facilities o Existing Inventory Method: Fire Protection and Park Facilities Alternative Funding Sources Needed: Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development. Table E.2 from the Study on the following page demonstrates an estimated $16.4 million in additional funding beyond DIF revenue will be needed to fully fund the identified improvements. Non-DIF revenue funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies. Fees may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside the City. As such, the City will need to develop and/or identify alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to General Fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Staff Report: Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 5 June 24, 2024

Comparison to Other Communities
While ultimately the City’s DIFs should be set based on the City’s funding needs, comparing the current and proposed DIFs to fees in other communities is useful. Willdan completed a DIF schedule survey for six comparison cities in San Luis Obispo County. To create a meaningful comparison of impact fees, the fees were calculated for three prototype projects and assumptions:

Below is a chart showing comparisons with a focus on the single-family unit prototype. The complete survey and results are included in this report as Attachment 4 and includes impact fees from the comparison cities in effect as of May 2024.

When compared to the other cities, the City’s proposed DIFs for a 2,500 square-foot single-family unit are higher than two cities (Arroyo Grande and Atascadero) but significantly lower than the other four cities (Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo). This positions the fees proposed by the Study to be below the average of the other six cities and while the total cost increases by approximately 73%, this is attributable to having no increases including inflationary increases since 2006. Overall, staff believes that the proposed DIFs offer an affordable fee structure for developers while still contributing to community infrastructure and service needs.

Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Government Code Section 66001(a) requires a local agency to make specific findings when imposing fees to mitigate the impacts of development projects. These findings ensure that the fees are justified and used appropriately. The findings required by Section 66001(a) are as follows:

Table 1: Prototype Assumptions
Prototype
Unit
Count
Unit
Sq. Ft.

Lot Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Water/Sewer
Meter Size
(per unit)
Single Family Unit 1 2,500 5,000 1"
Multifamily Unit 1 1,100 2,200 1"
Retail/Commercial N/A 10,000 20,000 1"
Table 2: Single Family Unit - 2,500 Square Feet
Fee Category

CURRENT
Grover
Beach
DRAFT
Grover
Beach1
Arroyo
Grande Atascadero Morro Bay
Paso
Robles
(Low)2
Paso
Robles
(High)2
Pismo
Beach
City of San
Luis Obispo
(Low)3
City of San
Luis Obispo
(High)3
Development Impact Fees $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,350 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Administrative Facilities 128 3,225 - 1,036 4,275 4,199 4,199 3,426 - - Fire Facilities 230 750 600 954 1,550 1,449 1,449 3,688 854 854 Libraries - - - 532 - 1,354 1,354 - - -
Parks 6,024 8,857 8,075 6,435 4,450 4,105 4,105 15,908 8,870 10,161 Police Facilities 103 3,375 425 574 1,425 106 106 2,430 1,003 1,003 Recreation Facilities 585 2,275 425 1,084 - - - 9,555 - - Storm Drain 675 - 97 777 175 - - - - -
Transportation/Traffic 1,586 - 3,425 5,597 6,875 3,659 12,555 8,115 11,848 36,209 Wastewater/Sewer 2,683 2,796 1,837 - 9,737 13,515 13,515 13,698 16,141 16,141 Water 2,896 4,575 6,469 - 9,701 31,840 31,840 17,182 17,379 17,379 Total - per Prototype $ 14,910 $ 25,853 $ 21,353 $ 16,989 $ 52,538 $ 60,227 $ 69,123 $ 74,002 $ 56,095 $ 81,748 1 Park fee assumes infill development.
2 Paso Robles Transportation Fee varies by project location. 3 San Luis Obispo Transportation Fee varies by project location.

Staff Report: Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 6 June 24, 2024
(1) Identify the purpose of the fee;
The purpose of the fees proposed within the Study provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. Those capital improvements are identified in the Five-Year CIP and the FCNA. (2) Identify how the fee is to be used;
Fees proposed by the Study, if adopted, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Fees identified by the City would be restricted to funding the following facility categories: administrative facilities, fire protection facilities, law enforcement facilities, parks and recreation facilities, water facilities, and wastewater facilities. (3) Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
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.

Fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies.

The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Based on this, 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.
(4) Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed.

Facilities needs are 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 most 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 less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development. For water and wastewater facilities, the cost standard is calculated per gallon per day of flow generated.

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. (5) 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.

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 Staff Report: Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 7 June 24, 2024
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.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the fees are further supported in detail by the Study. These findings are critical for ensuring that fees are used transparently and fairly, aligning costs imposed on developers with the actual impacts of their projects to address community needs.

Stakeholder Engagement
On May 20, 2024, City staff, along with Willdan, hosted a stakeholder engagement meeting with community members, agents, developers, and homebuilders. A brief presentation of the Administrative Draft Nexus Study and the proposed fee changes was provided (Attachment 5).

Attendees were given the opportunity to provide comments and feedback which is shown below and represent policy decisions the Council is asked to consider as a part of this report and action:
• Will the City consider phasing the new Development Impact Fee Schedule? Staff does not recommend a phased schedule given the extent of the City’s future facilities needs. Phased adoption of fee increases to reduce the perceived impacts of the increase can be implemented and has on occasion been applied in other jurisdictions. If the Council were to consider this approach, staff recommends applying a defined percentage until the maximum fee amount is reached (i.e. 50% year one, 50% year two). Inflation would not be applied until the third year.
• Will the City offer exceptions or exemptions from Development Impact Fees? Council directed staff to investigate options to exempt affordable housing and temporary housing projects from impact fees. After review, staff found that the City would be responsible for subsidizing for revenue lost as a result of exemptions to fully fund the public facilities projects. The Study demonstrates an estimated $16.4 million in additional funding will be needed to fully fund the identified improvements; providing for exemptions would exacerbate this gap and the need for the City to pursue additional funding. As such, while there are examples of such exemptions in other jurisdictions, staff does not recommend exempting development from any DIFs.

Alternatively, the Council may consider deferring the collection of DIFs to encourage construction of specific types of projects that further the goals and strategies outlined in the City’s General Plan. A DIF Deferral Program could be provided for residential projects that qualify as affordable housing (i.e. more than 49% of the units are deed-restricted as affordable), to further incentivize the development of affordable housing in the community.

A deferral program typically would provide DIFs as a loan against the property, to be repaid at the end of a specified term (i.e. 15-55 years) and may include interest.

A DIF Deferral Program would further implement Housing Element Program 6.1 which directs the City to consider a policy for fee deferrals associated with affordable housing projects. In the event a DIF Deferral Program is considered by Council, staff recommends that the program provide deferrals for any DIFs excluding Water and Wastewater/Sewer for the following qualifying projects:

Staff Report: Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 8 June 24, 2024
• Housing projects with 10 or fewer units that provide at least (1) of the total units to be sold or rented to lower1 or moderate-income households. • Housing projects with more than 10 units that provide at least 20 percent of the total units to be sold or rented to lower or moderate-income households. • Housing projects that are built, owned and managed by a government agency or a nonprofit housing organization.
• Affordable housing, Transitional housing, Supportive housing, Homeless Shelters and Low-Barrier Navigation Centers.

Staff recommends a deferral term of no less than 17 years from the date of occupancy certification with a simple interest of no less than 3%, which is consistent with DIF Deferral Programs in neighboring cities such as Atascadero and San Luis Obispo. The Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) and People’s Self-Help Housing (PSHH) have supported fee deferral programs throughout SLO County as a method to further qualify affordable housing projects for tax credits under the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC).

If the Council supports a DIF Deferral Program, appropriate amendments to the Municipal Code will be prepared by staff and presented for Council’s review and approval at a future meeting.
• Will annual increases reflect rates from the Consumer Price Index or California Construction Index?
Staff recommends that the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) be used annually to adjust the fees for inflation. The CCCI is developed based upon Building Cost Index (BCI) cost indices average for San Francisco and Los Angeles only as produced by Engineering News Record (ENR) and reported in the second issue each month. The CCCI tracks more closely construction costs, as opposed to consumer goods as reflected in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). As a policy decision, the Council can choose to set a maximum annual fee increase such that the fees will increase by a specified cap, or the change in the applied index, whichever is lower.
• Will the City consider establishing a “Lodging” category to reflect hotels and motels? Currently, the City charges new hotels and motels at the commercial rate. The commercial rate lumps all hospitality and commercial uses into a single category which may not be appropriate for hotels and motels as they impact services differently than typical commercial uses (i.e. restaurants). In response to the request, staff directed Willdan to include a “commercial lodging” nonresidential land use category. This category more closely reflects the demand for City facilities for lodging land uses compared to other nonresidential land uses. Fees for commercial lodging would be charged per room. • Will a project already under review and in process be subject to the new Fee Schedule? Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) prevents jurisdictions from changing development impact fees, policies, standards, and zoning ordinances after receipt of a development application that is “deemed complete”. Development fees can only increase by an automatic escalation and only if the resolution or ordinance establishing the fees calls for such. 1 The State Housing and Community Development Department defines Lower-Income Households as those earning below 80% of the Area Media Income.

Staff Report: Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 9 June 24, 2024

NEXT STEPS
Should the Council adopt the Study, it is recommended that the Council also directs staff to prepare a resolution to amend the Master Fee Schedule and an ordinance to amend GBMC Article X, Chapter 13 with staff’s recommendations for Council review and consideration at a future public hearing. If approved, the DIFs would be effective 60 days following the public hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of implementing the maximum justified DIF schedule is an estimated $23.3 million in fee revenue by 2050. These revenues are essential to mitigate the impacts of growth and development within Grover Beach and would support the City’s CIP. Some key capital projects included in the Study are new public facilities including Corporation Yard, Police Station, City Hall, Emergency Operations Center, and Community Center along with upgrades to Parks and Recreation facilities and added capacity and upgrades to the water and sewer system. These fees will only cover the portion of these projects that are attributable to growth and development.

In addition, these fees are collected over a period of 26 years, where the projects will likely be paid for using other sources, then reimbursed over time from these fees as they are collected.

To keep up with inflation, as these fees are set based on today’s dollar value, staff recommends that the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) be used annually to adjust the fees for inflation.

CCCI is more appropriate due to the specific nature and relevance to the costs associated with development projects. CCCI is specifically designed to reflect changes in construction costs, including material, labor, equipment, and overhead. CPI measures average change over time in prices paid by consumers for goods and services (i.e. food, clothing, etc.) CCCI will ultimately ensure that our public facilities improvements can be adequately funded. Staff will complete calculations as of mid-year and rates will become effective as of July 1, each year, consistent with the City’s other fee calculations.

ALTERNATIVES
The Council has the following alternatives to consider:

1. Adopt the 2024 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study; and if adopted, direct staff to prepare a Resolution to update the City’s Master Fee Schedule and to prepare an Ordinance amending the Grover Beach Municipal Code (GBMC) Article X (Revenue and Taxation), Chapter 13 (Development Impact Fee Ordinance) for a public hearing to implement the updated fees; or

2. Do not adopt the 2024 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and provide direction to staff to bring back a discussion of adopting lower DIF fees than the maximum justified schedule; or

3. Receive and file the report but take no action. Under this alternative, the fee schedule will remain the same and future impact fee revenue collected will not be sufficient to fund new development’s share of the facilities needed to mitigate its impact. The City would either need to spend revenue from other funding sources to mitigate new development’s impact on facilities, or the existing level of service will decline; or

4. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Staff Report: Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 10 June 24, 2024

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. A 30-day public hearing notice was published in the New Times on May 16, 2024. The Nexus Study was made available for public review fourteen (14) days prior to the meeting and posted on the City’s website on June 10, 2024, pursuant to Government Code Section 66016.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study

3. City of Grover Beach Five-Year CIP

4. City of Grover Beach Comparison Study

5. City of Grover Beach Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation

6. Summary of Development Impact Fee Legal Framework and Case Law RESOLUTION NO. 24-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GROVER BEACH,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY WHEREAS, on December 4, 1995, the City Council (the “Council”) adopted Ordinance No. 95-10 adding Chapter 13 to Article X of the Grover Beach Municipal Code providing for the establishment of Transportation, Water System, Law Enforcement, Administrative, and Fire Protection Development Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2005, the Council conducted a Public Hearing, considered testimony, and approved recommendations regarding adjustments to the Master Fee Schedule for Water, Storm Water, and Wastewater Development Impact Fees; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 2005, the Council adopted Resolution No. 05-49 to amend the City’s Master Fee Schedule adjusting Transportation, Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, and Administrative Development Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, the City engaged with the financial consulting firm, Tuckfield and Associates, in mid-2005 to complete a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and analyze Development Impact Fees dealing with Transportation, Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, Administration, and Parks and Recreation for a potential update; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2006, the Council conducted a Public Hearing, considered testimony, and adopted Resolution No. 06-11 regarding adjustments to the Master Fee Schedule for Transportation, Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, and Administration facilities; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2006, the Council adopted Resolution No. 06-45 to include Parks and Recreation facilities to the City’s Development Impact Fee schedule; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the DIF is to ensure that new development mitigates the impact that a new development has on the City’s public facilities and essential services; and WHEREAS, State law requires updates to the Development Impact Fee Schedule through a comprehensive review every eight years to account for existing development and future growth as well as to reflect the changes in the adopted Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act of the California Government Code (Government Code Section 66000, et seq.), which governs Development Impact Fees, local agencies are required to make specific findings when imposing fees to mitigate impacts of development projects and ensure that the fees are justified and used appropriately; and WHEREAS, in 2021, Assembly Bill 602 (“AB 602”) amended the Mitigation Fee Act and emphasized the need to adopt a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study at a public hearing prior to the adoption of any new or increased Development Impact Fees; and WHEREAS, AB 602 requires in part that the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify new levels of service, include an explanation of why the new levels of service are more appropriate, and include information to support the required findings for adoption of new or increased Development Impact Fees; and Attachment 1
Resolution No. 24- Page 2
WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study provides a quantified basis for support of each Development Impact Fee and the legal support for the required findings that must be made to justify the amount of each Development Impact Fee, based on existing deficiencies of certain public facilities, and the project burdens on those facilities caused by prospective development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City’s last Development Impact Fee Study was prepared by Tuckfield and Associates in 2006, and since that time, the City has approved multiple Capital Improvement Program budgets and has seen significant development activity in recent years; and WHEREAS, the City retained the professional services of Willdan Financial Services to prepare the City of Grover Beach 2024 Development Impact Fee Study; and WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fee Study is incorporated herein by this reference and provides the requisite findings related to the City’s Development Impact Fees; and WHEREAS, the City of Grover Beach Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2024/25 through 2028/29 after adopted, indicates the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the City’s Development Impact Fees; and
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Grover Beach, California, does hereby:

1. Replace the adopted 2006 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, prepared by Tuckfield and Associates.

2. That pursuant to the 2024 Development Impact Fee Study, the Council hereby finds as follows:
a. That the purpose of the impact fees has been identified; b. That the use of the fees have been identified;
c. That there is a reasonable relationship between the use and the type of project on which it is imposed; and
d. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for public improvements and the type of project on which it is imposed.

On motion by Council Member _____, seconded by Council Member ____, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members –
NOES: Council Members –
ABSENT: Council Members –
ABSTAIN: Council Members –
RECUSED: Council Members –
Resolution No. 24- Page 3
the foregoing Resolution was PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grover Beach, California this ___ day of ___ 2024.

KAREN BRIGHT, MAYOR
Attest:

WENDI B. SIMS, CITY CLERK
**DRAFT**

CITY OF GROVER BEACH

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS

STUDY UPDATE

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
JUNE 7, 2024
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
Attachment 2
This page intentionally left blank.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 4 Background and Study Objectives 4
Facility Standards and Costs 4
Use of Fee Revenues 5
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 5
Other Funding Needed 7

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 8 Public Facilities Financing in California 8
Study Objectives 8
Fee Program Maintenance 9
Study Methodology 9
Types of Facility Standards 10
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 10
Organization of the Report 11

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ............................................................... 12 Land Use Types 12
Existing and Future Development 12
Occupant Densities 14

3. ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES....................................................... 15 Service Population 15
Existing Inventory 16
Planned Facilities 16
Cost Allocation 17
Existing Level of Service 17
Future Level of Service 17
Use of Fee Revenue 18
Non-Fee Funding Required 18
Fee Schedule 18

4. LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES ................................................. 20 Service Population 20
Existing Inventory 21
Planned Facilities 21
Cost Allocation 22
Existing Level of Service 22
Future Level of Service 22
Use of Fee Revenue 23
Non-Fee Funding Required 23
Fee Schedule 24

5. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES .................................................... 26 City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update ii
Service Population 26
Existing Facility Inventory 26
Planned Facilities 27
Cost Allocation 27
Existing Level of Service 27
Fee Revenue Projection 28
Fee Schedule 28

6. PARK FACILITIES....................................................................... 30 Service Population 30
Existing Park Facilities Inventory 30
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 31
Park Facility Standards 31
Quimby Act Standard 32
City of Grover Beach Park Facilities Standards 32
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 33
Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita 33
Use of Fee Revenue 34
Fee Schedule 34

7. RECREATION FACILITIES............................................................ 36 Service Population 36
Existing Facility Inventory 36
Planned Recreation Facilities 36
Cost Allocation 37
Existing Level of Service 37
Future Level of Service 37
Use of Fee Revenue 38
Fee Revenue Projection 38
Fee Schedule 38

8. WATER FACILITIES.................................................................... 40 Water Demand 40
EDU Generation by New Development 40
Facility Needs and Costs 41
Cost per EDU 43
Fee Schedule 43

9. WASTEWATER FACILITIES .......................................................... 45 Wastewater Demand 45
EDU Generation by New Development 45
Facility Needs and Costs 46
Cost per EDU 48
Fee Schedule 48

10. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS............................................................ 50 Compliance with AB 602 50
City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update iii
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 50
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 51 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot 52
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 52

11. IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................... 53 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 53
Inflation Adjustment 53
Reporting Requirements 53
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 53
Reimbursements 53

12. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS.................................................. 55 Purpose of Fee 55
Use of Fee Revenues 55
Benefit Relationship 55
Burden Relationship 56
Proportionality 56
4 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in The City of Grover Beach through 2050. 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, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
• Administrative Facilities
• Law Enforcement Facilities
• Fire Protection
• Parks
• Recreation
• Water
• Sewer
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. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present updated impact fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.

The City imposes public facilities 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.

All development impact fee-funded capital projects should be programmed through the City’s fiveyear Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City 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.

Facility Standards and Costs
There are three approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements.

The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where the 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. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non-impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development’s fair share of planned facilities. This approach is used for the administrative, law enforcement, and recreation facility fees in this report.

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 water and wastewater facility fees.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 5 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. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s annual capital improvement plan and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is to calculate the fire protection and park facilities fees in this report.

Use of Fee Revenues
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that this analysis “Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged.” 1 Each
chapter in this report identifies the appropriate use of impact fee revenues for each particular impact fee category.

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, infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.

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 California Government Code §66001 (a) (2).

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 6 E.1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
Administrative
Facilities
Law
Enforcement
Fire
Protection Parks1 Recreation Water Sewer Total
Residential - per Sq. Ft. $ 1.29 $ 1.35 0.30$ 3.54$ $ 2.90$ 0.91 $ 12.13$ 1.84 Nonresidential - per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 0.62 $ 0.65 0.14$ -$ -$ 1.83$ $ 4.66$ 1.42 Office 0.96 1.01 0.22 - - 1.83 1.42 5.44
Industrial 0.34 0.36 0.08 - - 1.83 1.51 4.12
Restaurant 0.62 0.65 0.14 - - 11.76 9.24 22.41
Commercial Lodging (per Room) $ 164 $ 172 $ -$ 38 $ 1,830$ - $ 3,628$ 1,424 Sources: Tables 3.7, 4.7, 5.6, 6.7, 7.7, 8.5, and 9.5.
1 Mitigation Fee Act fee for infill development show n. Refer to Table 6.7 for Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication for development occurring in subdivisions.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 7 Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Grover Beach. They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E.2, approximately $16.4 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. 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.

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
Development
Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Administrative Facilities $ 10,030,000 $ 2,910,780 $ 7,119,220 Law Enforcement Facilities 10,670,000 3,055,220 7,614,780 Fire Protection 671,960 671,960 -
Parks1
7,192,000 7,192,000 -
Recreation 3,500,000 1,850,576 1,649,424
Water 4,578,885 4,578,885 -
Sewer 3,066,967 3,066,967 -
$ 39,709,812 $ 23,326,388 $ 16,383,424
Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.6, 5.5, 6.5, 7.6, 8.3 and 9.3.
1 Fee revenue show n for Mitigation Fee Act Fees. Refer to Table 6.5 for estimate of potential Quimby Act Fee revenue.
8 1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Grover Beach. 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 45 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four 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;
• Unfunded state and federal mandates; 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 also known as public facilities 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 a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Program 6.1 of the City’s General Plan Housing Element states “Development Impact Fees. To encourage affordability by design, the City will modify development impact fees to index fees based on size of unit, providing lower fees for small units where there is a demonstrated nexus. The City will continue to monitor development impact fees to identify constraints to housing development and consider a policy for fee deferrals for affordable housing units. If constraints are identified, the City shall revise the fee schedule accordingly while balancing infrastructure needs to support housing development.” 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 proposed 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 as the revised impact fees are calculated City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 9 per square foot for residential development, such that fees are proportionally lower for smaller units.

The City imposes public facilities 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.

Grover Beach is forecast to moderate growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2050. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Grover Beach has decided to continue to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and the City’s most recently adopted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), water and sewer master plans and other planning documents 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 California Construction Cost Index, 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.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 10 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:
 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: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:

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 General 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 = $/unit of demand
City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 11 approach is used for the administrative, law enforcement, and recreation facility fees in this report.

Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:

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 a portion of a roadway that has been identified as necessary to mitigate the impact from new development through traffic modeling analysis. 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 water and wastewater facility fees.

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. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.

This approach is to calculate the fire protection and park facilities fees in this report.

Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities 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:
• Administrative Facilities
• Law Enforcement Facilities
• Fire Protection
• Parks
• Recreation
• Water
• Sewer
Chapter 10 describes how this study 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 proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 12. = $/unit of demand
= $/unit of demand
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 2023 base year and a planning horizon of 2050.

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 2023 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The estimate of total development at the 2050 planning horizon 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 2023 through 2050 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 that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Residential: All residential dwelling units. Fees charged per square foot of living space.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, and educational development. • Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. • Industrial: All manufacturing and other industrial development. • Restaurant: All restaurant development. Fees for this land use category are the same as the commercial fees for all fee categories except for water and wastewater facilities.
• Commercial Lodging: All hotel, motel, resort and commercial lodging development. Fees charged per room.

Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both residential and commercial uses. Another similar situation would be a warehousing facility that contains office space. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type included within the building.

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.

Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Grover Beach, both in 2023 and in 2050. The base year estimates of residents and City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 13 dwelling units come from the California Department of Finance. Future resident and dwelling unit are based on estimates from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, Medium Scenario.

Base year employees were estimated based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap Application. Total future employees were also estimated based on SLOCOG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, allocated to the nonresidential land use categories based on current proportions.

Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions
2023 2050 Increase
Residents 1 12,270 15,091 2,821
Dwelling Units 2
Single Family 4,264 4,844 580
Multifamily 1,659 1,884 225
Total 5,923 6,728 805
Employment 3
Commercial 1,039 1,455 416
Office 745 1,043 298
Industrial 790 1,106 316
Total 2,574 3,604 1,030
Building Square Feet (000s) 4
Commercial 490 686 196
Office 229 320 91
Industrial 681 953 272
Total 1,400 1,960 560
1 Current household population from California Department of Finance.

Projection from SLOCOG 2050 Regional Grow th Forecast for San Luis Obispo County.
2 Current values from California Department of Finance. Projection from SLOCOG 2050 Regional Grow th Forecast for San Luis Obispo County.

Assumes same ratio of single family to multifamily w ill be maintained as development occurs.
4 Estimated building square feet calculated based on increase of employees and density factors in Table 2.2.
3 Current estimates of primary jobs from the US Census' OnTheMap.

Projection from SLOCOG 2050 Regional Grow th Forecast for San Luis Obispo County. Projection assumes current ratio among land uses w ill be maintained.

Sources: California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2023; Projection from SLOCOG 2050 Regional Grow th Forecast for San Luis Obispo County, 2017; OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 14 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.

The average occupant density factor used in this report is shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factor was calculated based on data specific to Grover Beach from the 2022 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey, the most recent data available.

The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential - All Units 2.13 Residents per dwelling unit Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 3.26 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Commercial Lodging 0.56 Employees per room
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Willdan Financial Services.
15 3. Administrative Facilities
The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of administrative facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of administrative facilities in the City of Grover Beach to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
City hall 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 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for administrative 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 administrative facilities.

Table 3.1: Administrative Facilities Service Population A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 12,270 1.00 12,270
New Development 2,821 1.00 2,821
Total (2050) 15,091 15,091
Workers
Existing (2023) 2,574 0.31 798
New Development 1,030 0.31 319
Total (2050) 3,604 1,117
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023) 13,068
New Development 3,140
Total (2050) 16,208
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 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) City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 16 Existing Inventory
The City’s administrative facilities inventory is comprised of two properties: City Hall the city corporation yard. The unit cost for the land value assumption of $871,400 per acre was based on an analysis of land sales comparisons as reported by Costar since 2018. The unit cost assumption for the replacement cost of City Hall was identified in the City’s Facility Conditions + Needs Assessment (FCNA) study in 2023. Note that no value is shown for the corporation yard, since it will be replaced by the planned facility. In total, the City owns approximately $5 million in administrative facilities.

Table 3.2: Administrative Facilities Inventory
Quantity Units Unit Cost
Replacement
Cost
Land (acres)
City Hall10.43 acres $ 871,400 $ 374,702
Corporation Yard 0.86 acres 871,400 749,404
Subtotal - Land 1.29 $ 1,124,106
Buildings (square feet) 1
City Hall sq. ft. 8,830 $ 3,100,000 351 $
Corporation Yard - Main Building 3,300 sq. ft. - -
Corporation Yard - Mechanic Shop 1,700 sq. ft. - -
Corporation Yard - Storage/Weld Shop sq. ft. 1,350 - -
Subtotal - Buildings 15,180 $ 3,100,000
Vehicles and Equipment (See Appendix Table A.1) $ 768,982 Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 4,993,088
Sources: City of Grover Beach, Facility Conditions and Needs Assessment; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Total site acreage is 1.18 acres. Allocated to administrative facilities fee, police facilities fee and fire facilities fee based on building square footage for each use located on site.

Planned Facilities
The City is planning to construct two new facilities to serve both existing and new development:
the construction of a new corporation yard, and new City Hall, including Council Chambers. The planned facilities are estimated to cost $10 million.

Table 3.3: Planned Facilities
Cost
Corporation Yard Construction $ 4,000,000
Construction of New City Hall and Council Chambers1
6,030,000
Total $ 10,030,000
1 Option 2 from the Facility Conditions + Needs Assessment, 2023.

Source: City of Grover Beach Facility Conditions + Needs Assessment, 2023.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 17 Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.4 shows the calculation of the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only to document the City’s existing level of service.

Table 3.4: Administrative Facilities Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 4,993,088
Existing Service Population 13,068
Cost per Capita $ 382
Facility Standard per Resident $ 382
Facility Standard per Worker1118
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

Future Level of Service
Table 3.5 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in administrative facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Table 3.5: Administrative Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 4,993,088
Value of Planned Facilities 10,030,000
Total System Value (2050) $ 15,023,088
Future Service Population (2050) 16,208
Cost per Capita $ 927
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 927
Cost Allocation per Worker1287
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 18 Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use administrative facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of administrative facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 3.3.

Non-Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Grover Beach. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned administrative facilities and some non-fee funding will be required. Table 3.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required through 2050. Approximately $7.1 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned facilities.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned law enforcement 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 3.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 927
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2050) 3,140
Fee Revenue $ 2,910,780
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 10,030,000
Non-Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (7,119,220)
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 3.7 shows the maximum justified administrative fee schedule. 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 fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two percent (2%) 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, 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.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 19 Table 3.7: Administrative Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit 3$ 927 2.13 $ 1,975 $ 40 $ 2,015 $ 1.29 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 287 2.12 $ 608 $ 12 $ 620 $ 0.62
Office 287 3.26 936 19 955 0.96
Industrial 287 1.16 333 7 340 0.34
Commercial Lodging4 287 0.56 161 3 164
4 Fee charged per lodging room (see "Total Fee" column).

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.5.
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.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 3 Assumes an average of 1,564 square feet per dw elling unit in Grover Beach based on an analysis of recent building permits.
20 4. Law Enforcement Facilities
The purpose of the law enforcement impact fee is to fund the law enforcement facilities needed to serve new development. Grover Beach currently provides law enforcement services from a single police station. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the system plan standard of law enforcement facilities per capita.

Service Population
Law enforcement 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 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for law enforcement 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 law enforcement facilities.

Table 4.1: Law Enforcement Facilities Service Population A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 12,270 1.00 12,270
New Development 2,821 1.00 2,821
Total (2050) 15,091 15,091
Workers
Existing (2023) 2,574 0.31 798
New Development 1,030 0.31 319
Total (2050) 3,604 1,117
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023) 13,068
New Development 3,140
Total (2050) 16,208
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 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) City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 21 Existing Inventory
Police services in the City of Grover Beach are presently based out of one facility. Table 4.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of law enforcement land, buildings and vehicles. Note that while currently functioning as a community center, Under Option 2 from the FCNA the existing Ramona Community Center will be converted to an emergency operations center, so the replacement value of that facility is listed in this facility category and excluded from the recreation center facility fee chapter to avoid double counting. The unit cost for the land value assumption of $871,400 per acre was based on an analysis of recent sales comparisons since 32018 as reported by CoStar. Unit cost assumptions for the replacement cost of buildings were identified in the FCNA.

Table 4.2: Existing Law Enforcement Facilities Inventory Quantity Units Unit Cost
Replacement
Cost
Police Station
Land1 0.36 acres $871,400 $ 313,704
Station 7,400 sq. ft. 595 4,400,000
Storage 4,500 sq. ft. 150 675,000
Subtotal $ 5,388,704
Future EOC (Ramona Community Center) 2
3,550 sq. ft. 648 $ 2,300,000
Vehicles and Equipment (See Appendix Table A.2) $ 1,809,024 Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 9,497,728
Sources: City of Grover Beach; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Total site acreage is 1.18 acres. Allocated to administrative facilities fee, police facilities fee and fire facilities fee based on building square footage for each use located on site. 2 Under Option 2 from the Facility Conditions + Needs Assessment the existing Ramona Community Center w ill be converted to an emergency operations center.

Planned Facilities
Table 4.3 summarizes the planned law enforcement facilities needed to serve the City through 2050. Option 2 from the FCNA identified a new police department building and the buildout of the Ramona Community Center to be converted for use as an emergency operations center.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 22 Table 4.3: Planned Law Enforcement Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New Police Department Building18,000 Sq. Ft. $ 1,250 $10,000,000 Upgrade Ramona for EOC Use1
670,000
Total Cost of Planned Facilities $10,670,000
1 Option 2 from the Facility Conditions + Needs Assessment, 2023.

Source: City of Grover Beach Facility Conditions + Needs Assessment, 2023.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 4.4 expresses the City’s current law enforcement 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 4.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has adequate facilities to provide law enforcement services to the City. The planned facilities were identified in the FCNA.

Table 4.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 9,497,728
Existing Service Population 13,068
Cost per Capita $ 727
Facility Standard per Resident $ 727
Facility Standard per Worker1
225
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 4.5 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in law enforcement facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 23 Table 4.5: Law Enforcement Facilities System
Standard
Value of Existing Facilities1
$ 5,097,728
Value of Planned Facilities 10,670,000
Total System Value (2050) $15,767,728
Future Service Population (2050) 16,208
Cost per Capita $ 973
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 973
Cost Allocation per Worker2302
2 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
1 Excludes value of existing police station w hich w ill be replaced by planned facilities.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use law enforcement facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of law enforcement facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 4.3.

Non-Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Grover Beach. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned law enforcement facilities and some non-fee funding will be required. Table 4.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required through 2050. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $7.6 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned law enforcement facilities.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned law enforcement 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.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 24 Table 4.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 973
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2050) 3,140
Fee Revenue $ 3,055,220
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 10,670,000
Non-Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (7,614,780)
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 4.7 shows the maximum justified law enforcement facilities fee schedule. 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 fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

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 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 Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 25 Table 4.7: Law Enforcement Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit 3$ 973 2.13 $ 2,072 $ 41 $ 2,113 $ 1.35 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 302 2.12 $ 640 $ 13 $ 653 $ 0.65
Office 302 3.26 985 20 1,005 1.01
Industrial 302 1.16 350 7 357 0.36
Commercial Lodging4 302 0.56 169 3 172
4 Fee charged per lodging room (see "Total Fee" column).

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.5.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 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.
3 Assumes an average of 1,564 square feet per dw elling unit in Grover Beach based on an analysis of recent building permits.
26 5. Fire Protection Facilities
The purpose of the fire impact fee is to fund the fire facilities needed to serve new development.

A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the existing standard of fire facilities per capita.

Service Population
Fire facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses. The service population used to determine the demand for fire facilities includes both residents and workers.

Table 5.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for law enforcement 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 fire protection facilities.

Table 5.1: Fire Facilities Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 12,270 1.00 12,270
New Development 2,821 1.00 2,821
Total (2050) 15,091 15,091
Workers
Existing (2023) 2,574 0.31 798
New Development 1,030 0.31 319
Total (2050) 3,604 1,117
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023) 13,068
New Development 3,140
Total (2050) 16,208
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 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
Table 5.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of land, apparatus and vehicles. Fire protection services are provided from a single fire station. The unit cost for the land value assumption of City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 27 $871,400 per acre was based on an analysis of recent sales comparisons since 32018 as reported by CoStar. Unit cost assumptions for the replacement cost of the fire station is assumed to be the same as the replacement cost of the City’s police station identified in the FCNA..

Table 5.2: Existing Fire Facilities Land and Building Inventory Quantity Units Unit Cost
Replacement
Cost
Fire Station
Land1

0.21 acres $871,400 $ 182,994
Building sq. ft. 4,400 2,618,000 595
Subtotal $ 2,800,994
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 2,800,994
Sources: City of Grover Beach; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Total site acreage is 1.18 acres. Allocated to administrative facilities fee, police facilities fee and fire facilities fee based on building square footage for each use located on site.

Planned Facilities
Table 5.3 summarizes the amount of future facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service.

Table 5.3: Planned Fire Facilities
Exsting Quantity acres 4,400.00 sq. ft. 0.21
Existing Service Population 13,068 13,068
Standard per 1,000 Capita 0.0161 acres 336.7003 sq. ft.

Increase in Service Population 3,140 3,140
Facility Needs acres 1,057 sq. ft. 0.05
Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.2.

Land Building
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 5.4 shows the calculation of the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita drives the fee calculation. Through the impact fee, new development will maintain the existing level of service through the planning horizon as it adds more demand for fire protection services and facilities.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 28 Table 5.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 2,800,994
Existing Service Population 13,068
Cost per Capita $ 214
Facility Standard per Resident $ 214
Facility Standard per Worker1
66 1
Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use fire protection facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of fire protection facilities that serves existing and new development. Table 5.5 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table

5.1. The City can use fire facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles, apparatus and fire protection equipment that are part of the system of fire facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 5.3.

Table 5.5: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 214
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2050) 3,140
Fee Revenue $ 671,960
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 5.6 shows the maximum justified fire facilities fee schedule. 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 fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

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 adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 29 charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 5.6: Fire Protection Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit 3
$ 214 2.13 $ 456 $ 9 $ 465 $ 0.30
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 66 2.12 $ 140 $ 3 $ 143 $ 0.14
Office 66 3.26 215 4 219 0.22
Industrial 66 1.16 77 2 79 0.08
Commercial Lodging4 66 0.56 37 1 38
4 Fee charged per lodging room (see "Total Fee" column).

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.4.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 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.
3 Assumes an average of 1,564 square feet per dw elling unit in Grover Beach based on an analysis of recent building permits.
30 6. Park Facilities
The purpose of the park facilities impact fee is to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of park facilities per capita.

Service Population
Park facilities in Grover Beach primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park and recreation facilities.

Table 6.1: Park Facilities Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 12,270
New Development 2,821
Total (2050) 15,091
Source: Table 2.1.

Existing Park Facilities Inventory
The City of Grover Beach owns and maintains several parks throughout the city. Table 6.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2023. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the inventory includes a total of 17.63 acres of improved parkland. Also shown in the table is the City’s inventory of passive open space.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 31 Table 6.2: Parkland Inventory
Name
Developed
Acres
Open
Space
Total
Acres
Ramona Garden Park 5.00 - 5.00
Hero Community Park 0.78 - 0.78
Grover Heights Park 3.20 - 3.20
Golden West Park 0.50 - 0.50
Mentone Basin Park 3.10 - 3.10
16th Street Park 4.00 - 4.00
Costa Bella Basin Park at Farroll Ave and Oak Park 0.40 - 0.40 Community Gardens 0.15 - 0.15
“El Camino Oaks” Open Space / Ecological Preserve - 28.50 28.50 Charles Street Site - - -
Skate Park 0.50 - 0.50
Total 17.63 28.50 46.13
Source: City of Grover Beach, Parks and Recreation Element Update.

Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 6.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Grover Beach. The land cost assumption was based on an analysis of recent land sales within the City of Grover Beach using data from CoStar. An estimate of $900,000 per acre for standard parkland improvements is based on the City’s recent experience improving Ramona Garden Park. Parkland acquisition is valued at $871,000 per acre, based on an analysis of land sales comparisons in Grover Beach since 2018, as reported by CoStar. In total, it is assumed to cost approximately $1.8 million to acquire and improve an acre of parkland in Grover Beach.

Table 6.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
CostPer
Acre
Share of
Total Costs
Standard Park Improvements1
$ 900,000 51%
Land Acquisition 871,400 49%
Total Cost per Acre $1,771,400 100%
1 Based on cost to improve Ramona Garden Park.

Sources: City of Grover Beach; 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 City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 32 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.
2 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 park and recreation facilities. The Quimby Act generally requires that fees be used for neighborhood and community park acreage to serve the subdivision, except in limited circumstances.

City of Grover Beach Park Facilities Standards
Table 6.4 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 1.44 acres per 1,000 residents, which is less than the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The impact fee analysis in this report will be based on maintaining the City’s 1.44 acre per 1,000 resident standard as new development adds demand for parks in Grover Beach. Fees in-lieu of land dedication for subdivisions are calculated at the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents.

Table 6.4: Parkland Standards
Developed Park Acreage 17.63
Service Population (2023) 12,270
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 1.44
Quimby Act Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 3.00
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2.
2 California Government Code §66477.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 33 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 6.5 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 4.06 and 8.46 parkland acres.

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 1.44 acres of improvements, whereas development not subject to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide only 1.44 acres of parkland and improvements per 1,000 residents. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 6.5 presents the range of total facility costs that may be incurred depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act.

Table 6.5: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total Range1
Parkland (Quimby Act), Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) 2 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 3.00 1.44
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2050) B 2,821 2,821 Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 8.46 4.06
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 871,400 $ 900,000
Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $ 7,372,000 $ 3,654,000 $ 11,026,000 Parkland and Improvements - Mitigation Fee Act 3
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 1.44 1.44
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2050) B 2,821 2,821 Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 4.06 4.06
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 871,400 $ 900,000
Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $ 3,538,000 $ 3,654,000 $ 7,192,000 Note: Totals have been rounded to the thousands.
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. 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.

Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3, and 6.4.

Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 6.6 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 parkland dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland acquisition. This fee is payable by residential development not occurring in subdivisions.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 34 • 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 Fees for park improvements.

Table 6.6: Park Facilities Investment per Capita
Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee OR Impact Fee AND Impact Fee
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 871,400 $ 871,400 $ 900,000 Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 3.00 1.44 1.44 Total Cost per 1,000 capita C = A x B $ 2,614,200 1,254,800$ $ 1,296,000 Cost per Resident D = C / 1,000 $ 2,614 1,255$ $ 1,296
Sources: Tables 6.3 and 6.4.

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

Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for parkland acquisition and parkland improvements. These cost factors (shown in Table 6.6) are based on the unit cost estimates and the City’s existing facility standards.

Table 6.7 shows the maximum justified park and recreation facilities fee based on the existing standard per capita under the Quimby Act and under the existing park standard under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. The cost per resident is converted to a fee per dwelling unit using the occupancy density factor from Table 2.2 The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

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 Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 35 Table 6.7: Maximum Justified Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Quimby Act - Subdivisions
Parkland 2,614$ 2.13 $ 5,568 $ 5,679$ 111 $ 3.63
Improvements 1,296 2.13 2,760 2,815 55 1.80
Total 3,910$ $ 8,328 $ 8,494$ 166 $ 5.43
Mitigation Fee Act - Infill
Parkland 1,255$ 2.13 $ 2,673 $ 2,726$ 53 $ 1.74
Improvements 1,296 2.13 2,760 2,815 55 1.80
Total 2,551$ $ 5,433 $ 5,541$ 108 $ 3.54
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.6.
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 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 3 Assumes an average of 1,564 square feet per dw elling unit in Grover Beach based on an analysis of recent building permits.
36 7. Recreation Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new recreation facilities demanded by new development.

Service Population
Park facilities in Grover Beach primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected residential service population for recreation facilities.

Table 7.1: Recreation Facilities
Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 12,270
New Development 2,821
Total (2050) 15,091
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Facility Inventory
The City of Grover Beach maintains several recreation facilities. Table 7.2 summarizes the City’s existing recreation facilities inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the City owns approximately $6.4 million in recreation facilities. Note that the Ramona Community Cetner is included in the law enforcement facilities inventory to avoid double counting. The City is planning to convert that facility from its current use to an emergency operations center.

Table 7.2: Existing Recreation Facilities
Inventory Unit Unit Cost
Replacement
Cost
Trouville Community Center sq. ft. 6,300 $ 4,400,000 698 $ Skate Park sq. ft. 13,000 2,000,000 154
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 6,400,000
Sources: City of Grover Beach.

Planned Recreation Facilities
The City has is planning to construct a multi-generational community center. In total, the City has identified $3.5 million in recreation facilities to serve existing and new development. Table 7.3 summarizes the City’s planned recreation facilities.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 37 Table 7.3: Planned Recreation Facilities
Cost
Multi-Generational Community Center $ 3,500,000
Total Cost of Planned Facilities $ 3,500,000
Source: City of Grover Beach Capital Improvement Program 2024-2028.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 7.4 expresses the City’s current recreation 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 7.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City can fund the planned recreation facilities that have been identified by the City.

Table 7.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 6,400,000
Existing Service Population 12,270
Cost per Resident $ 522
Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 7.5 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in recreation facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 38 Table 7.5: Recreation Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 6,400,000
Value of Planned Facilities 3,500,000
Total System Value (2050) $ 9,900,000
Future Service Population (2050) 15,091
Cost per Resident $ 656
Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use recreation facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are part of the system of recreation facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 7.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use recreation facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of recreation facilities that serves existing and new development. The list of facilities to be funded by the fee is shown above in Table 7.3. Table 7.6 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 7.1. The cost of the planned facilities not funded by fee revenue represents existing development’s share of the facilities and can be funded by any revenue source other than impact fees.

Table 7.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Resident $ 656
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2050) 2,821
Fee Revenue $ 1,850,576
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 3,500,000
Non-Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (1,649,424)
Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.3 and 7.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 7.7 shows the maximum justified recreation facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 39 The total fee includes a two-percent (2%) 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, 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 7.7: Recreation Facilities Fee - System Standard
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 2.13 1,397$ 656 $ 1,425$ 28 $ 0.91 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.5.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 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.
3 Assumes an average of 1,564 square feet per dw elling unit in Grover Beach based on an analysis of recent building permits.
40 8. Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for water facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Grover Beach. The projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified in the City’s Water Master Plan, 2019. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a water facilities impact fee to fund 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 for 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 8.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates are based on data from the City’s Water Master Plan and General Plan. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit.

Table 8.1: Water Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation1 Density2
Average Flow
Generation per
DU, 1,000 Sq.

Ft. or Room
Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
(EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family 117 2.16 253 1.00
Multifamily 117 2.07 242 0.96
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft. or Lodging Room
Commercial - Service/Retail 0.10 1,000 100 0.40
Office 0.10 1,000 100 0.40
Industrial 0.10 1,000 100 0.40
Restaurant 0.65 1,000 650 2.57
Commercial Lodging 100 n/a 100 0.40
2 Residents per dw elling unit for residential or square feet of building space for nonresidential.

Sources: City of Grover Beach Water Master Plan, 2019; Grover Beach General Plan; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Gallons per person per day for residential. Gallons per square foot per day for commercial, office, industrial and restaurant. Gallons per room per day for commercial lodging.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 8.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2050. The EDU factors from Table 8.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Table 2.1 to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development. New development will City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 41 generate approximately 1,021 new EDUs through 2050, comprising 13.7% of water demand in the City at that time.

Table 8.2: Water Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units
Land Use
EDU
Factor
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 4,264 4,264 580 580 4,844 4,844
Multifamily 0.96 1,659 1,593 225 216 1,884 1,809
Subtotal 5,857 5,923 805 796 6,728 6,653
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.40 490 196 196 79 686 275
Office 0.40 229 91 91 37 320 128
Industrial 0.40 681 272 272 109 953 381
Subtotal 1,400 559 560 225 1,960 784
Total 6,416 1,021 7,437

86.3% 13.7% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.1.
2023 Growth 2023 to 2050 Total - 2050
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 8.3 identifies the planned water facilities to be funded by the fee. Project costs from the 2019 Water Master Plan have been adjusted for inflation into 2024 dollars, using the Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index (CCI). Those projects that have already been completed, or that do not benefit new development have been excluded from the table. All the projects included in the table were needed solely to serve new development and are allocated 100% to new development through this impact fee.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 42 Table 8.3: Water Facilities Costs to Serve New Development Project Improvement Limits Recommended Improvement Cost (2019) Cost (2024) Allocation to
New
Development
Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
F‐WSCIP‐1 Well No. 2 Facility
Improvements Mentone Ave Well Site
Upgrade existing electrical system to
improvefacility reliability and operation to serve
futuredemands $ 160,000 $ 191,685 100.0% $ 191,685
F‐WSCIP‐2 Well No. 3 Facility
Improvements Mentone Ave Well Site
Upgrade existing electrical system, pump,
andmotor to improve facility reliability
andoperation to serve future demands 361,000 432,490 100.0% 432,490 F‐WSCIP‐3
Nitrate Treatment
Facility Startup Mentone Ave Well Site
Replace resin media, disinfect and
performminor repairs to return to manual
operation totreat groundwater during
emergencyconditions 960,000 1,150,113 100.0% 1,150,113
F‐WSCIP‐4
Well No. 4
Permanent Standby
Generator Mentone Ave Well Site
Install permanent standby generator
tosupplement physical storage deficiency 240,000 287,528 100.0% 287,528 F‐WSCIP‐5
Well Field Piping and
Transmission
MainImprovements
Mentone Ave Well Siteto
Hillcrest Tank Site
Install 4500 feet of 16‐inch water main andwell
site piping improvements to convey fullwell
production capacity to tanks (3550 gpm)
2,101,000 2,517,069 100.0% 2,517,069
$3,822,000 $4,578,885 $ 4,578,885
Source: City of Grover Beach Water Master Plan, 2019; Engineering New s Record, Construction Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 43 Cost per EDU
Table 8.4 calculates a cost per EDU associated by dividing the total cost of projects allocated to new development identified in Table 8.3 by the growth in EDUs identified in Table 8.2.

Table 8.4: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 4,578,885
Growth in EDUs (2023 to 2050) 1,021
Cost per EDU $ 4,485
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for water facilities is shown in Table 8.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 8.1.

The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

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 Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 44 Table 8.5: Water Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / Average
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit 3, 4 $ 4,485 0.99 $ 4,440 $ 89 $ 4,529 $ 2.90 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft. or Lodging Room
Commercial $ 4,485 0.40 $ 1,794 $ 36 $ 1,830 $ 1.83
Office 4,485 0.40 1,794 36 1,830 1.83
Industrial 4,485 0.40 1,794 36 1,830 1.83
Restaurant 4,485 2.57 11,526 231 11,757 11.76
Commercial Lodging5 4,485 0.40 1,794 36 1,830
1 Fee per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 5 Fee charged per lodging room (see "Total Fee" column).

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4.
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.
3 Assumes an average of 1,564 square feet per dw elling unit in Grover Beach based on an analysis of recent building permits.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development. 45 9. Wastewater Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for wastewater facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Grover Beach. This projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified it the City’s Sewer Master Plan, 2019. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and an 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 wastewater 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 9.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit.

Table 9.1: Wastewater Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Average Water
Flow
Generation per
DU 1,000 Sq. Ft.
or Room1
Sewer Use
Factor2
Average
Sewer Flow
Generation
per DU or
1,000 Sq. Ft.

Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
(EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family 253 70% 177 1.00
Multifamily 242 80% 194 1.10
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft. or Lodging Room
Commercial 100 90% 90 0.51
Office 100 90% 90 0.51
Industrial 100 95% 95 0.54
Restaurant 650 90% 585 3.31
Commercial Lodging 100 90% 90 0.51
Sources: Table 3-3, City of Grover Beach Sew er Master Plan, 2019; Table 8.1, Willdan Financial Services. 1 See Table 8.1.
2 See Table 3-3, City of Grover Beach Sew er Master Plan.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 9.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2050. The EDU factors from Table 9.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Table 2.1 to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development. New development will generate 1,120 new EDUs through 2050, comprising 14.1% of wastewater demand in the City at that time.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 46 Table 9.2: Wastewater Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units Land Use
EDU
Factor
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 4,264 4,264 580 580 4,844 4,844
Multifamily 1.10 1,659 1,825 225 247 1,884 2,072
Subtotal 6,089 5,923 805 827 6,728 6,916
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.51 490 250 196 100 686 350
Office 0.51 229 117 91 46 320 163
Industrial 0.54 681 368 272 147 953 515
Subtotal 1,400 735 560 293 1,960 1,028
Total 6,824 1,120 7,944

85.9% 14.1% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 9.1.
2023 Growth 2023 to 2050 Total - 2050
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 9.3 identifies the planned wastewater facilities to be funded by the fee. Project costs from the 2019 Sewer Master Plan have been adjusted for inflation into 2024 dollars, using the Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index (CCI). Those projects that have already been completed, or that do not benefit new development have been excluded from the table. All the projects included in the table were needed solely to serve new development and are allocated 100% to new development through this impact fee.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 47 Table 9.3: Wastewater Facilities Allocation to New Development Project Sewer Improvement Limits Cost (2019) Cost (2024) Allocation to
New
Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
F‐GSCIP‐1 Easement Gravity Sewer Upgrade Griffin Street to Huston Street $ 313,000 $ 374,985 100.0% $ 374,985 F‐GSCIP‐2 Nacimiento Avenue Gravity Sewer Upgrade To Nacimiento Lift Station 202,000 242,003 100.0% 242,003 South 4th Street Gravity Sewer Upgrade Rockaway Avenue to Manhattan Avenue 351,000 420,510 100.0% 420,510 Rockaway Avenue Gravity Sewer Upgrade South 4th Street to South 8th Street 701,000 839,822 100.0% 839,822 South 4th Street Gravity Sewer Upgrade Manhattan Avenue to Trouville Avenue 351,000 420,510 100.0% 420,510 South 4th Street Gravity Sewer Upgrade Trouville Avenue to Mentone Avenue 192,000 230,023 100.0% 230,023 Mentone Avenue Gravity Sewer Upgrade South 4th Street to South 5th Street 99,000 118,605 100.0% 118,605 Mentone Avenue Gravity Sewer Upgrade South 8th Street to South 10th Street 351,000 420,510 100.0% 420,510 Total $2,560,000 $ 3,066,967 $ 3,066,967
Source: Table 9.6, City of Grover Beach Sew er Master Plan; Engineering New s Record, Construction Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.

F‐GSCIP‐3
FA‐GSCIP‐1
City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 48 Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development in Table 9.3 is divided by the total growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU. Table 9.4 displays this calculation.

Table 9.4: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 3,066,967
Growth in EDUs (2023 to 2050) 1,119
Cost per EDU $ 2,741
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for wastewater facilities is shown in Table 9.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 9.1.

The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

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 Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 49 Table 9.5: Maximum Justified Wastewater Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / Average
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit 3, 4 $ 2,738 1.03 $ 2,820 $ 56 $ 2,876 $ 1.84 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft. or Lodging Room
Commercial $ 2,738 0.51 $ 1,396 $ 28 $ 1,424 $ 1.42
Office 2,738 0.51 1,396 28 1,424 1.42
Industrial 2,738 0.54 1,479 30 1,509 1.51
Restaurant 2,738 3.31 9,063 181 9,244 9.24
Commercial Lodging5
2,738 0.51 1,396 28 1,424
1 Fee per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 5 Fee charged per lodging room (see "Total Fee" column).

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.4.
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.
3 Assumes an average of 1,564 square feet per dw elling unit in Grover Beach based on an analysis of recent building permits.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.
50 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) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. 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: parks and fire protection 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 water and wastewater facilities fees. All projects included in these fees were identified in the City’s recent master plans as necessary to accommodate new development.

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 law enforcement, recreation, and administrative facilities fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development’s fair share of facilities identified by the City. 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 increased level of service through any other funding source. Each chapter for facility fee categories that are increasing the level of service includes a table that shows the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility cost per capita.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 51 66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions Table 15.1 reviews the assumptions from the 2006 study in terms of the planning assumptions and cost assumptions. While the projected growth increment is similar in both studies, the assumed unit costs in the 2006 study were undervalued compared to current facilities costs in 2024.

Table 10.1: Review of Prior Study
2006 Study 2024 Study
Planing Horizon Buildout 2050
Assumed Increase
Population 2,854 2,821
Employment 1,033 1,030
Facility Costs
Law Enforcement Buildings - per Sq. Ft. $ 227 $ 595
Administrative Buildings - per Sq. Ft. 239 351
Park Acre (Improvements) 315,000 900,000
Recreation Buildings - per Sq. Ft. 239 698
City of Grover Beach, Development Impact Fee Study Update, 2006; Tables 2.1, 4.2,

3.2, 6.3, 7.2, Willdan Financial Services.

The actual fee revenue collected from 2019 to 2023 is shown in Table 10.2.

Table 10.2: Historical Fee Revenue
Total
Collected,
2019 to 2023
Annual
Average
Administrative Facilities 19,840 $ 3,968$
Fire Protection 22,050 4,410
Law Enforcement 17,194 3,439
Parks 325,811 65,162
Recreation Facility DIF 48,648 9,730
Stormwater 69,295 13,859
Transportation 275,905 55,181
Wastewater 233,929 46,786
Water 211,412 42,282
Total $ 1,224,084 244,817$
Source: City of Grover Beach.

City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 52 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot for all fee categories and comply with AB 602.
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, water and sewer master plans, and FCNA. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study.
53 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 (CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation.

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.

Reporting Requirements
The City complies 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.

Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs. The 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 as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City’s facilities. 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.

Reimbursements
For some facility categories, particularly park facilities, developers occasionally dedicate parkland and construct facilities in lieu of paying the development impact fee. If a developer builds parkland that exceeds the development’s share of needed facilities, that developer should be reimbursed for the amount of facilities created above and beyond that development’s impact.

However, we recommend that the City’ reimburse the difference based on a) the costs identified in the most recent CIP, and b) at the time that the City would be building the improvement had the City of Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 54 development not occurred. By following these guidelines, the City will not be unfairly burdened with unanticipated costs.
55 12. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities 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 public facilities 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 public facilities 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 proposed 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 for 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 proposed 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: administrative facilities, fire protection facilities, law enforcement facilities, parks, recreation facilities, water facilities and wastewater 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 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 Grover Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update 56 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 most 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 less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development. For water and wastewater facilities, the cost standard is calculated per gallon per day of flow generated.

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 Standards 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 and Unit Costs, 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 proposed facilities fees.

Attachment 3
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 1

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Revenue Fund Reference Numbers and Descriptions................................................................................................................. 3 Project Revenue Summary............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Expenditure Summary by Project Category................................................................................................................................ 6 Completed Projects........................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Current Projects ...............................................................................................................................................................................10 Parks / Community Services.....................................................................................................................................................11 Public Buildings / Facilities .......................................................................................................................................................13 Streets / Storm Drains...............................................................................................................................................................15 Measure K-14 Local Street Rehabilitation and Repair Project.........................................................................................25 Water...........................................................................................................................................................................................33 Wastewater .................................................................................................................................................................................37 Unfunded Projects...........................................................................................................................................................................43 91 CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 2

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2025-2029
Executive Summary
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
outlines a schedule of expenditures over the
ensuing five-year period (2025-2029). The CIP
does not address all of the capital expenditures
for the City, but provides for larger scale
infrastructure improvements, that are
permanent in nature, including transportation
systems, and municipal facilities.

Projects in this document must be in excess of
$50,000 with a useful life of at least ten years;
or a study of at least $50,000 that will lead to
such projects; or add to the value or capacity of
the infrastructure of the City. Projects that are
considered operational or routine maintenance
are excluded from this program.

The Capital Improvement Program proposes
project funding relative to the anticipated
availability of fiscal resources and the choice of
specific improvements to be achieved
throughout the five-year plan. The Projected
Revenue Summary on page 5 identifies
fourteen (14) revenue sources and their use by
year for FY 2025-2029.

The Expenditure Summary on pages 6 and 7
identifies project expenditures in the following
five categories:

Parks / Community Services
Street / Storm Drain
Public Buildings / Facilities
Water
Wastewater
The Expenditure Summary for FY 2025
indicates a total of approximately $12,000,00 in
spending within the five project categories,
which includes carryover funding. Detailed
information regarding each identified project
can be found on pages 11 - 42. The
information provided includes a project
description, the current status of the project,
identified funding sources and the total
projected project cost.

As is often the case, funding needs identified in
the CIP exceeds the available funding. Page 43
shows a list of 30 capital needs identified at a
cost of approximately $86 million dollars that do
not have an established, secure source of
funding at this time. These identified needs will
be considered as potential funding sources are
identified.

Maximizing the City’s funding and addressing
rising costs incurred in maintaining and
rehabilitating infrastructure makes the process
of selecting capital projects to fund challenging.

There are several types of capital needs such
as construction of new, first-time improvements,
replacement of aged infrastructure that is at or
beyond its service life or large-scale capital
maintenance. In addition, studies related to the
City’s various infrastructure asset categories
are included in the CIP if the study will result in
future capital improvement projects.
92 CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 3

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

REVENUE FUNDS
Revenue Fund Reference Numbers and Descriptions
101 - General Fund
This fund is the primary fund for the City. In addition to Capital Improvements, most of the City's general operations and services are supported by this fund. Income generally consists of property, sales, and other tax revenues.
200 - Traffic Congestion Relief Fund
These funds must be used for street and road maintenance, rehabilitation, or reconstruction. Income is derived from fuel sales tax, State General Fund and tribal gaming. Requires continual expenditure of general funds at historic levels to be eligible for these funds. 240 - Parks Construction Fund
This (Quimby Act) fund accounts for parks construction developer fees. Per GBMC Chapter 11, fund use is restricted to developing new park improvements or rehabilitating existing parks or facilities within the City.
301 - Underground Utilities Fund
This fund accounts for underground utility developer fees restricted to the placement of utility lines underground in accordance with City Council priorities set by resolution. 205 - Gas Tax Fund
These funds are restricted in use to acquisition of rights of way, construction, maintenance, engineering and administrative costs of the public street system. Income is derived from state excise taxes on fuel and is allocated to the City in accordance with Streets and Highway Code Section 2103-2108. 215 - Local Transportation Fund
This fund accounts for apportioned revenue from the state and is restricted in use to acquisition of rights of way, construction, maintenance, engineering and administrative costs associated with the public street system, as well as transit-related costs. Income derived from state and federal grants generally administered by SLOCOG and Caltrans Local Assistance and include State Highway Account Urban and Regional (USHA and RSHA) funds.
210 - Gas Tax Fund RMRA (SB1)
SB 1 enables cities and counties to address significant maintenance, rehabilitation and safety needs on the local street and road system. The intent of the funding is to maintain roads and address small problems immediately, so they don’t get worse and cost more to fix later. 201 - Street Rehabilitation and Repair K-14 Bond Fund
This fund is generated by voter approved Measure K-14 bond sales and is used for the rehabilitation and repair of local streets.
93 CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 4

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
270 - Community Development Block Grant
This fund accounts for all revenues and expenditures associated with the federal CDBG program. Funds may be used for economic development, housing or public service projects which primarily benefit low- and moderate-income residents.
250 - Transportation Development Impact Fee Fund
This fund accounts for fees generated by development for the construction of transportation facilities. 255 - Wastewater Development Impact Fee Fund
This fund accounts for fees generated by development for the construction of sanitary sewer facilities. 256 - Parks Facility Development Impact Fee Fund
This fund accounts for fees generated by development for the construction of parks facilities. 257 - Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Fund
This fund accounts for fees generated by development for the construction of recreation facilities. 603 - Wastewater Fund
This fund is used for maintenance, operation and construction of wastewater and storm water infrastructure improvements. Income is derived from sewer user fees.
601 - Water Fund
This fund is used for maintenance, operation and construction of water infrastructure improvements.

Income is derived from water user fees.
602 - Water Conservation Fund
This fund receives water conservation fees from developers and is restricted to water conservation projects and programs within the City.
402 - Trust and Agency Account
This fund accounts for private donations made to the City for specific uses/projects.

Regional Early Access Planning (REAP) Grant
California is committed to a future where we all have the option to live closer to our jobs, services, and daily destinations. We can achieve this future through more housing options and affordability in nearby neighborhoods, which includes transportation options so we can walk our kids to school, ride our bikes to work, or take transit. REAP 2 is a key part of the state’s strategic investments toward this more sustainable, resilient, and inclusive future for people in all areas of the state. 94 2025 - 2029 Projected Revenue Summary
Fund # FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Estimated
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029
101 - General Fund $268,428 $75,000 $3,365,953 $600,000 $1,300,000 $1,435,000 $1,501,000 $1,600,000 240 - Parks Construction Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 301 - Underground Utilities Fund
205 - Gas Tax Fund $0 $0 $175,000 $75,000 $175,000 $146,000 $100,000 $100,000 215 - Local Transportation Fund $0 $0 $210,000 $1,900,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 210 - Gas Tax Fund (RMRA) $0 $0 $598,000 $299,000 $299,000 $330,000 $299,000 $300,000 201 - Street Rehabilitation and Repair Bond Fund $1,719,656 $700,000 $0 $860,000 $5,000,000 $1,130,000 $3,360,000 $1,800,000 250 - Transportation Development Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $115,000 $0 $0 255 - Wastewater Development Impact Fee $2,520 $0 $0 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 256 - Parks Facility Development Impact Fee $116,450 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 257 - Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee
603 - Wastewater Fund $510 $0 $790,250 $755,000 $3,100,000 $300,000 $2,300,000 $600,000 601 - Water Fund $1,875,476 $1,600,000 $75,000 $25,000 $40,000 $20,000 $40,000 $20,000 REAP Grant $0 $1,200,000 $0 $2,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Agency / District
TOTAL $3,983,040 $3,747,000 $5,214,203 $6,799,000 $10,014,000 $3,576,000 $7,750,000 $4,520,000 95 CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 6

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2025 - 2029 Expenditure Summary by Project Category

PARKS / COMMUNITY SERVICES
CIP #
FY 2024
Estimated
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Estimated
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029
1002 Mentone $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0
1259 Ramona $116,450 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SUBTOTAL $116,450 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0

PUBLIC BUILDINGS / FACILITIES
CIP #
FY 2024
Estimated
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Estimated
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029
3002 Corp Yard $124,302 $0 $300,000 $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 3003 ADA $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0
SUBTOTAL $124,302 $0 $300,000 $600,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0

STREETS / STORM DRAINS
CIP #
FY 2024
Estimated
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Estimated
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029
2003 Lighting $34,126 $55,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2004 Train Alt. $0 $0 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2250-1 Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 2274 Sidewalk $50,000 $20,000 $30,000 $0 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 2285 N. 4th $0 $0 $1,615,000 $474,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
2286 WGA $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,674,000 $500,000 $0 $0
2287 WGA $60,000 $1,200,000 $2,303,953 $4,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 2288 S. Oak $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,076,000 $1,300,000 $0
2289 ECR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,550,000
2295-14 K-14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2295-15 K-14 $1,315 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2295-16 K-14 $1,668,541 $700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2295-17 K-14 $87,800 $0 $0 $0 $2,200,000 $0 $0 $0
2295-18 K-14 $0 $0 $0 $860,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
2295-19 K-14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,840,000 $0 $0 $0
2295-20 K-14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,150,000 $0 $0
2295-21 K-14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,180,000 $0
2295-22 K-14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,220,000 $0
2295-23 K-14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,820,000
SUBTOTAL $1,901,782 $1,975,000 $4,048,953 $5,334,000 $6,814,000 $3,276,000 $5,250,000 $3,920,000 96 CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 7

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2025 - 2029
Expenditure Summary by Project Category Continued
WATER
CIP #
FY 2024
Estimated
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Estimated
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029
4001 CCB $1,757,476 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
4007 Valves $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
4008 Wells $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
4015 16th BPS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
4270 Water Meters $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
4280 AMR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
4391 Tanks $80,000 $1,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SUBTOTAL $1,837,476 $1,600,000 $75,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0

WASTEWATER
CIP #
FY 2024
Estimated
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Estimated
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029
5002 Sewer Upsize $3,030 $0 $0 $600,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 5003 Front LS $0 $0 $140,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5005 Oak LS $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5010 Sewer Upsize $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $2,200,000 $600,000 5020 Culvert $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
5269 Lining $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 SUBTOTAL $3,030 $0 $790,250 $840,000 $3,100,000 $300,000 $2,300,000 $600,000 TOTAL $3,983,041 $3,747,000 $5,214,203 $6,799,000 $10,014,000 $3,576,000 $7,750,000 $4,520,000 97 CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 8

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Completed Projects
Completed Projects
98 CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 9

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

PARKS / COMMUNITY SERVICES
Project Description Cost
1259 Ramona Design $400,000

PUBLIC BUILDINGS / FACILITIES
Project Description Cost
3002 Corp Yard Improvements - Phase 1 in progress $250,000 3004 Facility Condition and Needs Assessment $160,000

STREETS/STORM DRAIN
Project Description Cost
2004 Storm water alternative treatment for the train
station project $90,000
2274 Sidewalk Infill with Measure K-14 projects $50,000 2287 West Grand Avenue Streetscape design $330,000
2295-15 Measure K-14 $1,000,000
2295-16 Measure K-14 $2,500,000
2295-17 Measure K-14 Design $200,000
WATER
Project Description Cost
4001 Central Coast Blue - on going $1,610,062
4008 Well Capacity Analysis $75,000
4391 Reservoir Repairs and Cleaning $1,680,000

WASTEWATER
Project Description Cost
5002 Design for Sewer Upgrades $200,000
TOTAL $9,000,000
99 CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 10

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Current Projects
Current Projects
100
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 11

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Parks / Community Services
CIP1002: Mentone Basin Park Improvements
Project Type: Parks / Community Services
Location: Mentone Basin Park
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Preliminary
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2028
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year: Yes
Total Project Cost: $200,000
Description or Justification: This includes adult fitness equipment at the corner or along the perimeter of the park and replacing the lights at the courts.

City Council Goals: BUILDING AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS Ensure that our public facilities, including parks and buildings, are maintained, improved and expanded.

CIP 1002
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design
Construction $200,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0
Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101) $150,000
Parks Construction (240) $50,000
Parks Facility (DIF)
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0
CIP 1002 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
101
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 12

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 1259: Ramona Garden Park Rehabilitation
Project Type: Parks / Community Services
Location: Ramona Garden Park
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Design
Estimated Completion
Date: TBD
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year: Yes
Total Project Cost: $6,000,000
Description or Justification: Implement the master plan that was completed in FY21. Construction elements include a playground, an amphitheater, a plaza, new park restrooms, a new park entrance, pickleball courts, a walking path and an adult fitness area. The completed work is for the design; construction is currently unfunded.

City Council Goals: BUILDING AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS Ensure that our public facilities, including parks and buildings, are maintained, improved and expanded.

CIP 1259
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $172,898 $116,450 $172,000
Construction
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $172,898 $116,450 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101)
Parks Construction
(240) $172,898
Parks Facility DIF (256) $116,450 $172,000
Recreation DIF (257)
Donations
Funding Totals $172,898 $116,450 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CIP 1259 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:  Improves Quality of Existing Services:  Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible: 
Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
102
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 13

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Public Buildings / Facilities
CIP 3002: City Corporation Yard Improvements
Project Type: Public Buildings / Facilities
Location: 1150 Farroll Road
Project Manager: Greg Ray
Project Phase: Design / Acquisition
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2030
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year: Yes
Total Project Cost: $3,500,000
Description or Justification: Mechanic garage relocation completed in FY24. Acquisition of one or two neighboring properties is planned for FY25. Construction of improvements will start in FY27. Refer to unfunded needs section for remaining construction funds.

City Council Goals: BUILDING AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. Ensure that our public facilities, including parks and buildings, are maintained, improved and expanded.

CIP 3002
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design/Acquisition $1,170 $600,000
Construction $124,302 $300,000 $0
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $1,170 $124,302 $0 $300,000 $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101) $124,302 $300,000 $600,000 $0
Wastewater Fund
(603)
Water Fund (601) $1,170
Wastewater DIF (255)
Funding Totals $1,170 $124,302 $0 $300,000 $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 *$200K of FY24 GF carryover is from CIP 2285
CIP 3002 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services:  Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
103

CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 14

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 3003: City Disability Access Improvements
Project Type: Public Buildings / Facilities
Location: Citywide
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: On-Going
Estimated Completion Date: On-Going
Project Started in Previous Fiscal Year: Yes
Total Project Cost: $100,000
Description or Justification: The City has an ADA Transition Plan and funding will be allocated to address items in this plan. Improvements are identified in public rights of way, facilities and program improvements. See unfunded needs for all recommended improvements; approximate cost is $19 million.

City Council Goals: BUILDING AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. Ensure that our public facilities, including parks and buildings, are maintained, improved and expanded.

CIP 3003
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design
Construction $27,876 $100,000
Management $0
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $27,876 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101) $27,876 $100,000
Local Transportation
(215)
Water Fund (601)
Funding Totals $27,876 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0
CIP 3003 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need:  Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
104
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 15

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Streets / Storm Drains
CIP 2003: Street Lighting Project
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: In Progress
Estimated Completion
Date: FY25
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year: No
Total Project Cost: $100,000
Description or Justification: Addition of a streetlight.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Design and build safer, more pedestrian and bicycle friendly “complete streets” by incorporating where feasible bicycle lanes, sidewalks, street lights, crosswalks, etc.

CIP 2003
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project
Expenditures
Design
Construction $34,126 $55,000 $10,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $34,126 $55,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101) $34,126 $55,000 $10,000
Gas Tax (205)
Funding Totals $0 $34,126 $55,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CIP 2003 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:

Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services:  Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
105
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 16

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 2004: Train Station Stormwater Alternative Compliance Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: 3rd Street & Manhattan
Project Manager: Gabriel Munoz-Morris
Project Phase: Construction
Estimated Completion
Date: FY24
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $90,000
Description or Justification: The project will reduce the volume of runoff that enters Meadow Creek. This is a requirement of the original Train Station Expansion project (CIP 3312), but since the requirements could not be achieved on that site an alternate location was selected.

Given the location and timing it is a separate project.

City Council Goals: BUILDING AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. Ensure that our public facilities, including parks and buildings, are maintained, improved and expanded.

CIP 2004
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design
Construction $90,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101) $30,000
Local Transportation
(215) $60,000
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* SLOCOG reinstating $60,000 from 3312, so this is in addition to annual allocation CIP 2004 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:

Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services:  Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
106
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 17

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 2250-1: Annual Street Maintenance
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Planning
Estimated Completion
Date: N/A
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year: Yes
Total Project Cost: $1,700,000
Description or Justification: The project includes an allocation each year for maintenance of newly paved streets.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Design and build safer, more pedestrian and bicycle friendly “complete streets” by incorporating where feasible bicycle lanes, sidewalks, streetlights, crosswalks, etc.

CIP 2250-1
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design
Construction $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101) $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
Local Transportation
(215)
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 CIP 2250-1 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:

Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs:  Other:
107
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 18

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 2274: Citywide Sidewalk Infill
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: On-Going
Estimated Completion
Date: N/A
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year: Yes
Total Project Cost: $500,000
Description or Justification: The project includes an allocation each year to construct infill sidewalks and corner ramps, through private-public partnerships, and in partnership with current street rehabilitation projects to enhance pedestrian access.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Design and build safer, more pedestrian and bicycle friendly “complete streets” by incorporating where feasible bicycle lanes, sidewalks, streetlights, crosswalks, etc.

CIP 2274
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design
Construction $83,101 $50,000 $20,000 $30,000 $0 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $83,101 $50,000 $20,000 $30,000 $0 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101) $16,621 $50,000 $20,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax Fund (205) $66,480 $0 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 SRTS Grant (215)
Funding Totals $83,101 $50,000 $20,000 $30,000 $0 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 CIP 2274 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:

Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services:  Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible: 
Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
108
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 19

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 2285: Major Street Rehabilitation North 4th Street
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: North 4th Street
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Construction
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2025
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $2,100,000
Description or Justification: Rehabilitation of local major streets according to the priorities set by City Council. This was originally part of a larger CIP Project (CIP 2283) and the design is complete. This project is North 4th Street from West Grand Avenue to Ocean View. Based on current PCI, the recommended treatment is a grind and overlay, however the PCI will continue to decline until the street is repaired. The useful life of the project is about 10 years.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Design and build safer, more pedestrian and bicycle friendly “complete streets” by incorporating where feasible bicycle lanes, sidewalks, street lights, crosswalks, etc.

CIP 2285
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design
Construction $1,615,000 $474,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $1,615,000 $474,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101) $1,091,000
Gas Tax Fund (205) $75,000 $75,000
Local Transportation
(215) $150,000 $100,000
SB1 Funding (210) $299,000 $299,000
Transportation DIF (250)
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $1,615,000 $474,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 CIP 2285 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services:  Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
109
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 20

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 2286: Major Street Rehabilitation West Grand Avenue 11th Street to Oak Park Blvd
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: West Grand Avenue
(11th Street to Oak Park Blvd)
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Design
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2027
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $2,200,000
Description or Justification: Rehabilitation of local major streets according to the priorities set by City Council. This was originally part of a larger CIP Project (CIP 2283) and the design is complete. This project is for pavement rehabilitation at West Grand Avenue from 11th-Oak Park Boulevard. The recommended treatment is full depth rehabilitation. The useful life of the project is about 20 years.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Design and build safer, more pedestrian and bicycle friendly “complete streets” by incorporating where feasible bicycle lanes, sidewalks, street lights, crosswalks, etc.

CIP 2286
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design
Construction $1,500,000 $500,000
Management $174,000
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,674,000 $500,000 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101) $1,200,000 $500,000
Gas Tax Fund (205) $75,000
Local Transportation
(215) $100,000
SB1 Funding (210) $299,000
Transportation DIF (250)
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,674,000 $500,000 $0 $0 CIP 2286 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services:  Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
110
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 21

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 2287: Major Street Rehabilitation West Grand Avenue 4th Street to 8th Street
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: West Grand Avenue
(4th Street to 8th Street)
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Construction
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2025
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year: Yes
Total Project Cost: $7,500,000
Description or Justification: The project involves implementation of some elements from the West Grand Avenue Master Plan. Improvements include median enhancements, lighting, tree planting and landscaping, irrigation, storm drains, and pavement rehabilitation from 4th to west of 8th.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Design and build safer, more pedestrian and bicycle friendly “complete streets” by incorporating where feasible bicycle lanes, sidewalks, street lights, crosswalks, etc..

CIP 2287
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $301,040 $60,000
Construction $1,100,000 $2,303,953 $3,600,000
Management $100,000 $400,000
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $301,040 $60,000 $1,200,000 $2,303,953 $4,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101) $301,040 $60,000 $1,904,953
Gas Tax Fund (205) $100,000
Local Transportation
(215) $1,800,000
SBI Funding (210) $299,000
Transportation DIF
(250)
REAP GRANT $1,200,000 $2,200,000
Funding Totals $301,040 $60,000 $1,200,000 $2,303,953 $4,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 * General Fund is FY 2023 carryover
CIP 2287 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:  Improves Quality of Existing Services:  Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible: 
Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
111
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 22

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 2288: Major Street Rehabilitation South Oak Park Blvd Mentone Avenue to The Pike
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: South Oak Park Blvd
(Mentone Ave to The Pike)
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Preliminary
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2028
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $2,400,000
Description or Justification: Rehabilitation of local major streets according to the priorities set by City Council. This project is South Oak Park from Mentone Avenue to the Pike. The design includes reducing to a single travel lane and providing a buffered bike lane. The recommended treatment is a full depth rehabilitation. The useful life of the project is about 20 years.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Design and build safer, more pedestrian and bicycle friendly “complete streets” by incorporating where feasible bicycle lanes, sidewalks, street lights, crosswalks, etc..

CIP 2288
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $230,000
Construction $846,000 $1,300,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,076,000 $1,300,000 $0 Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101) $435,000 $851,000
Gas Tax Fund (205) $96,000 $50,000
Local Transportation
(215) $100,000 $100,000
SBI Funding (210) $330,000 $299,000
Transportation DIF (250) $115,000
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,076,000 $1,300,000 $0 CIP 2288 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services:  Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
112
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 23

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 2289: Major Street Rehabilitation El Camino Real
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: El Camino Real
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Preliminary
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2030
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $1,500,000
Description or Justification: Rehabilitation of local major streets according to the priorities set by City Council. This project is for El Camino Real. The useful life of the project is about 20 years.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Design and build safer, more pedestrian and bicycle friendly “complete streets” by incorporating where feasible bicycle lanes, sidewalks, street lights, crosswalks, etc..

CIP 2289
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $150,000
Construction $1,400,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,550,000
Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101) $1,100,000
Gas Tax Fund (205) $50,000
Local Transportation
(215) $100,000
SBI Funding (210) $300,000
Transportation DIF (250)
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,550,000
CIP 2289 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services:  Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
113
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 24

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
114
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 25

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Measure K-14 Local Street Rehabilitation and Repair Project CIP 2295-16
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Design
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2024
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year: Yes
Total Project Cost: $2,400,000
Description or Justification: Ramona from North 10th to North 14th Street, Front Street from Newport to Parkview Avenue, Saratoga from North 8th to Front Street, North 2nd from Newport to Saratoga. See CIP 2274 for sidewalk infill cost sharing.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Continue to complete Measure K-14 street improvements on local streets.

CIP 2295-16
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $200,710
Construction $1,668,541 $700,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $200,710 $1,668,541 $700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101)
K-14 Bond Fund (201) $200,710 $1,630,541 $700,000
Water Fund (601) $38,000
Funding Totals $200,710 $1,668,541 $700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CIP 2295-16 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
115
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 26

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Measure K-14 Local Street Rehabilitation and Repair Project CIP 2295-17
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Design
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2025
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year: Yes
Total Project Cost: $2,300,000
Description or Justification: Delayed due to delay of sewer work. North 9th from West Grand to Atlantic City, North 11th from West Grand to Ramona, North 12th from West Grand to Newport, Brighton from North 10th to North 13th, Ramona from 16th to Oak Park, Alma Ct, and Moss Ct. See CIP 2274 for sidewalk infill cost sharing.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLET STREETS. Continue to complete Measure K-14 street improvement on local streets.

CIP 2295-17
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project
Expenditures
Design $27,562 $87,800
Construction $2,200,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $27,562 $87,800 $0 $0 $0 $2,200,000 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101)
K-14 Bond Fund
(201) $27,562 $87,800 $2,200,000
Water Fund (601)
Funding Totals $27,562 $87,800 $0 $0 $0 $2,200,000 $0 $0 $0 CIP 2295-17 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
116
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 27

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Measure K-14 Local Street Rehabilitation and Repair Project CIP 2295-18
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Preliminary
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2025
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $860,000
Description or Justification: Maintenance work for previously paved Measure K-14 streets. Staff will utilize the Pavement Management software to determine the streets and treatment methods.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Continue to complete Measure K-14 street improvements on local streets.

CIP 2295-18
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $60,000
Construction $700,000
Management $100,000
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $860,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101)
K-14 Bond Fund (201) $860,000
Water Fund (601)
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $860,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
CIP 2295-18 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
117
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 28

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Measure K-14 Local Street Rehabilitation and Repair Project CIP 2295-19
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Preliminary
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2026
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $2,840,000
Description or Justification: Ramona from North 8th to North 4th, Brighton from North 8th to North 4th, North 7th from Brighton to Atlantic City, North 6th from West Grand to Atlantic City and Park View to Ocean View, and North 5th from West Grand to Saratoga. See CIP 2274 for sidewalk infill cost sharing.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Continue to complete Measure K-14 street improvements on local streets.

CIP 2295-19
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project
Expenditures
Design $240,000
Construction $2,600,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,840,000 $0 $0 $0
Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101)
K-14 Bond Fund
(201) $2,800,000
Water Fund (601) $40,000
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,840,000 $0 $0 $0
CIP 2295-19 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
118
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 29

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Measure K-14 Local Street Rehabilitation and Repair Project CIP 2295-20
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Preliminary
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2027
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $1,150,000
Description or Justification: Ramona 3rd to Front, Brighton 4th to Front, 2nd Park View to Ocean View and West Grand to Ramona. See CIP 2274 for sidewalk infill cost sharing.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Continue to complete Measure K-14 street improvements on local streets.

CIP 2295-20
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project
Expenditures
Design $100,000
Construction $1,050,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,150,000 $0 $0
Funding Source(s)
General Fund (101)
K-14 Bond Fund
(201) $1,130,000
Water Fund (601) $20,000
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,150,000 $0 $0
CIP 2295-20 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
119
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 30

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Measure K-14 Local Street Rehabilitation and Repair Project CIP 2295-21
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Preliminary
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2028
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $1,200,000
Description or Justification: North 1st from Atlantic to Newport, Front from Newport to Ramona, Ramona from 14th to 16th, Grand View, Nice from South 12th to South 10th, Rose Court. PCI warrants a grind and overlay treatment. See CIP 2274 for sidewalk infill cost sharing.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Continue to complete Measure K-14 street improvements on local streets.

CIP 2295-21
Project
Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project
Expenditures
Design $140,000
Construction $1,040,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,180,000 $0
Funding Source(s)
General Fund (01)
K-14 Bond Fund
(20) $1,160,000
Water Fund (81) $20,000
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,180,000 $0
CIP 2295-21 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
120
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 31

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Measure K-14 Local Street Rehabilitation and Repair Project CIP 2295-22
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Preliminary
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2028
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $2,220,000
Description or Justification: Rockaway from 2nd to 8th Street, South 5th from West Grand Avenue to Seabright, South 5th Trouville to Farroll, South 6th West Grand Avenue to Rockaway, South 6th Longbranch to Seabright. See CIP 2274 for sidewalk infill cost sharing.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Continue to complete Measure K-14 street improvements on local streets.

CIP 2295-22
Project
Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project
Expenditures
Design $200,000
Construction $2,020,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,220,00
0 $0
Funding Source(s)
General Fund (01)
K-14 Bond Fund
(20) $2,200,000
Water Fund (81) $20,000
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,220,00
0 $0
CIP 2295-22 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
121
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 32

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Measure K-14 Local Street Rehabilitation and Repair Project CIP 2295-23
Project Type: Streets / Storm Drains
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Preliminary
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2030
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $1,820,000
Description or Justification: Rockaway from South 8th to South 11th Street, South 9th Street from Longbranch to Mentone, South 12th Street from Seabright to Farroll, South 11th Street from Baden to Farroll, South 11th Street from Mentone to Nice. See CIP 2274 for sidewalk infill cost sharing.

City Council Goals: STREET MAINTENANCE AND COMPLETE STREETS. Continue to complete Measure K-14 street improvements on local streets.

CIP 2295-23
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $200,000
Construction $1,620,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,820,000
Funding Source(s)
General Fund (01)
K-14 Bond Fund (20) $1,800,000
Water Fund (81) $20,000
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,820,000
CIP 2295-23 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
122
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 33

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Water
CIP 4001: Central Coast Blue
Project Type: Water
Location:

Project Manager: Greg Ray
Project Phase: Design
Estimated Completion
Date: TBD
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year: Yes
Total Project Cost: $4,800,000
Description or Justification: This project is a partnership between the cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande, however the City of Grover Beach will no longer participate in this project.

City Council Goals: WATER SUPPLY AND RESILIENCY. Meet existing and long-term water needs through the Central Coast Blue recycled ground water project and other regional efforts and by continuing water conservation; identify other feasible strategies to ensure long-term water resiliency.

CIP 4001
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $3,053,641 $1,757,476
Construction
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $3,053,641 $1,757,476 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
Water Fund (601) $3,053,641 $1,757,476
Funding Totals $3,053,641 $1,757,476 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CIP 4001 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:  Improves Quality of Existing Services:  Responds to Federal or State Requirement:  Addresses Public Health/Safety Need:  Grant Eligible:  Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
123
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 34

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 4007: Water Main Zone Valves
Project Type: Water
Location: Various
Project Manager: Greg Ray
Project Phase: Construction
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2024
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $75,000
Description or Justification: Infill and replace zone valves. Reduces area impacted by water line shutdowns.

Various locations including 16th and Brighton.

City Council Goals: WATER SUPPLY AND RESILIENCY. Meet existing and long-term water needs through the Central Coast Blue recycled ground water project and other regional efforts and by continuing water conservation; identify other feasible strategies to ensure long- term water resiliency.

CIP 4007
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project
Expenditures
Design
Construction $0 $25,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Funding Source(s)
Water Fund (601) $25,000
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
CIP 4007 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Eligible for Water Bond:  124
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 35

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 4008: Well Capacity Analysis and Improvements
Project Type: Water
Location: Wells
Project Manager: Greg Ray
Project Phase: Design
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2024
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $75,000
Description or Justification: Well field capacity analysis and Well Improvements.

City Council Goals: WATER SUPPLY AND RESILIENCY. Meet existing and long-term water needs through the Central Coast Blue recycled ground water project and other regional efforts and by continuing water conservation; identify other feasible strategies to ensure long- term water resiliency.

CIP 4008
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project
Expenditures
Design $75,000
Construction
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Funding Source(s)
Water Fund (601) $75,000
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CIP 4008 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Eligible for Water Bond:  125
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 36

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 4391: Reservoir Maintenance
Project Type: Water
Location: Reservoirs
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Construction
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2025
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $1,700,000
Description or Justification: Routine cleaning and maintenance, overflow analysis, and minor repairs as identified during routine inspections; tank recoating on Tank 3 in Fiscal Year 2024.

City Council Goals: WATER SUPPLY AND RESILIENCY. Meet existing and long-term water needs through the Central Coast Blue recycled ground water project and other regional efforts and by continuing water conservation; identify other feasible strategies to ensure long- term water resiliency.

CIP 4391
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project
Expenditures
Design $80,000
Construction $17,300 $1,600,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $17,300 $80,000 $1,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
Water Fund (601) $17,300 $80,000 $1,600,000
Funding Totals $17,300 $80,000 $1,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CIP 4391 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Eligible for Water Bond:  126
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 37

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Wastewater
CIP 5002: Sewer Upgrade for Existing and Future Flows
Project Type: Wastewater
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Gabriel Munoz-Morris
Project Phase: Design
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2025
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year: Yes
Total Project Cost: $3,100,000
Description or Justification: Sewer system upgrades to support current needs and development needs (El Camino Real) from Manhattan Avenue and South 3rd Street to North 9th Street and Atlantic City Avenue.

City Council Goals: BUILDING AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. Support city programs, operations and assets by ensuring that our public facilities, including parks and buildings, are maintained, improved and expanded to meet community needs into the future.

CIP 5002
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $121,398 $3,030
Construction $600,000 $3,000,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $121,398 $3,030 $0 $0 $600,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
Wastewater Fund
(603) $121,398 $510 $515,000 $3,000,000
Wastewater DIF (255) $2,520 $85,000
Funding Totals $121,398 $3,030 $0 $0 $600,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 CIP 5002 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: ARPA Funding: 
127
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 38

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 5003: Front Street Lift Station Upgrades
Project Type: Wastewater
Location: Front Street
Project Manager: Gabriel Munoz-Morris
Project Phase: Construction
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2024
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year: Yes
Total Project Cost: $140,000
Description or Justification: Replace/re-coat the existing valves and pipe fittings within the wet well and the valve vault.

City Council Goals: BUILDING AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. Support city programs, operations and assets by ensuring that our public facilities, including parks and buildings, are maintained, improved and expanded to meet community needs into the future.

CIP 5003
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $15,252 $0
Construction $140,250
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $15,252 $0 $0 $140,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source(s)
Wastewater Fund
(603) $15,252 $0 $140,250
Funding Totals $15,252 $0 $0 $140,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
*estimated balance will carryover from FY 2023.

CIP 5003 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
128
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 39

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 5005: South Oak Park Lift Station Upgrades
Project Type: Wastewater
Location: South Oak Park Blvd
Project Manager: Gabriel Munoz-Morris
Project Phase: Construction
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2024
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $150,000
Description or Justification: Replace/re-coat the existing valves and pipe fittings within the wet well and the valve vault. Replace/re-coat the pipe fittings within the wet well, retrofit the fiberglass enclosure to allow for user access, and install a bypass connection.

City Council Goals: BUILDING AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. Support city programs, operations and assets by ensuring that our public facilities, including parks and buildings, are maintained, improved and expanded to meet community needs into the future.

CIP 5005
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $50,000
Construction $100,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Funding Source(s)
Wastewater Fund
(603) $150,000
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CIP 5005 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
129
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 40

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 5010: Sewer Upgrade for Existing Flows
Project Type: Wastewater
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Gabriel Munoz-Morris
Project Phase: Design
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2028
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $3,500,000
Description or Justification: Sewer system upgrades. Fiscal Year 2025 includes North 9th Street and Atlantic City to Ritchie Road and North 12th Street.

City Council Goals: BUILDING AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. Support city programs, operations and assets by ensuring that our public facilities, including parks and buildings, are maintained, improved and expanded to meet community needs into the future.

CIP 5010
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $0 $400,000 $200,000
Construction $0 $2,000,000 $500,000
Management $200,000 $100,000
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $2,200,000 $600,000 Funding Source(s)
Wastewater Fund
(603) $0 $400,000 $200,000 $2,200,000 $600,000
Wastewater DIF (255)
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $2,200,000 $600,000 *200k carryover from FY23 and FY24
CIP 5010 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
130
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 41

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 5020: Replace Portion of Damaged Storm Drain at Railroad Project Type: Wastewater
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Erin Wiggin
Project Phase: Preliminary
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2026
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $140,000
Description or Justification: Replace a portion of the damaged storm drain.

City Council Goals: BUILDING AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. Support city programs, operations and assets by ensuring that our public facilities, including parks and buildings, are maintained, improved and expanded to meet community needs into the future.

CIP 5020
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design $20,000
Construction $120,000
Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Funding Source(s)
Wastewater Fund
(603) $140,000
Wastewater DIF (255)
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
CIP 5020 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study:  Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
131
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 42

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP 5269: Citywide Sewer Lining Project
Project Type: Wastewater
Location: Various Locations
Project Manager: Gabriel Munoz-Morris
Project Phase: Construction
Estimated Completion
Date: Fiscal Year 2029
Project Started in
Previous Fiscal Year:

Total Project Cost: $500,000
Description or Justification: Lining and/or repair of damaged sewer mains identified as "hot spots." Currently these identified sewer mains require regular maintenance via sewer jetting.

City Council Goals: BUILDING AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. Support city programs, operations and assets by ensuring that our public facilities, including parks and buildings, are maintained, improved and expanded to meet community needs into the future.

CIP 5269
Project Financing
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Actual
FY 2024
Estimated
Spending
FY 2024
Carryover
FY 2025
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Projected
FY 2028
Projected
FY 2029
Projected
Project Expenditures
Design
Construction $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Management
Contingency
Expenditure Totals $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 Funding Source(s)
Wastewater Fund
(603) $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Funding Totals $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 CIP 5269 - Evaluation Criteria SATISFY SATISFY
City Council Goal:  Alleviates Substandard Conditions or Deficiencies:  Identified in Planning Document/Study: Provides Incentive to Economic Development:

Improves Quality of Existing Services: Responds to Federal or State Requirement:

Addresses Public Health/Safety Need: Grant Eligible:

Reduces Long-Term Operating Costs: Other:
132
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 43

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Unfunded Projects
Unfunded Projects
133
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 44

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

PARKS / COMMUNITY SERVICES
Project Description Estimated
Cost
Potential Funding
Sources
Ramona Garden Park Construction for the new park $6,000,000 General Fund, Grants T-Ball Field Construct a permanent T-Ball Field at the
southeast side of 16th Street Park $75,000 General Fund Dog Park Create an official Dog Park at Costa Bella Park $100,000 General Fund Trail Master Plan
Building on the Beach Cities Feasibility Study,
develop a Master Plan and implementation
schedule for trails within the City limits. The
first phase would be a Meadow Creek trail and
the scope includes public outreach and
CEQA/EIR.
$350,000 General Fund
Potential Grant
Grover Heights Park Replace dated playground equipment $800,000 General Fund, Grants Hero Park Replace dated playground equipment $600,000 General Fund, Grants Community Center Playground Replace dated playground equipment $100,000 General Fund, Grants Community Center at Trouville
Replace the community center based on the
findings from the Facility Condition and Needs
Assessment
$5,000,000 General Fund

PUBLIC BUILDINGS / FACILITIES
Project Description Estimated
Cost
Potential Funding
Sources
City Records Storage
Develop onsite or offsite solution for storage of
records from City Hall, Police Department, and
Corporation Yard.
$300,000 General Fund
Gateway Signs Overhead gateway sign on Grand Avenue $800,000 General Fund Monument Signs 16th Street Park, Highway 1, N. 4th, Oak Park, Parks or facilities $100,000 General Fund
Corp Yard Reconstruction Phased Corp Yard Construction $3,000,000 General Fund; Water Fund; Wastewater Fund
City Hall and PD New City Hall and PD facilities (depending on the FCNA recommendation) $20,000,000 General Fund
Fire Department Upgrades Apparatus bay heater and insulation and roof $500,000 General Fund Citywide Disability Access Improvements Improvements based on the ADA Transition Plan $18,500,000 General Fund
134
CITY OF GROVER BEACH PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2025-2029 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 45

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

STREETS
Project Description Estimated
Cost
Potential Funding
Sources
12th Street Bridge Structural Analysis and reconstruction $75,000 General Fund Measure K-14 Unfunded Streets Funding to complete all Measure K Streets $4,000,000 General Fund S. 4th Street Complete Street Project Complete street project for S. 4th $9,000,000 Potential ATP Grant Major Street Rehabilitation
Repair and Rehabilitation of remaining major
streets, including: Farroll Road, The Pike and El
Camino Real
$8,000,000
General Fund
LTF
Gas Tax
WATER
Project Description Estimated
Cost
Potential Funding
Sources
Water Deliver Upgrades Construct a pump station on the Grover Beach turn-out of the Lopez waterline $1,600,000 Water Fund
Water Scada System
Add remote sensing to key components of the
water system to improve response and system
reliability
$500,000 Water Fund
Well Facility Improvements
Upgrades include modifying the existing
electrical system (including adding VFDs) and
installing generators to improve facility
reliability and operation for future demands
and improvements to chemical storage and
treatment facilities.
$1,500,000 Water Fund
16th Street Booster Pump Station Replace aging pumps and add a standby generator $1,000,000 Water Fund
Watermain Zone Valves Project scope in the CIP allocation was reduced and this reflects the funding gap $50,000 Water Fund
Water Meter Replacement Program Budget each year to replace aging meters $750,000 Water Fund Automated Meter Reading Implementation $800,000 Water Fund Upsize Water Mains $500,000 Water Fund
Nitrate Plant Decommissioning $100,000 Water Fund
Reservoir Maintenance Coating and maintenance for tanks 1 and 2 $1,500,000 Water Fund

WASTEWATER
Project Description Estimated
Cost
Potential Funding
Sources
SCADA Systems
Add remote sensing to key components of the
lift stations to improve response and system
reliability
$600,000 Wastewater Fund
Wastewater DIF
135
May 17, 2024
Draft – For Discussion Only

Development Impact Fee Comparison Survey
Methodology
Willdan collected development impact fee schedules for six comparison cities. These comparison jurisdictions are:
• Arroyo Grande
• Atascadero
• Morro Bay
• Paso Robles
• Pismo Beach
• City of San Luis Obispo
Willdan collected data regarding all one-time fees and charges used to fund infrastructure and facilities related to new development. Impact fees are not standardized and are assessed by various units of development by different jurisdictions. To create a meaningful comparison of impact fees, Willdan calculated the fees for three prototype projects. Table 1 presents the project prototype assumptions used in this analysis.

Results
Tables 2, 3 and 4 display the fee companions for each prototype, respectively. Some jurisdictions charge impact fees that vary by project location. In these cases, the tables show the range of potential impact fees.

Table 1: Prototype Assumptions
Prototype
Unit
Count
Unit
Sq. Ft.

Lot Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Water
Meter Size
(per unit)
Single Family Unit 1 2,500 5,000 1″
Multifamily Unit 1 1,100 2,200 1″
Retail/Commercial N/A 10,000 20,000 1"
Attachment 4
May 17, 2024
Draft – For Discussion Only

Table 2: Single Family Unit - 2,500 Square Feet
Fee Category

CURRENT
Grover
Beach
DRAFT
Grover
Beach1
Arroyo
Grande Atascadero Morro Bay
Paso
Robles
(Low)2
Paso
Robles
(High)2
Pismo
Beach
City of San
Luis Obispo
(Low)3
City of San
Luis Obispo
(High)3
Development Impact Fees $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,350 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Administrative Facilities 128 3,225 - 1,036 4,275 4,199 4,199 3,426 - - Fire Facilities 230 750 600 954 1,550 1,449 1,449 3,688 854 854 Libraries - - - 532 - 1,354 1,354 - - -
Parks 6,024 8,857 8,075 6,435 4,450 4,105 4,105 15,908 8,870 10,161 Police Facilities 103 3,375 425 574 1,425 106 106 2,430 1,003 1,003 Recreation Facilities 585 2,275 425 1,084 - - - 9,555 - - Storm Drain 675 - 97 777 175 - - - - -
Transportation/Traffic 1,586 - 3,425 5,597 6,875 3,659 12,555 8,115 11,848 36,209 Wastewater/Sewer 2,683 2,796 1,837 - 9,737 13,515 13,515 13,698 16,141 16,141 Water 2,896 4,575 6,469 - 9,701 31,840 31,840 17,182 17,379 17,379 Total - per Prototype $ 14,910 $ 25,853 $ 21,353 $ 16,989 $ 52,538 $ 60,227 $ 69,123 $ 74,002 $ 56,095 $ 81,748 1 Park fee assumes infill development.
2 Paso Robles Transportation Fee varies by project location. 3 San Luis Obispo Transportation Fee varies by project location.

May 17, 2024
Draft – For Discussion Only

Table 3: Multifamily Unit - 1,100 Square Feet
Fee Category

CURRENT
Grover
Beach
DRAFT
Grover
Beach
Arroyo
Grande Atascadero Morro Bay
Paso
Robles
(Low) 1
Paso
Robles
(High) 1
Pismo
Beach
City of
San Luis
Obispo
(Low)2
City of
San Luis
Obispo
(High)2
Development Impact Fees $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,131 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Administrative Facilities 106 1,419 - 1,036 3,091 4,199 4,199 2,413 - - Fire Facilities 115 330 264 760 1,155 1,449 1,449 2,595 616 616 Libraries - - - 418 - 1,354 1,354 - - -
Parks 5,449 3,897 3,553 5,059 3,267 4,105 4,105 11,194 - - Police Facilities 128 1,485 187 334 1,023 125 125 1,709 722 722 Recreation Facilities 482 1,001 187 852 - - - 6,723 - - Storm Drain 297 - 36 499 99 - - - - -
Transportation/Traffic 974 - 1,507 5,597 4,719 2,522 8,652 4,981 9,205 28,626 Wastewater/Sewer 2,683 3,062 1,525 - 9,737 13,515 13,515 7,936 12,988 12,988 Water 2,896 4,392 6,469 - 9,701 31,840 31,840 8,627 13,903 13,903 Total - per Prototype $ 13,129 $ 15,586 $ 13,728 $ 14,555 $ 42,923 $ 59,109 $ 65,239 $ 46,178 $ 37,435 $ 56,856 1 Park fee assumes infill development.
2 Paso Robles Transportation Fee varies by project location. 3 San Luis Obispo Transportation Fee varies by project location.

May 17, 2024
Draft – For Discussion Only

Table 4: Retail/Commercial - 10,000 Square Feet
Fee Category

CURRENT
Grover
Beach
DRAFT
Grover
Beach
Arroyo
Grande Atascadero Morro Bay
Paso
Robles
(Low)1
Paso
Robles
(High)1
Pismo
Beach
City of
San Luis
Obispo
(Low)2
City of
San Luis
Obispo
(High)2
Development Impact Fees $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 58,300 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Administrative Facilities 3,008 6,200 - 800 3,700 15,200 15,200 17,060 - - Fire Facilities 317 1,430 2,050 7,850 3,300 5,300 5,300 40,840 3,100 3,100 Libraries - - - 2,620 - - - - - -
Parks - - - 1,890 200 - - - - -
Police Facilities 3,233 6,530 1,470 5,230 900 1,600 1,600 12,070 3,600 3,600 Recreation Facilities - - - - - - - - - -
Storm Drain 270 - 120 3,750 500 - - - - -
Transportation/Traffic 58,902 69,380 69,380 93,710 49,000 106,200 146,300 110,690 157,400 540,100 Wastewater/Sewer 2,683 14,220 2,570 - 9,737 13,515 13,515 77,300 27,439 27,439 Water 2,896 18,300 6,469 - 9,701 31,840 31,840 101,570 29,717 29,717 Total - per Prototype $ 71,309 $ 116,060 $ 82,059 $ 115,850 $ 135,338 $ 173,655 $ 213,755 $ 359,530 $ 221,256 $ 603,956 1 Paso Robles Transportation Fee varies w ith project location 2 San Luis Obispo Transportation Fee varies by project location.

Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
City of Grover Beach
May 20, 2024
Attachment 5
What is a Development Impact Fee?
One-time charge 1
Imposed at building permit stage
Imposed on all development projects
within a defined geographic area
Funds facilities to serve new development
Mitigation Fee Act Findings (Govt. Code §66001)
• Key findings
– Need: Development  Need for facilities
– Benefit: Development  Use of revenue
– Rough proportionality: Fee amount  development’s share of facility costs
• Other findings
– Purpose of fee
– Use of fee revenue
▪ Requires local jurisdictions to make certain
information available on website
▪ Changes to impact fee adoption process:
▪ Prior to adoption of development fees,
an impact fee nexus study needs to be
adopted with 30 days notice
▪ Technical changes:
▪ Residential fees should be charged
per square foot, unless findings are
supported that justify another
metric
▪ Large jurisdictions shall adopt a
capital improvement plan as a part
of the nexus study
▪ Nexus study should identify level of
service
▪ If fees are increasing, review the
assumptions of the original nexus
study and evaluate the amount of
fees collected under the original fee
AB 602
Impact Fees – Basic Methodology

ESTIMATE

EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT

AND FUTURE
GROWTH

IDENTIFY FACILITY

STANDARDS

DETERMINE NEW

FACILITY NEEDS

AND COSTS

ALLOCATE SHARE
TO

ACCOMMODATE
GROWTH

IDENTIFY

ALTERNATIVE

FUNDING NEEDS

CALCULATE FEE BY

ALLOCATING

COSTS PER UNIT
OF NEW

DEVELOPMENT
Impact Fee Categories
▪Administrative Facilities
▪Law Enforcement Facilities
▪Fire Protection Facilities
▪Parks
▪Recreation
▪Water
▪Sewer
Growth Projections
2023 2050 Increase
Residents 12,270 15,091 2,821
Dwelling Units 5,923 6,728 805
Employment 2,574 3,604 1,030
Sources: California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2023; http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; SLOCOG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast for San Luis Obispo County; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation Methods:

WHAT Facilities Serve WHO

PLANNED FACILITIES
Planned Facilities
New Demand

SYSTEM PLAN
Existing + Planned Facilities
Existing + New Demand

EXISTING INVENTORY
Existing Facilities
Existing Demand
Fee Program Methodologies
Fire Protection Facilities
Parks
Existing
Standard
Water
Sewer
Planned
Facilities
9 Administrative Facilities
Law Enforcement
Facilities
Recreation Facilities
System
Standard
Projected Impact Fee Revenue
Fee Category Total Project Cost
Development Fee
Revenue
Additional Funding
Required
Administrative Facilities $ 10,030,000 $ 2,910,780 $ 7,119,220 Law Enforcement Facilities 10,670,000 3,055,220 7,614,780 Fire Protection 671,960 671,960 -
Parks1 7,192,000 7,192,000 -
Recreation 3,500,000 1,850,576 1,649,424
Water 4,578,885 4,578,885 -
Sewer 3,066,967 3,066,967 -
Total $ 39,709,812 $ 23,326,388 $ 16,383,424
1 Fee revenue shown for Mitigation Fee Act Fees. Refer to Table 6.5 for estimate of potential Quimby Act Fee revenue.

Maximum Justified Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
Administrative
Facilities
Law
Enforcement
Fire
Protection Parks1 Recreation Water Sewer Total
Residential - per
Sq. Ft. $ 1.29 $ 1.35 $ 0.30 $ 3.54 $ 0.91 $ 2.90 $ 1.84 $ 12.13 Nonresidential - per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 0.62 $ 0.65 $ 0.14 $ - $ - $ 1.83 $ 1.42 $ 4.66 Office 0.96 1.01 0.22 - - 1.83 1.42 5.44
Industrial 0.34 0.36 0.08 - - 1.83 1.50 4.11
Restaurant 0.62 0.65 0.14 - - 11.76 9.25 22.42
1 Mitigation Fee Act fee for infill development shown. Refer to Table 6.7 for Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication for development occurring in subdivisions Fee Comparison – Single Family Unit, 2,500 Sq. Ft.

Fee Category

CURRENT
Grover
Beach
DRAFT
Grover
Beach1
Arroyo
Grande Atascadero Morro Bay
Paso Robles
(Low)2
Paso
Robles
(High)2
Pismo
Beach
City of San
Luis Obispo
(Low)3
City of San
Luis Obispo
(High)3
Development Impact Fees $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,350 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Administrative Facilities 128 3,225 - 1,036 4,275 4,199 4,199 3,426 - - Fire Facilities 230 750 600 954 1,550 1,449 1,449 3,688 854 854 Libraries - - - 532 - 1,354 1,354 - - -
Parks 6,024 8,857 8,075 6,435 4,450 4,105 4,105 15,908 8,870 10,161 Police Facilities 103 3,375 425 574 1,425 106 106 2,430 1,003 1,003 Recreation Facilities 585 2,275 425 1,084 - - - 9,555 - - Storm Drain 675 - 97 777 175 - - - - -
Transportation/Traffic 1,586 - 3,425 5,597 6,875 3,659 12,555 8,115 11,848 36,209 Wastewater/Sewer 2,683 2,796 1,837 - 9,737 13,515 13,515 13,698 16,141 16,141 Water 2,896 4,575 6,469 - 9,701 31,840 31,840 17,182 17,379 17,379 Total - per Prototype $ 14,910 $ 25,853 $ 21,353 $ 16,989 $ 52,538 $ 60,227 $ 69,123 $ 74,002 $ 56,095 $ 81,748 1 Park fee assumes infill development.
2 Paso Robles Transportation Fee varies by project location. 3 San Luis Obispo Transportation Fee varies by project location.

Fee Comparison – Multifamily Unit, 1,100 Sq. Ft.

Fee Category

CURRENT
Grover
Beach
DRAFT
Grover
Beach
Arroyo
Grande Atascadero Morro Bay
Paso
Robles
(Low) 1
Paso
Robles
(High) 1
Pismo
Beach
City of San
Luis
Obispo
(Low)2
City of San
Luis
Obispo
(High)2
Development Impact Fees $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,131 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Administrative Facilities 106 1,419 - 1,036 3,091 4,199 4,199 2,413 - - Fire Facilities 115 330 264 760 1,155 1,449 1,449 2,595 616 616 Libraries - - - 418 - 1,354 1,354 - - -
Parks 5,449 3,897 3,553 5,059 3,267 4,105 4,105 11,194 - - Police Facilities 128 1,485 187 334 1,023 125 125 1,709 722 722 Recreation Facilities 482 1,001 187 852 - - - 6,723 - - Storm Drain 297 - 36 499 99 - - - - -
Transportation/Traffic 974 - 1,507 5,597 4,719 2,522 8,652 4,981 9,205 28,626 Wastewater/Sewer 2,683 3,062 1,525 - 9,737 13,515 13,515 7,936 12,988 12,988 Water 2,896 4,392 6,469 - 9,701 31,840 31,840 8,627 13,903 13,903 Total - per Prototype $ 13,129 $ 15,586 $ 13,728 $ 14,555 $ 42,923 $ 59,109 $ 65,239 $ 46,178 $ 37,435 $ 56,856 1 Park fee assumes infill development.
2 Paso Robles Transportation Fee varies by project location. 3 San Luis Obispo Transportation Fee varies by project location.

Fee Comparison: 10,000 Sq. Ft. of Retail / Commercial
Fee Category

CURRENT
Grover
Beach
DRAFT
Grover
Beach
Arroyo
Grande Atascadero Morro Bay
Paso
Robles
(Low)1
Paso
Robles
(High)1
Pismo
Beach
City of San
Luis Obispo
(Low)2
City of San
Luis Obispo
(High)2
Development Impact Fees $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 58,300 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Administrative Facilities 3,008 6,200 - 800 3,700 15,200 15,200 17,060 - - Fire Facilities 317 1,430 2,050 7,850 3,300 5,300 5,300 40,840 3,100 3,100 Libraries - - - 2,620 - - - - - -
Parks - - - 1,890 200 - - - - -
Police Facilities 3,233 6,530 1,470 5,230 900 1,600 1,600 12,070 3,600 3,600 Recreation Facilities - - - - - - - - - -
Storm Drain 270 - 120 3,750 500 - - - - -
Transportation/Traffic 58,902 69,380 69,380 93,710 49,000 106,200 146,300 110,690 157,400 540,100 Wastewater/Sewer 2,683 14,220 2,570 - 9,737 13,515 13,515 77,300 27,439 27,439 Water 2,896 18,300 6,469 - 9,701 31,840 31,840 101,570 29,717 29,717 Total - per Prototype $ 71,309 $ 116,060 $ 82,059 $ 115,850 $ 135,338 $ 173,655 $ 213,755 $ 359,530 $ 221,256 $ 603,956 1 Paso Robles Transportation Fee varies with project location 2 San Luis Obispo Transportation Fee varies by project location.

Policy Options
▪ Implement less than maximum justified fee amounts
▪ Phase in fee increases over time
▪ Exempt or reduce fees for certain land uses, such as
affordable housing
Questions
Legal Framework and Influential Exaction Cases
Impact fees (formerly known as exactions) were first adopted in the 1920s by cities seeking alternatives to finance new infrastructure. In 1949, the California courts adopted the “reasonable relationship” test between a project’s conditions of approval and development impacts (Ayers v.

City of Los Angeles, 207 P.2d 1 (1949)). The concept of these fees was expanded in the 1960s with the enactment of the Quimby Act, which authorized either the dedication of land or payment of in-lieu fees for the development of parks (Government Code Section 66477).

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court) decided Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987). The Nollan’s proposed construction of a two-story home within the same footprint as their existing one-story beachfront house. As a condition of issuing a coastal development permit, the Coastal Commission required the Nollans grant a public access easement across the beach in front of their home. The Supreme Court held that the exaction (grant of public easement) was not related to the impact created by the development (increased building height). Proof of such an “essential nexus” was required if the exaction was to be lawful.

After the passing of Proposition 13 in 1978, local government increasingly relied on DIFs to mitigate impacts created by new development. In response, the Legislature, lobbied by developers, passed AB 1600 requirements, which codified many of the principles in Nollan and established a statewide procedure for exacting certain fees from development projects.

The Supreme Court revised the question of exactions in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 319 (1994). Tigard sought to condition expansion of an existing hardware store with the dedication of a city bike path and greenway along a stream that bounded the property. The Supreme Court ruled that for the government to require project-specific exactions, the government must demonstrate that (1) an essential nexus exists between the legitimate interest and the exaction imposed by the city (Nollan), and (2) the nature of the exaction must be “roughly proportional” to the impact the project is creating. While the city had demonstrated the essential nexus, the fees involved were not roughly proportional to the project’s impacts. In other words, the cost to dedicate and improve the portion of the property along the stream was far greater than the expansion of the existing hardware store.

A later Supreme Court case, Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (12 Cal.App.4th 854 (1996)), held that the imposition of fees, applied in an ad hoc manner rather than legislation, is subject to the Nollan/Dolan “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards. Project-specific fees must be supported by individualized findings demonstrating a relationship between the impact created and the fee collected and that the amount of the fee is roughly proportional to the impact created.

On January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill (AB) 602 introduced new requirements 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.

Attachment 6
66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

Ultimately, whether ad hoc or legislatively-enacted, development impact fees require findings demonstrating the proper relationship between the impact created and the fee exacted. Findings, which are prepared using a defensible nexus study, are an opportunity for an agency to explain why a fee is necessary, what impact is created by development, how new development impacts the community, and how the collection of a fee will alleviate all or a portion of the impact.