AGENDA
KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber, 1401 Draper Street, Kingsburg, CA 93631 (559) 897-5821 www.cityofkingsburg-ca.gov
THE COUNCIL CHAMBER IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AT 100% CAPACITY.
Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6pm
Invocation to be given by Pastor Mark Thompson. First Baptist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Laura North.
6 P.M. REGULAR SESSION MEETING:
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Approve Agenda: Action by the Council to approve the agenda or to make modifications. Items that can be added to the agenda is constrained by State law.
3. Presentations: None.
4. Public Comments: This is the time for any citizen to come forward and address the City Council on any issue within its jurisdiction that is not listed on the Agenda. A maximum of five (5) minutes is allowed for each speaker.
5. Consent Calendar: Items considered routine in nature are to be placed on the Consent Calendar.
They will be considered as one item and voted upon in one vote unless individual consideration is requested. Each vote in favor of the Consent Calendar is considered and recorded as a separate affirmative vote in favor of each action listed. Approval of the Consent Calendar items include recitals reading ordinance(s) by titles(s) only and adoption of recommended action(s) contained in Staff Reports.
5.1 Check Register: Ratify/approve payment of bills listed on the check register for the period November 8, 2022 through November 28, 2022 as prepared by Accounts Payable Clerk Marsha Alves.
Sponsor: Finance Department
5.2 Approval of the 2023 Master Calendar of City Council and all other committees and commissions- Staff Report prepared by City Clerk Abigail Palsgaard.
Sponsor: City Clerk
City of Kingsburg
1401 Draper Street, Kingsburg, CA 93631-1908
Phone (559)897-5821 Fax (559)897-5568
Mayor Laura North
Mayor Pro Tem Vince Palomar
Council Member Michelle Roman
Council Member Jewel Hurtado
Council Member Brandon Pursell, Jr.
City Manager Alexander J. Henderson
Kingsburg City Council Agenda
December 7, 2022
6. Regular Calendar
6.1 Amended Development Agreement – Stone Plaza – Staff Report by City Manager Alexander Henderson
Sponsor: City Manager’s Office
Possible Action(s):
a. Presentation by City Manager Alexander Henderson
b. Public Comment
c. Council Discussion
d. Action as Deemed Necessary
6.2 Development Impact Fee Report for FY 2021-22 & Five Year SB1693 Report – Staff Report by Finance Director Alma Colado
Sponsor: Community Development Department
Possible Action(s):
a. Presentation by Finance Director Alma Colado
b. Public Comment
c. Council Discussion
d. Action as Deemed Necessary
7. Council Reports and Staff Communications
7.1 Community Services Commission
7.2 Public Safety Committee
7.3 Chamber of Commerce
7.4 Economic Development
7.5 Finance Committee
7.6 Planning Commission
7.7 South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Powers Authority (SKGSA)
7.8 Downtown Business Improvement District
7.9 Council of Governments
7.10 Council Member Reports
7.11 City Manager’s Report
8. Future Agenda Items:
12/21/2022- City Council Oath of Office and Council Reorganization
9. The Kingsburg City Council adjourns out of the Regular Calendar into Closed Session:
9.1 Public Employment: California Government Code Section 54957 Title: City Manager
10. Adjourn out of Close Session into Regular Kingsburg City Council Meeting and report out of Closed Session.
11. Adjourn Regular Kingsburg City Council Meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at City Hall, in the City Clerk’s office, during normal business hours. In addition, such writings and documents may be posted on the City’s website at www.cityofkingsburg-ca.gov.
Kingsburg City Council Agenda
December 7, 2022
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (559) 897-6520. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35 .102.35.104 ADA Title II].
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Agenda was posted at the front entrance of City Hall not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 2nd day of December 2022.
____________________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
Accounts Payable
User:
Printed:
marshaa
11/29/2022 2:14 PM
Checks by Date - Summary by Check Date
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
82406 3005 AFLAC 11/09/2022 766.70
82407 3006 AIRGAS NCN 11/09/2022 421.21
82408 3565 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 11/09/2022 464.12
82409 4695 AP TRITON, LLC 11/09/2022 6,485.20
82410 3029 AT&T CALNET 3 11/09/2022 129.07
82411 3300 AVENU INSIGHTS & ANALYTICS 11/09/2022 450.00 82412 3606 BELMONT NURSERY 11/09/2022 621.76
82413 3054 BSK ASSOCIATES 11/09/2022 1,161.00
82414 3440 CALIFORNIA COMPUFORMS, INC. 11/09/2022 187.28 82415 4023 CALIFORNIA STATE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC 11/09/2022 1,700.00 82416 4429 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC 11/09/2022 202.06 82417 3067 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/09/2022 16,120.02
82418 3831 ADAM CASTANEDA 11/09/2022 75.00
82419 4770 CENTRAL VALLEY AWNING 11/09/2022 54.00
82420 3079 CENTRAL VALLEY SWEEPING, INC. 11/09/2022 31,362.50 82421 4574 CHARLES TESTERMAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC. 11/09/2022 1,100.00 82422 3918 CINTAS 11/09/2022 1,506.33
82423 3607 CIVICPLUS 11/09/2022 45.19
82424 3558 COUNTY OF FRESNO, Oscar J. Garcia, CPA11/09/2022 3,373.58 82425 3128 COUNTY OF TULARE 11/09/2022 1,457.04
82426 4350 California Peace Officers Association CPOA11/09/2022 750.00 82427 4750 DANIEL DELONG 11/09/2022 600.00
82428 3142 DELRAY TIRE & RETREADING 11/09/2022 4,512.88 82429 3750 EAGLE ENGRAVING, INC. 11/09/2022 74.35
82430 4229 EBA&M CORPORATION 11/09/2022 2,350.00
82431 4554 ECS Imaging, Inc. 11/09/2022 16,325.00
82432 4615 EMERALD TEXTILES SERVICES 11/09/2022 145.53
82433 3193 FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT 11/09/2022 2,000.00
82434 4767 GENARO GENERAL CONTRACTOR 11/09/2022 177.62
82435 4766 GOVPILOT 11/09/2022 20,000.00
82436 3921 HD CUSTOM PAINTING 11/09/2022 5,655.08
82437 3219 HEALTHWISE SERVICES 11/09/2022 173.75
82438 3222 HENRY SCHEIN, INC. 11/09/2022 148.91
82439 4585 ISIDRO HERRERA 11/09/2022 240.00
82440 3225 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 11/09/2022 1,896.91 82441 3999 IRON MOUNTAIN 11/09/2022 97.20
82442 3520 IRVINE & JACHENS, INC 11/09/2022 563.15
82443 3237 JCS LAND MANAGEMENT 11/09/2022 2,150.00
82444 3249 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC11/09/2022 5,354.96 82445 3251 KEN RISENHOOVER ROOFING 11/09/2022 37,577.00 82446 3887 KINGS INDUSTRIAL OCC. MED CTR., INC. 11/09/2022 471.00 82447 3253 KINGSBURG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE11/09/2022 2,500.00 82448 3254 KINGSBURG CHEVRON 11/09/2022 340.00
82449 4648 KINGSBURG EXPRESS LUBE INC. 11/09/2022 297.22 82450 3260 KINGSBURG VETERINARY CLINIC 11/09/2022 180.00 82451 4081 L.N. CURTIS & SONS 11/09/2022 667.16
82452 4121 JEFFREY T. LOYD 11/09/2022 1,445.00
AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Date (11/29/2022 2:14 PM) Page 1 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
82453 3518 METRO UNIFORM 11/09/2022 2,033.39
82454 3293 MID VALLEY DISPOSAL 11/09/2022 115,427.64
82455 3297 MORGAN'S VILLAGE FLOORING 11/09/2022 72.97
82456 3466 NAPA AUTO PARTS 11/09/2022 278.41
82457 3307 NELSON'S ACE HARDWARE 11/09/2022 1,028.11
82458 3312 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 11/09/2022 17.41
82459 3611 HOLLY OWEN 11/09/2022 426.78
82460 3315 P G & E 11/09/2022 6,352.69
82461 3450 ABIGAIL PALSGAARD 11/09/2022 334.00
82462 3329 POLYACK MARKETING 11/09/2022 3,300.00
82464 3361 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR 11/09/2022 143.00
82465 3961 SHARP AMBULANCE BILLING 11/09/2022 4,672.31
82467 3369 SILVAS OIL COMPANY, INC. 11/09/2022 8,816.65 82468 3378 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 11/09/2022 1,633.39
82469 3381 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-D O T 11/09/2022 2,878.57 82470 3441 TCSO JAIL INDUSTRIES ENGRAVING PROG. 11/09/2022 53.88 82471 3216 THE SENTINEL 11/09/2022 190.96
82472 3419 VIKING CLEANING SERVICE 11/09/2022 3,500.00
82473 3493 VILLAGE TIRE SALES 11/09/2022 1,570.13
82474 3469 WECO SUPPLY CO., INC. 11/09/2022 33.48
82475 4591 WEST STAR CONSTRUCTION 11/09/2022 286,572.00 82476 3429 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES 11/09/2022 3,959.48 82477 3448 CHRISTINA WINDOVER 11/09/2022 75.00
82478 3430 WONG, ANDY & BETTY 11/09/2022 2,600.00
Total for 11/9/2022: 620,345.03
ACH 3231 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP - WIRE 457 11/18/2022 1,200.00 ACH 3470 Internal Revenue Service - ACH 11/18/2022 65,104.71 ACH 3471 Employment Development Department - ACH11/18/2022 13,127.19 ACH 3472 CalPERS - ACH 11/18/2022 46,132.88
ACH 3475 Empower 11/18/2022 3,626.50
ACH 3476 CHILD SUPPORT STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - ACH 11/18/2022 240.46 ACH 3526 Public Employees Retirement System 457 Plan-Deferred Comp - ACH 11/18/2022 341.26 ACH 4707 ICMA-WIRE 401(A) 11/18/2022 250.00
Total for 11/18/2022: 130,023.00
82479 3716 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11/21/2022 100.00 Total for 11/21/2022: 100.00
82480 3006 AIRGAS NCN 11/22/2022 1,089.82
82481 3007 ALERT-O-LITE, INC. 11/22/2022 234.74
82482 4394 ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC. 11/22/2022 744.95 82483 4545 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 11/22/2022 586.03
82484 4772 ADAM AMPARAN 11/22/2022 2,470.00
82485 3018 ANDERSON STRIPING & CONSTRUCT 11/22/2022 8,537.28 82486 4307 AT & T MOBILITY 11/22/2022 2,189.73
82487 3029 AT&T CALNET 3 11/22/2022 563.59
82488 3035 BAUER COMPRESSORS, INC. 11/22/2022 2,655.00
82489 3054 BSK ASSOCIATES 11/22/2022 603.00
82490 3056 CAL STATE TERMITE AND PEST 11/22/2022 460.00 82491 4429 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC 11/22/2022 859.09 82492 4491 GABRIEL CASTELLANOS 11/22/2022 170.00
82493 3074 CENTRAL SANITARY SUPPLY 11/22/2022 275.27
AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Date (11/29/2022 2:14 PM) Page 2 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
82494 3685 COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER 11/22/2022 800.00
82495 3148 DON BERRY CONSTRUCTION 11/22/2022 32,810.51
82496 4615 EMERALD TEXTILES SERVICES 11/22/2022 270.41
82497 3185 FRESNO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 11/22/2022 9,410.96 82498 3188 FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF 11/22/2022 17,456.68
82499 4760 RUBEN GARCIA HERNANDEZ 11/22/2022 844.00
82500 4433 SERGIO GONZALES 11/22/2022 170.00
82501 3211 GRAINGER 11/22/2022 97.56
82502 3994 GUARDIAN 11/22/2022 8,068.24
82503 4753 HAAS ALERT INC. 11/22/2022 3,592.00
82504 3222 HENRY SCHEIN, INC. 11/22/2022 1,356.65
82505 4562 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC 11/22/2022 541.00
82506 3237 JCS LAND MANAGEMENT 11/22/2022 6,981.70
82507 3244 JORGENSEN & CO. 11/22/2022 425.00
82508 3248 KAHN, SOARES & CONWAY, LLP 11/22/2022 7,500.00 82509 3250 KELLER FORD LINCOLN 11/22/2022 436.51
82510 4648 KINGSBURG EXPRESS LUBE INC. 11/22/2022 1,059.91 82511 3625 KINGSBURG MEDIA FOUNDATION 11/22/2022 4,938.99 82512 4687 KINGSBURG TRUCK CENTER 11/22/2022 627.74
82513 3277 LINCOLN AQUATICS 11/22/2022 2,705.34
82514 4489 MAACO 11/22/2022 400.00
82515 4118 MAVERICK DATA SYSTEMS 11/22/2022 2,025.00
82516 3288 MCCLASKEY, INC. 11/22/2022 5,400.00
82517 3518 METRO UNIFORM 11/22/2022 215.63
82518 3997 MID VALLEY DISPOSAL RECYCLING & TRANSFER STATION 11/22/2022 2,784.65 82519 3307 NELSON'S ACE HARDWARE 11/22/2022 316.67
82520 3312 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 11/22/2022 189.32
82521 3315 P G & E 11/22/2022 35,613.24
82522 3334 PROFESSIONAL PRINT & MAIL, INC 11/22/2022 3,492.58 82523 4771 SUKHWANT SANDHU 11/22/2022 2,000.00
82524 3363 SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS 11/22/2022 207.14
82525 3537 SECOND CHANCE ANIMAL SHELTER 11/22/2022 2,000.00 82526 3772 SIGN MAX 11/22/2022 395.48
82527 3369 SILVAS OIL COMPANY, INC. 11/22/2022 8,067.76 82528 4262 SILVERFOX ELECTRIC, INC. 11/22/2022 1,399.54 82529 3380 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-D O J 11/22/2022 411.00
82530 3381 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-D O T 11/22/2022 388.88
82531 3382 SHAUN STEPHENS 11/22/2022 85.00
82532 3397 THE GAS COMPANY 11/22/2022 4,110.18
82533 4636 THE MOWERS EDGE INC 11/22/2022 14,626.17
82534 3216 THE SENTINEL 11/22/2022 209.28
82535 4016 ULINE Shipping Supplies Specialist 11/22/2022 4,264.42 82536 3493 VILLAGE TIRE SALES 11/22/2022 50.00
Total for 11/22/2022: 210,183.64
Report Total (137 checks): 960,651.67
AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Date (11/29/2022 2:14 PM) Page 3
CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor North & City Council
REPORT FROM: Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk REVIEWED BY: AH AGENDA ITEM: 2023 Master Calendar for City Council and other Commissions & Committees ACTION REQUESTED: ___Ordinance ___Resolution ____Motion ____Receive/File
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff would like to adopt a Master Calendar as we did for 2022 that will allow the Public, Council Members, Committee & Commission Members and staff the opportunity to prepare for projects, public hearings and other items that will come before Council and other Commissions and Committees. It also allows Council to cancel the first meeting in January and July in a timely fashion, as we traditionally go dark at those times.
RECOMMENDED ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL
1. Staff recommends City Council approves the 2023 Master Calendar.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Council could choose not to adopt the Master Calendar.
STRATEGIC GOAL(S) MET:
1. Improve Community Communications.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
Council first adopted a Master Calendar in 2021.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
None.
ATTACHED INFORMATION
1. 2023 Master Calendar
Meeting Date: 12/07/2022
Agenda Item: 5.2
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. Is There A Fiscal Impact? Yes
2. Is it Currently Budgeted? No
3. If Budgeted, Which Line? N/A
City of Kingsburg Master Calendar
City Council
Meeting date Time
1/4/2023 6pm Traditionally dark for the first meeting in January 1/18/2023 6pm
2/1/2023 6pm
2/15/2023 6pm
3/1/2023 6pm
3/15/2023 6pm
4/5/2023 6pm
4/19/2023 6pm
5/3/2023 6pm
5/17/2023 6pm
6/6/2023 6pm Moved to Tuesday for Jr. high Promotion
6/21/2023 6pm
7/5/2023 6pm Traditionally dark for the first meeting in July 7/19/2023 6pm
8/2/2023 6pm
8/16/2023 6pm
9/6/2023 6pm
9/20/2023 6pm
10/4/2023 6pm
10/18/2023 6pm
11/1/2023 6pm
11/15/2023 6pm
12/6/2023 6pm
12/20/2023 6pm
Community Services Commission
Meeting date Time
1/25/2023 5:30pm Community Services Commission
2/22/2023 5:30pm Community Services Commission
3/22/2023 5:30pm Community Services Commission
4/26/2023 5:30pm Community Services Commission
5/24/2023 5:30pm Community Services Commission
6/28/2023 5:30pm Community Services Commission
7/26/2023 5:30pm Community Services Commission
8/23/2023 5:30pm Community Services Commission
9/27/2023 5:30pm Community Services Commission
10/25/2023 5:30pm Community Services Commission
11/22/2023 5:30pm Community Services Commission
12/27/2023 5:30pm Community Services Commission
Kingsburg Downtown Business Improvement District Advisory Board Meeting date Time
2/7/2023 8am BID Board
3/7/2023 8am BID Board
4/4/2023 8am BID Board
5/2/2023 8am BID Board
6/6/2023 8am BID Board
8/1/2023 8am BID Board
9/5/2023 8am BID Board
10/3/2023 8am BID Board
11/7/2023 8am BID Board
12/5/2023 8am BID Board
Finance Committee
Meeting date Time
1/24/2023 6pm Finance Committee
2/28/2023 6pm Finance Committee
3/28/2023 6pm Finance Committee
4/25/2023 6pm Finance Committee
5/23/2023 6pm Finance Committee
6/27/2023 6pm Finance Committee
7/25/2023 6pm Finance Committee
8/22/2023 6pm Finance Committee
9/26/2023 6pm Finance Committee
10/24/2023 6pm Finance Committee
11/28/2023 6pm Finance Committee
12/26/2023 6pm Finance Committee
Economic Development Committee
Meeting date Time
*As needed
Planning Commission
Meeting date Time
1/12/2023 6pm Planning Commission
2/9/2023 6pm Planning Commission
3/9/2023 6pm Planning Commission
4/13/2023 6pm Planning Commission
5/11/2023 6pm Planning Commission
6/8/2023 6pm Planning Commission
7/13/2023 6pm Planning Commission
8/10/2023 6pm Planning Commission
9/14/2023 6pm Planning Commission
10/12/2023 6pm Planning Commission
11/9/2023 6pm Planning Commission
12/14/2023 6pm Planning Commission
Public Safety Committee
Meeting date Time
1/9/2023 4pm Public Safety Committee
2/13/2023 4pm Public Safety Committee
5/15/2023 4pm Public Safety Committee
8/14/2023 4pm Public Safety Committee
11/13/2023 4pm Public Safety Committee
*Dates may vary
Public Safety Sales Tax (Measure E) Citizens Oversite Committee Meeting date Time
5/14/2023 4pm Public Safety Sales Tax (Measure E) Citizens Oversite Committee *Date may vary
CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor North & City Council
REPORT FROM: Alexander J. Henderson, City Manager; ICMA-CM REVIEWED BY: AP
AGENDA ITEM: Amended Development Agreement – Stone Plaza ACTION REQUESTED: ___Ordinance ____Resolution _√__Motion ____Receive/File
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item is regarding the development the property located at the corner of Draper St. and California St (former site of old Stone Hotel and commercial properties). The former building housed tenants on the ground floor which included office, retail, and service commercial uses. The upper floor was once a hotel but had been vacant and unutilized for several years. On October 16, 2016, the building was lost due to a fire that is believed to have started due to faulty wiring on the second level.
Staff has long indicated a desire to see a mixed-use component to any development. We believe an assortment of living and commercial space offers a compliment to the revitalization of downtown. In addition, our Community Planning Assistance Team identified the location as a ‘catalyst’ site and recommended additional downtown living options. The property owner, Efrain Yanez has committed to developing a two-story building with the following:
• 18,604 sq. ft. two-story building
• ~8,700 sq. ft. of commercial space on the ground level • Market rate apartments on the second floor (10 units, 1 ADA unit on the ground floor) • Open courtyard area
• Parking provided on the adjacent lot to the south (owned by the applicant) • Enhanced Swedish Design
In February 2019, council approved a development agreement under the provisions provided by the Business Improvement Zone (Resolution 2018-024), which authorizes the City Manager to reduce City impact fees for projects that meet eligibility requirements. For various reasons, including those related to site plan design, negotiations with a commercial tenant (which delayed the retail space design), and COVID-19, the developer was unable to meet the timelines originally laid out in the development agreement. As such, the Council considered and granted an extension in September 2020. Mid-202, the developer again approached staff seeking an extension of the amended agreement. After inserting additional milestones for the project, the Council adopted an extension through January 2023.
The amended agreement included the following new provisions:
1. Developer must have all entitlements and permitting approved by December 31, 2021. This is dependent upon the developer completing their plan design, responding to corrections, and paying the necessary fees.
Meeting Date: 12/07/2022
Agenda Item: 6.1
2. Developer to commence construction by January 31, 2022. Commencement shall be defined by, at a minimum, excavation for foundations or the installation or erection of improvements.
3. Developer to complete construction within 12 months of work commencing.
Financial provisions of the original agreement remain unchanged, including:
1. City to provide 90% reduction in impact fees for market rate apartments portion of the project. - Note: Many of the impacts for an in-fill development have been borne and are existing. The site once housed commercial and hospitality uses and would be replaced with like uses.
2. The developer would not be precluded from participating in other qualifying city development incentives, should they meet all eligibility requirements.
December 7, 2022 Update
Each of the requirements outlined in the most recent amendment were met by the developer. However, due to financing requirements and delays in material procurement due to supply chain issues, some of the work was unable to proceed on the originally intended schedule. In addition, the developer has been told by PG&E that they are unlikely to get necessary power to the building until Spring 2023 (PG&E has not provided a firm date).
Given the project has been progressing adequately within the guidelines of the most recent agreement, and the final occupancy will likely be delayed outside of the developer’s control, staff is recommending an additional extension of the agreement. The financial considerations have not changed from the original 2019 agreement.
The commercial space includes three (3) suites. Two of the spaces have agreed leases. The middle, and largest (3,800 sq. ft.) remains open and the property owner has been working closely with city staff on locating a long-term tenant.
RECOMMENDED ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL
1. Recommend approval of the proposed amended development agreement to construct a mixed-use residential project as prepared by the city attorney.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Council could request amendments to the proposed agreement.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/STRATEGIC GOAL
1. Promote Sustainable Development
2. Increase Retail Opportunities
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
The City charges a per unit fee for all multi-family development as part of our adopted impact fee schedule.
Currently, the fee is $7,379.25 per unit. Ultimately, the total fee would be based upon the final number of units. The 90% credit would equate to a reduction of $6,641.32 per unit.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
See executive summary.
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. Is There A Fiscal Impact? Yes
2. Is it Currently Budgeted? No – Future Dollars
3. If Budgeted, Which Line? Varies – Impact Fees
ATTACHED INFORMATION
1. Proposed Amended Development Agreement
2. Original Development Agreement
3. Building Elevations
4. Approved Conditional Use Permit
Draft: 2022-11-28
THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT TO CONSTRUCT MIXED USE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
This Third Amendment to Agreement to Construct Mixed Use Residential Project ("Third Amendment") is made effective December ___, 2022 (“Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF KINGSBURG, a California Charter city, (“City”), and YANEZ PROPERTIES, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Developer”). City and Developer shall be referred to in this Third Amendment collectively as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.”
RECITALS
A. Effective February 19, 2019, City and Developer (incorrectly identified as YANEZ PROPERTIES, INC.) entered into that certain Agreement to Construct Mixed Use Residential Project (“Agreement”) wherein the Developer agreed to construct, in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, a two (2) story mixed use building on that certain real property located at the southwest corner of Sierra Street and Marion Street in Kingsburg, California, APN:396-091-01 and more particularly described on Exhibit “A” to the Agreement.
B. Effective September ___, 2020, the City and the Developer entered into a First Amendment To Agreement To Construct Mixed Use Residential Project (“First Amendment”) which, among other revisions, required the Developer to complete construction of the Project no later than October 19, 2021.
C. Effective September ___, 2021, the City and the Developer entered into a Second Amendment to Agreement to Construct Mixed Muse Residential Project to provide the Developer with additional time to commence construction and complete construction of the Project in accordance with the provisions of the Second Amendment.
D. The Developer has made good progress towards completion of the Project.
However, as a result of delays caused by PG&E construction timelines, City and Developer have agreed to extend the date for completion of construction of the Project in accordance with the provisions of this Third Amendment.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual covenants set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration receipt in adequacy of which is hereby acknowledge, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Definitions. Unless otherwise specifically defined in this Third Amendment, all capitalized terms used in this Third Amendment shall have the same meanings as ascribed to them in the Agreement. Should there be any conflict between the provisions of the Agreement or the First Amendment or the Second Amendment and the provisions of this Third Amendment, the provisions of this Third Amendment shall control.
2. Amendment to Agreement. The Agreement is amended as follows:
(a) Section 2.1 of the Agreement is amended to extend the Term of the Agreement so that the Term of the Agreement will end on October 31, 2023.
2 (b) Section 4.1. of the Agreement is amended as follows:
“4.1 Time Requirements. City and Developer agree that the Project will be developed and constructed in accordance with the following timing constraints:
“(c) Developer will complete construction of the Project no later than September 30, 2023.”
(c) Exhibit “B” to the Agreement is amended as follows:
“2. Completion of Construction—No later than September 30, 2023.”
3. Other Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. Except as amended as set for in this Third Amendment the other terms and conditions of the Agreement, the First Amendment and the Second Amendment shall remain in full force and effect without amendment or modification and the Parties ratify and affirm all the other terms and conditions of the Agreement, First Amendment and Second Amendment not amended by this Third Amendment.
4. Entire Agreement. It is mutually understood and agreed that this Third Amendment constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties as to the matters set forth in this Third Amendment.
5. Representations and Warranties. Each Party hereby represents and warrants to the other Party that it has the full power and authority to enter into this Third Amendment and perform each of its obligations hereunder, and it is legally authorized and has obtained all necessary regulatory approvals for the execution, delivery, and performance of this Third Amendment.
6. Counterparts. This Third Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, and all so executed shall constitute one agreement, binding on the Parties hereto.
7. Attorney’s Fees. If an action at law or in equity is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this Third Amendment, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and necessary disbursements in addition to any other reasonable relief to which it may be entitled. With respect to any suit, action or proceeding arising out of or related to this Third Amendment, or the documentation related hereto, the Parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction and venue, in the County of Fresno, State of California for any proceeding arising hereunder.
(Signatures on Following Page)
3 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have caused their authorized representatives to execute this Third Amendment effective as of the Effective Date set forth above.
City:
CITY OF KINGSBURG, a Charter City
By: ____________________________
LAURA NORTH, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
ABIGAIL PALSGAARD, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ______________________________
MICHAEL J. NOLAND, City Attorney
Developer:
YANEZ PROPERTIES, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: __________________________
EFRAIN YANEZ, Manager
11140 – 206/Third Amendment to Construct Mixed Use Residential Project Draft 2022-11-28 022019
AGREEMENT TO CONSTRUCT MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
This AGREEMENT TO CONSTRUCT MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into the 20th day of February, 2019 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF KINGSBURG, a Charter city (“City”), and _______________________ ___________________ (“Developer”). City and Developer shall be referred in this Agreement jointly as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.”
RECITALS
A. Developer is the owner of that certain real property located at the southeast corner of Sierra Street and Marion Street in downtown Kingsburg, APN: 396-091-01 and more particularly described on Exhibit “A” which is attached hereto and made a part hereof (“Project Property”)
B. Since the early 1900’s, the Stone Hotel was located on the Project Property. On October 15, 2016, the Stone Hotel was destroyed by fire. After purchasing the Project Property, the Developer demolished what remained of the Stone Hotel building. As a result, the Project Property is a vacant lot located in the City’s central commercial zone district in downtown Kingsburg. Developer is proposing to construct a two (2) story mixed-use building on the Project Property with retail uses on the ground floor of the building and market rate rental units on the second floor of the building.
C. City and Developer agree construction of the mixed-use building on the Project Property is an essential component of revitalization of downtown Kingsburg and will benefit the City by providing new and additional accommodations for those persons who wish to live in downtown Kingsburg and purchase products and services from businesses in downtown Kingsburg and within walking distance from their apartment in the mixed-use building.
D. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement and the Developer completing the construction of the mixed-use building in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the City will reduce a portion of the Capital Facilities Fees/Development Impact Fees associated with the residential portion of the mixed-use building as provided in City Council Resolution 2018-024.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, and having determined that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and should be and hereby are incorporated into this Agreement and intending to be legally bound, the Parties agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS.
The following words and phrases are used as defined terms throughout this Agreement.
Each defined term shall have the meaning set forth below.
1.1 Applications. The term “Application(s)” shall mean a completed application for the applicable land use entitlements (such as site plan review, planned unit development “PUD”, environmental review, etc.) for the Project, meeting all of the current ordinances of City provided 2 that any additional or alternate requirements in said ordinances enacted after the Effective Date, which affect the Project shall apply only to the extent permitted by this Agreement.
1.2 Assignment. Sale, conveyance, transfer, lease, or assignment of the Project Property or the Project.
1.3 Capital Facilities Fees/Development Impact Fees. “Capital Facilities Fees” means a monetary Exaction as defined in Section 1.14, other than a tax or assessment, which is levied by the City for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities and services but does not include fees for processing applications for land use entitlements, or other fees or exactions authorized by this Agreement.
1.4 Certificate of Occupancy. The term “Certificate of Occupancy” shall mean the Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City for the Project.
1.5 Commence Construction. The term “Commence Construction” shall mean Developer has secured all necessary land use entitlements and permits, including, but not limited to, grading and building permits in order to commence construction of the Project.
1.6 Default. A “Default” refers to any default, breach, or violation of a provision of this Agreement as defined in Section 8. A “City Default” refers to a Default by the City, while a “Developer Default” refers to a Default by Developer.
1.7 Development. “Development” means the improvement of the Project Property by constructing and installing the improvements and facilities comprising the Project as defined in this Agreement including, without limitation: grading, the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside Project Property; the construction of structures and buildings; and the installation of landscaping.
1.8 Development Approvals. “Development Approvals” means City’s approval of all applicable site-specific plans, maps, permits, and entitlements of every kind and nature.
Development Approvals include, without limitation, City’s approval of all applicable site plans, variances, zoning designations, planned unit developments, grading, building, and other similar permits, the site-specific provisions of general plans, environmental assessments, including environmental impact reports.
1.9 Effective Date. The “Effective Date” means the date the Agreement becomes effective as set forth in Section 2.2.
1.10 Exaction. “Exaction” means dedications of land, payment of development fees including, without limitation capital facilities fees.
1.11 Improvements. The terms “Improvements” shall mean all of the Public Improvements and Private Improvements, respectively, to be constructed on or off the Project Property in accordance with the Development Approvals and the Land Use Regulations.
1.12 Land Use Regulations. The “Land Use Regulations” means all federal, state and local land use laws, regulations and rules applicable to the Project. 3 1.13 Mortgage. “Mortgage” shall mean a deed of trust, leasehold or other transaction in which all or any portion of or interest in the Project Property is pledged as security.
1.14 Mortgagee. “Mortgagee” shall mean the holder of a beneficial interest under a Mortgage, including the beneficiary of a deed of trust and the holder of any Mortgage, or other security interest, or the lessor under a lease-back, or the grantee under any other conveyance for financing.
1.15 Private Improvements. The term “Private Improvements” shall mean all improvements to be constructed on the Project Property in accordance with Development Approvals and Land Use Regulations, but excluding Public Improvements.
1.16 Project. The “Project” means the development of Project Property pursuant to the Development Approvals and this Agreement for the construction of a two (2) story mixed use building with retail uses on the ground floor of the building and eight (8) market rate apartments located on the second floor of the building.
1.17 Project Property. The “Project Property” means the real property consisting of approximately ____ acres and located on the southeast corner of Sierra Street and Marion Street in the City of Kingsburg, APN: 396-091-01, and more particularly described in Exhibit “A”.
1.18 Public Improvements. The term “Public Improvements” shall mean all on-site and off-site public improvements required to be constructed as part of the development of the Project pursuant to all applicable City specifications and development standards and requirements and as otherwise required by the Development Approvals and Land Use Regulations for the Project Property.
1.19 Schedule of Performance. The term “Schedule of Performance” shall mean that certain Schedule of Performance attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and made a part hereof.
1.20 Term. The “Term” means that period of time during which this Agreement shall be in effect and bind the Parties.
2. TERM.
2.1 Term. The Term shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of eighteen (18) months, except as to those provisions in this Agreement which by their terms survive the termination of this Agreement.
2.2 Automatic Termination. Unless previously terminated as provided in this Agreement or the Parties mutually agree upon an extension, this Agreement shall automatically terminate without notice upon the Developer’s failure on or before the date set forth in the Schedule of Performance, to Commence Construction. Termination under this Section 2.2 shall not create any liability on the part of the City or Developer. Furthermore, it is specifically understood and agreed that the termination provisions of this Section 2.2 are not subject to the notice and cure provisions set forth in Section 8 and these provisions are not to be construed as forfeiture, but rather a failure of Developer to satisfy the time requirements of this Section 2.2.
3. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT PROPERTY.
4 3.1 Mixed Use Building Development. Developer will develop and construct a two (2) story mixed use building with retail uses on the ground floor of the building and market rate apartments on the second floor of the building upon the Project Property. The design of the Project shall conform to the Development Approvals, Land Use Regulations, all local building codes, public works improvement standards, other applicable ordinances and all the provisions of this Agreement.
3.2 Right to Develop. The Development Approvals and Land Use Regulations shall control the development of the Project Property, including, but not limited to, the uses of the Project Property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed building, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Project.
3.3 Conditional Use Permit and Design. As required by the City’s Form Base Code and pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.68 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code, Developer shall develop the Project in accordance with the provisions of a Conditional Use Permit issued by the City’s Planning Commission. The design and elevations of the Project buildings will be subject to the City Council’s approval, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld.
3.4 Capital Facilities Fees/Development Impact Fees. Developer shall pay to the City the applicable City Capital Facilities Fees/Development Impact Fees (collectively “Capital Fees”) for the Project in accordance with the provisions of Section 15.48 or Title 15 of the City Municipal Code and related City Ordinances and City Council Resolutions. The Project is located within the boundaries of the City of Kingsburg Business Incentive Zone. The Project also satisfies the criteria set forth in City Council Resolution 2018-024 authorizing the City Manager of the City to reduce the Capital Facilities Fees/Development Impact Fees in accordance with the provisions of City Council Resolution 2018-024. Should the Developer construct the Project in accordance with all the provisions of this Agreement and the Development Approvals, Land Use Regulations and Schedule of Performance, the City agrees the Capital Facilities Fees/Development Impact Fees applicable solely to the market rate apartments will be reduced by ninety percent (90%).
3.5 City Incentive Programs. So long as the Developer constructs the Project in accordance with all the provisions of this Agreement and the Development Approvals, Land Use Regulations and Schedule of Performance, the Developer may apply to participate in any City economic inventive programs applicable to the Project.
4. TIME FOR CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF PROJECT.
4.1 Time Requirements. City and Developer agree that the Project will be developed and constructed in accordance with the following timing constraints:
a. Developer will Commence Construction of the Project no later than six (6) months after the Effective Date;
b. Developer will complete construction of Project no later than twelve (12) months following the date of commencement of construction.
4.2 Public Improvements. When Developer is required by this Agreement and/or the Development Approvals to construct any Public Improvements which will be dedicated to the City or any other public agency and if required by applicable laws to do so, Developer shall 5 perform such work with the same development standards and quality as would be applicable to the City should it have undertaken such construction work.
5. FEES, TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS.
5.1 Payment of Fees, Taxes and Assessments. Developer shall pay all fees, taxes and assessments as are described in or required by this Agreement, the Development Approvals or Land Use Regulations to the extent such fees, taxes and assessments apply to the Project and the Project Property.
a. Developer shall pay any fees, taxes or assessments imposed on a City-wide basis, if applicable to Developer, which are not specifically related to the construction or development of the Project including, without limitation, business license fees, utility taxes, landscape and lighting assessments, community service assessments and bond assessments, whether or not they existed on the Effective Date; and
b. Developer shall pay all fees applicable to any Application charged by City at the time such Application is filed by Developer.
6. PROCESSING OF REQUESTS AND APPLICATIONS; OTHER GOVERNMENT PERMITS.
6.1 Processing. Developer, in a timely manner, will provide City with all documents, applications, plans and other information necessary for City to process Developer’s Applications and carry out its obligations under this Agreement and will cause Developer’s planners, engineers and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all required materials and documents therefore. It is the express intent of this Agreement that the Developer will diligently work to obtain all grading, building or other approvals for development of the Project in accordance with the Development Approvals.
6.2 Other Governmental Permits. Developer shall apply in a timely manner for such other permits and approvals as may be required from other governmental or quasigovernmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project and as may be required for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project. City shall cooperate with Developer in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals.
6.3 Public Agency Coordination. City and Developer shall cooperate and use reasonable efforts in coordinating the implementation of the Development Approvals with other public agencies, if any, having jurisdiction over the Project Property or the Project.
7. AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
7.1 Initiation of Amendment. Either Party may propose an amendment to this Agreement.
7.2 Procedure. The procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to this Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Agreement in the first instance.
6 7.3 Consent. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, no amendment to all or any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by the duly authorized representatives of each of the Parties to this Agreement.
7.4 Effect of Amendment to Agreement. The Parties agree that except as expressly set forth in any such amendment, an amendment to this Agreement will not alter, affect, impair, modify, waive, or otherwise impact any other rights, duties, or obligations of either Party or any other provision under this Agreement.
8. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION.
8.1 Rights of Non-Defaulting Party After Default. The Parties acknowledge that both Parties shall have all legal and equitable remedies as provided by law following the occurrence of a default. Except in cases of automatic termination as provided in Section 2 of this Agreement, before this Agreement may be terminated or action may be taken to obtain judicial relief, the Party seeking relief (“Non-Defaulting Party”) shall comply with the provisions of Section 8.2.
8.2 Notice and Opportunity to Cure. A Non-Defaulting Party may declare a default under this Agreement only in accordance with the procedures hereinafter set forth for any failure or breach of the other party (“Defaulting Party”) to perform any responsibility or obligation to be performed by the Defaulting Party under the terms of this Agreement. The Non-Defaulting Party must provide written notice (“Default Notice”) to the Defaulting Party setting forth the nature of the breach or failure and the actions required by Defaulting Party to cure such breach or failure.
The Defaulting Party shall be deemed in “default” under this Agreement, if the Defaulting Party has failed to take such actions and cure such default within thirty (30) days after the date of the Default Notice (or such lesser time as may be specifically provided in this Agreement).
However, if such default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period, and, as long as the Defaulting Party does each of the following the Defaulting Party shall not be deemed in default of this Agreement:
a. Notifies the Non-Defaulting Party in writing of the reasons the default is not curable within the thirty (30) day period;
b. Notifies the Non-Defaulting Party in writing of the Defaulting Party’s proposed course of action to cure the default;
c. Promptly commences to cure the default within the initial thirty (30) day period; d. Makes weekly written reports (reports by e-mail are acceptable) to the NonDefaulting Party as to the progress of the program of cure; and e. Diligently prosecutes such cure to completion.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Defaulting Party shall be deemed in default under this Agreement if said breach or failure involves the payment of money and the Defaulting Party has failed to completely cure said monetary default within fifteen (15) days (or such lesser time as may be specifically provided in this Agreement) after the date of the Default Notice.
8.3 City’s Remedies for Developer Default. If Developer fails to cure a default within the cure periods identified in this Section 8 (or such lesser time as may be specifically provided 7 in this Agreement), City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement and pursue any remedy available at law or on equity.
8.4 Developer’s Remedies for City’s Default. If City fails to cure a default within the cure periods identified in this Section 8 (or such lesser time as may be specifically provided in this Agreement), Developer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement and pursue any remedy available at law or on equity.
8.5 Mediation. All questions and disputes with respect to rights and obligations of the Parties arising under the terms of this Agreement shall be submitted to non-binding mediation.
Either Party may demand mediation by filing a written demand with the other Party within thirty (30) days after occurrence of the dispute. The Parties may agree on one mediator. If they cannot agree on one mediator, there shall be three: one named in writing by each of the Parties within ten (10) days after demand for mediation is received by the other Party, and a third chosen by the two appointed mediators. Should either party refuse or neglect to join in the appointment of the mediator(s) the mediator selected by the other Party shall act as the sole mediator.
Mediation shall take place before the mediator(s) in the City of Kingsburg, County of Fresno, State of California, at the time and place agreed to by the Parties and the mediator. At the mediation, any relevant evidence may be presented by either Party, and the formal rules of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings shall not govern. Evidence may be admitted or excluded in the sole discretion of the mediator(s). The mediator(s) shall hear and determine the matter and shall execute and acknowledge the decision in writing and cause a copy of the writing to be delivered to each of the Parties.
If there is only one mediator, his or her decision shall be conclusive on the Parties, and if there are three mediators, the decision of any two shall be conclusive. The submission of a dispute to the mediator(s) and the rendering of a decision by the mediator(s) shall be a condition precedent to any right of legal action on the dispute. The costs of the mediation shall be borne equally by the Parties.
8.6 Waiver of Breach. By Commencing Construction, as that term is defined in Section 1.6 of this Agreement, Developer shall be deemed to have waived any claim that any condition to the Development Approvals theretofore issued are unlawful or improper.
9. RESTRICTION ON TRANSFER. Developer shall not at any time prior to the expiration of the Term, assign or transfer this Agreement, the Project or the Project Property without the prior written consent of the City Council for the City, which consent may be withheld in the sole discretion of the City Council for the City. Should the City consent to such an assignment or transfer and as a condition precedent to such transfer, the transferee must execute an Assignment and Assumption Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and made a part hereof, assuming all of Developer’s rights, responsibilities and obligations under this Agreement. No such assignment will relieve Developer of its performance of all obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement.
10. INDEMNITY.
10.1 Third-Party Litigation.
a. Non-liability of City. City shall have no liability under this Agreement for any failure of City to perform under this Agreement or the inability of Developer to develop the 8 Project Property as contemplated by the Development Approvals or this Agreement as the result of a statutory enactment or final judicial determination that on the Effective Date, or at any time thereafter, the Development Approvals, this Agreement, or portions thereof, or any other law, ordinance, rule or regulation, were invalid or inadequate or not in compliance with law. b. Legal Challenges. In the event that a legal challenge to the validity of this Agreement, the Project or the Development Approvals is filed prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, and such challenge results in a final judicial determination that any portion of this Agreement, the Project or the Development Approvals are not valid or were not properly adopted or approved, Developer and City agree their respective obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement shall be stayed until final judicial determination of the legal challenge. If, after the final judicial determination of the legal challenge, the provisions of this Agreement are not held as invalid and allows for each Party’s performance under this Agreement or as this Agreement may be amended by the Parties, the Parties will proceed with performance of their respective obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement. c. Participation in Litigation; Indemnity. The City shall not have any obligation to defend any legal challenge to the validity of this Agreement, the Project or the Development Approvals. If Developer elects to defend any such legal challenge, Developer agrees to, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed officials, boards, commissions, officers, agents and employees from and against any and all actions, suits, claims, liabilities, losses, damages, penalties, obligations and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and costs) arising from any challenge in any way related to the Project, including, without limitation, a challenge to the validity of this Agreement or the Development Approvals.
10.2 Hold Harmless; Developer’s Construction and Other Activities. Developer agrees to, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed officials, boards, commissions, officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all actions, suits, claims, liability, losses, damages, penalties, obligations, and expense (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees) in any way related with development of the Project Property and construction and installation of the Project, including, without limitation, personal injury or death, or property damage which may arise, directly or indirectly, from the actions or omissions of Developer or Developer’s agents, contractors, subcontractors or employees and compliance with prevailing wage laws, regulations and rules.
10.3 Survival of Indemnity Obligations. All indemnity obligations hereunder shall survive termination of this Agreement for any reason.
11. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; NO LIABILITY; NON-DISCRIMINATION.
11.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees. No elected or appointed officials, boards, commissions, officers, agents or employees of City shall be personally liable to the other, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or Developer of the terms of this Agreement.
9 11.2 Conflict of Interest. No official, officer or employee of City, officer or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects the financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he/she is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any state statute or regulation.
11.3 Covenant Against Discrimination. Each Party covenants that, by and for itself, its successors and assignees, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement. Each Party shall take affirmative action to ensure that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry.
12. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION.
12.1 Developer’s Mortgage Lien. As a condition precedent to receiving any rights under this Agreement, the Mortgagee or successor (“New Developer”) who acquires an interest in the Project Property by foreclosure or trustee’s sale, must execute an Assumption Agreement (in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “C”) whereby the New Developer agrees that all of the terms, conditions, covenants and restrictions of this Agreement shall be binding and effective against the New Developer. The New Developer shall execute the Assumption Agreement within ten (10) days after acquiring title to the Project Property. The New Developer’s failure to execute the Assumption Agreement within said ten (10) day time period shall constitute a Developer’s default under this Agreement.
13. COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. Developer represents, warrants, and covenants to City that Developer shall not at any time use or permit the Project Property to be used in violation of any and all laws, rules and regulations which relate to or govern hazardous materials and/or the environmental conditions in, on, under or about the Project Property, including, without limitation, air quality, soil and surface and subsurface water conditions (individually and collectively, “Environmental Regulations”). Developer assumes sole and full responsibility for, and shall remedy at its sole cost and expense, all such violations.
Developer shall not at any time use, generate, release, store, treat, dispose of, or otherwise deposit, in, on, under or about the Project Property, any hazardous or toxic substances, wastes or related materials (“Hazardous Materials”) or permit or allow any third party, including, without limitation, Developer’s employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and materialman to do so without compliance, at Developer’s sole cost and expense, with all Environmental Regulations. For the purposes of this Section 13, Hazardous Materials shall include, without limitation, asbestos, asbestos-containing matter, and the group or organic compounds known as polychlorinated byphenyls, as well as substances defined as “hazardous substances” or “toxic substances” in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et seq; (“CERCLA”); the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 1802; the Resource Conservation Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq; (“RCRA”); those substances identified in regulations, orders, and publications adopted pursuant to California Health and Safety Code 25249.8, as “Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity”; and those substances defined as “hazardous wastes” in Section 25117 of the California Health and Safety Code and in the regulations adopted and publications promulgated pursuant thereto and any Regulation which now exists or which may be enacted or become effective after the Effective Date; all as the foregoing may be amended or re-codified from time to time. It shall be a material default by Developer under this Agreement, entitling City to exercise any of its rights and remedies under 10 Section 8 of this Agreement, if any provision of this Section 13 is not strictly complied with at all times.
Developer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City and its elected and appointed officials, boards, commissions, officers, agents and employees from and against any and all actions, suits, claims, liabilities, losses, damages, penalties, forfeitures, or expenses (including attorneys’ fees) arising from or caused in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by (A) the presence in, on, under or about the Project Property or discharge in or from the Project Property of any Hazardous Materials or the use, analysis, storage, transportation, disposal release, threatened release, discharge or generation of Hazardous Materials to, in, on, under, about or from the Project Property by Developer or any employee, agent, contractor, subcontractor or materialman, or (B) the failure to comply with any Environmental Regulations by Developer, or any employee, agent, contractor, subcontractor or materialman. Developer’s obligations hereunder shall include, without limitation, all costs of any required or necessary repair, cleanup or detoxification or decontamination of the Project Property and the preparation and implementation of any closure, remedial action or the required plans in connection therewith, and shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of the term of the Agreement or any extension thereof.
14. GENERAL.
14.1 Force Majeure. The time within which Developer or City shall be required to perform any act under this Agreement shall be extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which performance of such act is delayed due to war, insurrection, strikes, lock-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, natural disasters, Acts of God, acts of the public enemy, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, archaeological finds, initiative or referendum, moratoria, or unusually severe weather, or any other similar causes beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time to perform. An extension of time for any such cause shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause. Any act or failure to act on the part of a Party shall not excuse performance by that Party.
14.2 Construction of Agreement. The language of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole and given its fair meaning. The captions of the sections and subsections are for convenience only and shall not influence construction. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. This Agreement is not intended to constitute, or be construed to constitute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of the City, and in particular, City’s powers. This Agreement shall not, be deemed to constitute the surrender or abrogation of City’s governmental powers over the Project Property.
14.3 Attorney’s Fees. If an action at law or in equity is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and necessary disbursements in addition to any other reasonable relief to which it may be entitled. With respect to any suit, action or proceeding arising out of or related to this Agreement, or the documentation related hereto, the Parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction and venue, in the County of Fresno, State of California for any proceeding arising hereunder.
14.4 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of all the provisions of this Agreement.
11 14.5 Waiver. Failure by a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, or the failure by a Party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other Party, shall not constitute a waiver of such Party’s right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other Party with the terms of this Agreement.
14.6 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. The only parties to this Agreement are Developer and City. There are no third-party beneficiaries and except as otherwise identified in this Agreement, including, without limitations, the provisions of Section 10 of this Agreement as they relate to the City, this Agreement is not intended, and shall not be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any other person or entity.
14.7 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the Party benefited thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited Party.
14.8 Authority to Execute. Developer and the persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer warrant that (i) Developer is a California limited partnership duly organized, existing and in good standing in the State of California, (ii) such persons are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of Developer, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, Developer is bound by all the provisions of this Agreement, (iv) the entering into of this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which Developer is bound and (v) there is no litigation or legal proceeding which would prevent Developer from entering into this Agreement and performing its obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement.
14.9 Notice. Any notice, consent, authorization, or other communication to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly given and received when delivered personally, when transmitted by facsimile or email if receipt is verified, one (1) business day after being deposited for next-day delivery with a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, or three (3) business days after being mailed by first class mail, charges and postage prepaid, properly addressed to the party to receive such notice at the last address furnished for such purpose by the party to whom notice is directed and addressed as follows:
Developer:
_________________________
Attention: _________________
_________________________
_________________________
Telephone: _______________
Email: ___________________
City:
City of Kingsburg
Attention: Alex Henderson, City Manager
1401 Draper Street
Kingsburg, California 93631
Telephone: (559) 897-5821
Email: [email protected]
The parties hereto may change their address as set forth in this paragraph by providing the other party with written notice thereof.
14.10 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent necessary to implement this Agreement. Upon the request of either Party at any time, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary to implement this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
12 14.11 Recitals. The recitals in this Agreement constitute part of this Agreement and each Party shall be entitled to rely on the truth and accuracy of each recital as an inducement to enter into this Agreement.
14.12 Relationship of Parties. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties that neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder. The only relationship between City and Developer is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the developer of such private property.
14.13 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and this Agreement supersedes all previous negotiations, discussions, and agreements between the Parties. Any amendment or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by the Parties.
14.14 Exhibits. The following-listed exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated therein.
Exhibit “A” Project Property
Exhibit “B” Schedule of Performance
Exhibit “C” Assignment and Assumption Agreement
[Signature Page Follows This Page]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
City:
CITY OF KINGSBURG, a Charter City
By: ______________________________
MICHELLE ROMAN, Mayor
ATTEST:
Developer:
By: __________________________________
__________________, _______________
13 _______________________________
ABIGAIL PALSGAARD, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ______________________________
MICHAEL J. NOLAND, City Attorney
F:\WORD\11\11140.206\Agreement To Construct - Mixed Use Final 022019.doc EXHIBIT “A”
PROJECT PROPERTY
The real property located in the City of Kingsburg, County of Fresno, State of California, and more particularly described as:
APN: 396-091-01
14 EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
1. Commencement of Construction No later than six (6) months after the Effective Date.
2. Completion of Construction Within twelve (12) months after the commencement of construction.
15 EXHIBIT “C”
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
This ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (“Assignment”) is made and entered into on _________________ by and between ________________________________, a California ____________ (“Developer/Assignor”) and ______________________________ (“Assignee”).
RECITALS
A. On February 20, 2019, Developer/Assignor entered into an Agreement to Construct Mixed Use Residential Project (“Agreement”) with the City of Kingsburg (“City”), pursuant to which Developer/Assignor agreed to develop and construct a two (2) story mixed use building with retail uses on the ground floor of the building and eight (8) market rate apartments located on the second floor of the building (“Project”) and as more particularly described in the Agreement, upon that certain real property (“Property”) located in the City of Kingsburg, County of Fresno, California, APN: 396-091-01 and more particularly described in Exhibit “A” which is attached hereto and made and part hereof. Unless otherwise specifically defined in this Assignment, all capitalized terms used in this Assignment shall have the same meanings as ascribed to them in the Agreement.
B. Developer/Assignor desires to assign its rights and obligations under the Agreement to Assignee and Assignee desires to receive such assignment and assume the rights and obligations of Developer/Assignor under the Agreement in accordance with the provisions of this Assignment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Assignment and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound, Developer/Assignor and Assignee agree as follows:
1. Assignment and Assumption. Developer/Assignor assigns, transfers and conveys to Assignee all of Developer/Assignor’s right, title, and interest in the Agreement and Assignee assumes all of the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of Developer/Assignor under the Agreement. Assignee agrees to fully perform all of the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of the Developer/Assignor in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement and, and to be subject to all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, it being the express intention of the Developer/Assignor and Assignee that, upon the execution of this Assignment and the consent of the City Council of the City, as required by Section 9 of the Agreement, Assignee shall become the Developer under the Agreement.
2. No Release of Developer/Assignor. In accordance with Section 9 of the Agreement, the parties to this Assignment acknowledge and agree that notwithstanding the assignment herein, the Developer/Assignor remains liable to perform all obligations and responsibilities of the Developer under the Agreement to be performed by the Developer. 16 3. Conditions to Assignment. Developer/Assignor and Assignee acknowledge and agree that the assignment by Developer/Assignor to Assignee as set forth in this Assignment is effective only upon the approval of such assignment by the City Council for the City, as required by Section 9 of the Agreement.
4. Binding on Successor’s and Assigns. Subject to Section 9 of the Agreement, all of the covenants, terms, and conditions set forth in this Assignment shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and to their respective successors and assigns.
5. Authority. The individuals executing this Assignment represent and warrant that they have the right, power, and legal capacity, and authority to enter into and to execute this Assignment on behalf of the Developer/Assignor and the Assignee, respectively.
6. Sole and Only Agreement. This Assignment supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing between the parties hereto with respect to the matters set forth herein and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties regarding said matters.
7. Invalidity. If any provision of this Assignment is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
8. Amendments. No change, amendment or modification of this Assignment shall be valid unless the same be in writing and signed by the parties hereto.
9. Attorney Fees. If an action at law or in equity is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this Assignment, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and necessary disbursements in addition to any other reasonable relief to which he may be entitled. With respect to any suit, action or proceeding arising out of or related to this Assignment, or the documentation related hereto, the parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction and venue, in the County of Fresno, State of California for any proceeding arising hereunder.
10. Governing Law. This Assignment shall be construed and governed pursuant to the laws of the State of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Assignment on the day and in the year first set forth above.
Developer:
By: ___________________________
_______________, ___________
Assignee:
____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
YANEZ CONSTRUCTION LIC. 911672
42931 ROAD 52
REEDLEY, CA 93654
OFFICE: 559.638.6644
EMAIL: [email protected]
STONE PLAZA
1300 DRAPER STREET
KINGSBURG, CA
DATE: 04-13-2020
DRAWN BY:
FILENAME:
SCALE:
DAVID LATHROP
STONE PLAZA
AS NOTED
ELEVATIONS -
EXTERIOR
A400
LOCATION MAP
REFER TO ALL DETAILS, STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING,
MECHANICAL, SCHEDULES, PLAN NOTES
AND ATTACHMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
GENERAL NOTE
REVISION(S)
PLAN CHECK 06/04/2020
SHEET 12
N
CALIFORNIA STREET VIEW
DRAPER STREET VIEW
PLAN KEY LEGEND
NOTES
YANEZ CONSTRUCTION LIC. 911672
42931 ROAD 52
REEDLEY, CA 93654
OFFICE: 559.638.6644
EMAIL: [email protected]
STONE PLAZA
1300 DRAPER STREET
KINGSBURG, CA
DATE: 04-13-2020
DRAWN BY:
FILENAME:
SCALE:
DAVID LATHROP
STONE PLAZA
AS NOTED
LOCATION MAP
REFER TO ALL DETAILS, STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING,
MECHANICAL, SCHEDULES, PLAN NOTES
AND ATTACHMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
GENERAL NOTE
ELEVATIONS
EXTERIOR
A401
REVISION(S)
PLAN CHECK 06/04/2020
SHEET 13
N
COURTYARD ELEVATION
COURTYARD ELEVATION
PLAN KEY LEGEND
NOTES
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
KINGSBURG APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP) 2019-01 TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE PROJECT
WITH 10 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND 9,198 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE ON TWO PARCELS OF LAND, LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DRAPER AND CALIFORNIA
STREETS, CITY OF KINGSBURG
WHEREAS, the Kingsburg Planning Commission did consider during its regular meeting on August 8, 2019 and September 12, 2019, the application of Mr. Efrain Yanez for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a mixeduse project with 10 residential units and 9,198 square feet of commercial development on two parcels of land located on the southeast corner of Draper and California Streets in Kingsburg, APN’s 396-091-01 & 396-091-17; and WHEREAS, the Kingsburg Planning Commission did conduct a duly noticed public hearing, accepting written and oral testimony both for and against on August 8, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Kingsburg Planning Commission received and reviewed a staff report from the Kingsburg Planning Department, and WHEREAS, The Kingsburg Planning Commission finds that the proposed conditional use permit, subject to conditions is in accordance with Chapter 17.68 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Kingsburg; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also finds that the conditions imposed on Conditional Use Permit 2019-01 will protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare in the immediate neighborhood in the community as a whole; and
WHEREAS, the Kingsburg Planning Commission has determined that the project is categorically exempt consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Kingsburg Planning Commission determined that the following findings can be made as required by Section 17.68.070 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code:
A. That there are circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, structure or use which makes the granting of a use permit necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a private property right.
B. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
C. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance.
D. That the project is considered Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 - In-Fill Class 32 of the Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
E. The proposed project is consistent with the Kingsburg General Plan as well as the Kingsburg Form Based Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the
Kingsburg Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 2019-01 subject to the following general conditions and Conditions of Approval as follows:
General:
1. That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval, except as modified below, and subject to modifications to conform to applicable City Standards.
2. That the conditions of approval contained herein be met subject to minor modifications as may specified in the conditions.
3. That the applicant pays all fees as required by the Kingsburg Municipal Code and all current City ordinances, resolutions and schedules.
4. That the final design of the site plan and building, with changes incorporating the conditions of approval as shown in “Attachment A” be submitted to the Site Plan Review Committee or Planning Director for approval prior to the issuance of any building permit.
Conditions of Approval:
1. The building elevations in the attachments may be modified to provide additional enhancements to be consistent with the architectural standards per Kingsburg’s Form Based Code 3, and Swedish Architectural Designs standards.
2. The applicant shall submit a grading and drainage plan to the city engineer for review and approval. Further, the alley adjacent to the subject site shall be reconstructed consistent with city of Kingsburg’s improvement manual standards.
3. The applicant shall secure a permit to connect to SKF consistent with the district's improvement standards. The applicant shall pay all necessary fees and charges. The applicant shall comply with the following specific conditions:
a. submit floor and plumbing plans for each building for sewer evaluation; b. install sanitary sewer laterals with clean outs and box to each proposed building;
c. each building shall be metered separately from the landscaping system; and
d. the applicant shall complete and submit both commercial and multi-family residential sewer connection applications to SKF.
e. the existing sewer main is in the alley and not accessible to service this building. No sewer service laterals shall be constructed under an existing building on a different parcel.
f. install an 8” sewer main in Draper Street with 6” minimum sewer service laterals to the multi-use building w/cleanout & box at the property line.
Submit plans for review and approval.
g. food service establishments will require a minimum 40-lbs grease traps and restaurants will require at a minimum a 1,500 gallon grease interceptor. h. abandon existing sewer service lateral(s).
4. The applicant shall secure a building permit from the City of Kingsburg and shall pay all building and development impact fees prior to occupancy.
5. The City Planner/Engineer shall review and approve a landscaping and irrigation plan for the project. Said landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy and shall be compliant with AB 1881 requirements for low water / drought tolerant planting and irrigation
6. The applicant shall install driveways, gutters and sidewalks consistent with Kingsburg’s Improvement Standards Manual.
7. The applicant shall install parking lot improvements consistent with Kingsburg’s Improvement Manual, except for the non-ADA parking stalls for the proposed residential units which may be 9 feet wide if approved as a part of Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-01. The parking lot in the Site Plan exhibit may be modified with the approval of the City Fire, Building, Engineering, and Planning Departments, to reconfigure the parking and access layout to optimize the potential parking field. At the discretion of the City, significant changes to the parking area may be subject to Planning Commission review for a Finding of Consistency with this use permit.
8. The subject site shall be well maintained by insuring that the landscaping is effectively watered, mowed, pruned, fertilized, and weeded; that the signs are properly lighted and painted; that the irrigation system is periodically checked to insure against leaks, over spray and watering times that are not conservation effective; and that the parking lot and driveways shall be properly paved and stripped.
9. A visible building address shall be fixed to the front of all buildings. The numbers shall be a minimum of six inches high.
10.Parking lot lights consistent with Kingsburg Improvement Standards Manual shall be installed within the interior of the subject site.
11.The applicant shall comply with the conditions from the Kingsburg Building Department:
a. All buildings and exterior improvements shall comply with ADA standards; and
b. Submit a Fire Sprinkler Plan on all buildings shall be provided with fire sprinklers; and
c. The applicant shall secure a building permit and pay all building and development impact fees as required by the City of Kingsburg prior to the start of construction.
12. The applicant shall comply with the city engineer's conditions as follows:
a. That all conditions of the applicant be conditions of approval, except as further modified below, and subject to modifications to conform to applicable City Standards.
b. That the conditions of approval contained herein are in addition to those in Section 18 of the City of Kingsburg Improvement Standard Manual. c. The applicant shall submit a grading and site improvement plan for on-site improvements including, but not limited to, water, sewer, concrete, asphalt, lighting, and landscaping improvements.
e. All electrical, telephone and cable services to the project shall be provided underground services from the point of service.
f. Applicant shall repair/upgrade to city standards curb, gutter, sidewalk and curb ramps along the frontage of the proposed project.
13. The applicant shall comply with the Fire Department conditions as follows:
a. Installation of fire sprinklers and related infrastructure.
14. The project shall include surveillance cameras on all commercial entrances/exits and along California Street frontage, said camera system to have a 90-day retention period, and 24/7 /365 operation. ********
I, Mary Colby, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Kingsburg, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Kingsburg Planning Commission held on the 12th day of September 2019 by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Commiss~oners: Kinney, Rountree, Cozbey and Kruper
Commissioners: None
Commissioners: Blayney
Commissioners: Carlson and Brock
Commission Secretary
City of Kingsburg
CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor North & City Council
REPORT FROM: Alma Colado, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: AH AGENDA ITEM: Development Impact Fee Report for FY 2021-22 & Five Year SB1693 Report
ACTION REQUESTED: ___Ordinance _√__Resolution _√_ Motion ____Receive/File
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66006 et. seq.) requires local agencies to submit an annual report detailing the status of development impact fees. The annual report must be made available to the public within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year, and must be presented to the City Council at least 15 days after it is made available to the public. The Development Impact Fee Annual Report for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2022 is attached for your review.
With the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 and the resulting decline in local government revenues, local governments have increasingly relied on impact fees in order to mitigate the impacts created by new development. Development impact fees are collected to finance the design, construction and acquisition of facilities and equipment necessary to accommodate future development.
In response to the growing use of impact fees, the state Legislature passed AB 1600 in 1987, the California Mitigation Fee Act, setting forth standards and procedures for how impact fees are imposed, collected and expended. The Mitigation Fee Act requires local governments to segregate and place development impact fees collected in special funds. Those funds are held to finance the construction of the specific facilities for which the fee was imposed. The Mitigation Fee Act also requires local governments to prepare annual reports detailing the status of development impact fees until the funds collected are expended.
AB 1600 requires the City to annually prepare a report for the preceding fiscal year concerning the activity of the City’s Development Impact Fees (Gov. Code Section 66006 (b) (1) and (2)). AB 1600 was enacted to regulate the establishment of any new development fee or fee increase after January 1, 1989. The primary purpose of the annual report is to show the necessity of continued imposition of development impact fees. AB 1600 requires the annual report to be reviewed by the City Council at least 15 days after the report is made available for public review.
To be in full compliance with the State law the City must either (1) spend or commit DIF within five years of collection; or (2) adopt a resolution that makes the findings as required by Government Code section 66001(d), every five years.
Meeting Date: 12/7/2022
Agenda Item: 6.2
Annual Compliance Reporting for all Development Impact Fees The enclosed Development Impact Fees Annual Report provides information on the amount of development impact fees collected and expended, and the interest earned on unexpended funds from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022.
The City of Kingsburg has nine (9) types of development impact fees. They are:
Water Facilities Fee:
Funds the water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities needed to provide potable domestic water and to meet fire flow requirements for new development.
Traffic Capital Facility Fee:
Funds transportation improvements that include arterial streets, intersections, and traffic signals to accommodate new development.
Public Safety Fee:
Funds the acquisition of land for Police and Fire facilities, the upgrade of existing facilities, and the purchase of vehicles and equipment to accommodate new development.
Specialized Recreation Fee:
Funds the acquisition of land and building for playing fields, open spaces, corridor development, and facility improvements to accommodate new development.
General Government Fee:
Fund the acquisition of land for City Hall, Public Works yard and Library facilities, and the upgrade of existing facilities to accommodate new development.
Sewer Connection Systems Fee:
Funds the connection systems required to provide sanitary sewer service to new development.
Storm Drain System Systems Fee:
Funds drainage facilities for flood control and water management to accommodate new development.
Traffic Impact Zone Fee:
Funds improvements to streets, signals, and ramps due to the development in the K-Mart benefit area.
Park & Recreation
- Neighborhood Park
- Community
Funds new facilities for park and recreation activities to serve development.
The annual report provides the pubic with the requisite information as to the status and use of impact fees collected for fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act.
Five Year SB 1693 Findings for Development Impact Fees
Effective January 1, 1997, the California State Legislature made certain changes to the previous AB 1600 reporting rules with the adoption of SB 1693. If the money in those Development Impact Fee funds has not been spent, then SB 1693 requires the City to make required findings regardless of whether those moneys are committed or uncommitted. Those findings need to be made only once every five years.
Government Code Section 66001(d)(1)(2)(3)(4) sets forth the five-year findings requirements as:
(d) For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the account or fund, and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
(1) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. [Provide] A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.
(2) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
(3) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). (4) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in paragraph (3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
When findings are required, the City must also make them in connection with an annual compliance report. (Government Code Section 66001 (a)). This report complies with both the annual and five-year findings required by AB 1600 and SB 1693.
Development Impact Funds were established for the City of Kingsburg with the adoption of Chapter 15.48 – Development Impact Fees as part of the City’s Municipal Code. Fees were last updated in 2016 with the adoption of the Justification Study (attached).
This report will keep the City in compliance of all aspects of AB 1600 and SB 1693. It is staffs’ intent to report on this timely every year, despite variations in the legislation mandating annual and/or five year reporting so that the Council and the public will have the best information available to them and there will never be doubt about whether the City is compliant or not.
This report is required by AB 1600 to be reviewed by City Council at least 15 days after the report is made available for public review. The reports were originally posted in our website on 11/22/2022.
The purpose of Government Code Section 66000 et seq., as it applies to findings and compliance reporting, is to provide the community with information as to the status and use of fees collected under the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, Sec. 66000 et seq) commonly called Developer Impact Fees. This report is the City’s response to this legislation and mandated reporting in an attempt to inform the City Council and the residents of Kingsburg about our processes and resources used for the City in relation to Developer Impact Fees.
RECOMMENDED ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL
1. Staff recommends Council receive and accept the report by resolution order with Resolution 2022- 068.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. N/A
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/STRATEGIC GOAL
1. Ensure Financial Stability
2. Promote Sustainable Development
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Tracking of the fund activities, summarizing the activity for this report, and preparation of the report requires resources of the Finance Department. No funds were expended to comply with this unfunded State mandate.
This is a required compliance reporting per the California Government Code and failure to report on activity and account balances per regulations in AB 1600 or SB 1693 could allow a successful challenge to the collection of the related fees in the future.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
None related to the City budget.
ATTACHED INFORMATION
1. Proposed Resolution 2022-068
2. 2022 Annual Development Impact Fee Report.
3. Five-Year AB 1600 reports for Fiscal Year 2021-22
4. Development Impact Fee Justification Study (2016)
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. Is There a Fiscal Impact? Yes
2. Is it Currently Budgeted? Yes
3. If Budgeted, Which Line? 210 Funds
RESOLUTION 2022-068
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG PROVING THE ANNUAL AND FIVE-YEAR AB 1600 REPORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 AND MAKING THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(D)
WHEREAS, Government Code section 66000 et seq. (AB 1600) authorizes local agencies to adopt and impose development impact fees on new development within the jurisdiction of the local agency; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kingsburg has adopted several development impact fees in accordance with AB 1600; and
WHEREAS, AB 1600 requires the City of Kingsburg to make certain information available regarding the development impact fees collected and expended within 180 days of the close of each fiscal year (Government Code section 66006(b)), and to make certain findings every five years with respect to any unexpended fund balances of development impact fee funds (California Government Code Section 66001(d)); and
WHEREAS, documents reflecting the balance of each development impact fee fund or account, accrued interest in said fund or account and the amount of expenditure by public facility for the fiscal year have been made available for public review as required by Government Code Section 66006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Kingsburg, California, as follows:
That the following findings are made as required under the Government Code Section 66001(d):
A. The purpose to which each development impact fee is to be put has been identified.
B. There is a continued need for the improvements and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee and the impacts for development for which the fees are collected.
C. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of capital projects have been identified and will be deposited into the appropriate account upon receipt or during the normal budget cycle.
D. The approximate dates on which the funding referred to in subparagraph (C) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund have been identified.
These findings are based on information provided in the AB 1600 Annual and Five-Year Reports for Fiscal Year 2021-22 attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
*************
I, Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk for the City of Kingsburg, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Kingsburg City Council held on the 7th day of December 2022, by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmember(s):
Noes: Councilmember(s):
Absent: Councilmember(s):
Abstain: Councilmember(s):
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
City of Kingsburg
Exhibit A
TRAFFIC CAPITAL FACILITY FEE
FUND 210-9601
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2021 $ 1,632,681
adjustment to beg fund bal $ -
$ 1,632,681
Revenues:
Interest Earnings $ 6,201
Development Impact Fees $ 380,981
Total Revenue $ 387,182
Expenditures:
Professional Services $ -
Transfer to Other Funds $ -
Capital Expenses-Road repair Ave 396 $ 212,000
Update ADA Transition Plan $ -
Total Expenditures $ 212,000
Ending Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 $ 1,807,863
CITY OF KINGSBURG
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
Exhibit A
PUBLIC SAFETY
FUND 210-9609
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2021 $ (947,293)
Revenues:
Interest Earnings $ -
Development Impact Fees $ 310,903
Total Revenue $ 310,903
Expenditures:
Interest Payable $ -
Transfer to Other Funds $ -
Capital Expenses $ -
Total Expenditures $ -
Ending Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 $ (636,390)
CITY OF KINGSBURG
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
New development growth impact on Police and Fire services.
Exhibit A
SPECIALIZED RECREATION
FUND 210-9606
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2021 $ 831,942
Revenues:
Interest Earnings $ 4,727
Development Impact Fees $ 184,374
Total Revenue $ 189,101
Expenditures:
Servicing Fees $ -
Transfer to Other Funds $ -
Park Improvements $ 32,064
Total Expenditures $ 32,064
Ending Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 $ 988,979
Park improvement for Athwal recreation space.
CITY OF KINGSBURG
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
Exhibit A
WATER SYSTEM
FUND 210-9608
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2021 $ 1,094,179
adjustment to beg fund bal $ -
$ 1,094,179
Revenues:
Interest Earnings $ 5,242
Development Impact Fees $ 260,651
Total Revenue $ 265,893
Expenditures:
Professional Services $ -
Transfer to Other Funds $ -
Capital Expenses-Ave 396 reimb $ 20,840
Total Expenditures $ 20,840
Ending Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 $ 1,339,232
CITY OF KINGSBURG
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
New development growth impact on the cost of new water facilities.
Exhibit A
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
FUND 210-9691
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2021 $ 900,842
adjustment to beg fund bal $ -
$ 900,842
Revenues:
Interest Earnings $ 4,445
Development Impact Fees $ 316,021
Total Revenue $ 320,466
Expenditures:
Professional Services $ 13,750
Transfer to Other Funds $ -
Municipal Service Fees $ -
Capital Expenses $ -
Total Expenditures $ 13,750
Ending Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 $ 1,207,558
Tulare fees for General Plan Initiation, General Plan Amendment and Research fee.
CITY OF KINGSBURG
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
Exhibit A
SEWER CONNECTION SYSTEMS
FUND 211-9100
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2021 $ 1,342,187
adjustment to beg fund bal $ -
$ 1,342,187
Revenues:
Interest Earnings $ 5,396
Development Impact Fees $ 164,304
Total Revenue $ 169,700
Expenditures:
Servicing Fees $ -
Transfer to Other Funds $ -
Capital Expenses $ -
Total Expenditures $ -
Ending Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 $ 1,511,887
CITY OF KINGSBURG
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
New development growth impact for the expansion of sewer facilities and oversized lines.
Exhibit A
STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS
FUND 212-9100
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2021 $ 301,849
adjustment to beg fund bal $ -
$ 301,849
Revenues:
Interest Earnings $ 968
Development Impact Fees $ 81,706
Total Revenue $ 82,674
Expenditures:
Servicing Fees $ -
Interest $ -
Capital Expenses $ 184,253
Total Expenditures $ 184,253
Ending Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 $ 200,270
New development impact for the expansion of storm drain system facilities.
CITY OF KINGSBURG
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
Exhibit A
TRAFFIC IMPACT ZONE
FUND 216-9100
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2021 $13,414
adjustment to beg fund bal $0
$13,414
Revenues:
Interest Earnings $0
Development Impact Fees
Total Revenue $0
Expenditures:
Servicing Fees $0
Capital Expenses $0
Total Expenditures $0
Ending Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 $13,414
New development impact for the expansion of streets, signals and ramps.
CITY OF KINGSBURG
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
Exhibit A
PARK & RECREATION FUND
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
214-8100
COMMUNITY
214-8200
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2021 $423,212
adjustment to beg fund bal $0
$423,212
Revenues:
Interest Earnings $1,837
Development Impact Fees $135,740
Total Revenue $137,577
Expenditures:
Servicing Fees $0
Capital Expenses $0
Total Expenditures $0
Ending Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 $560,789
CITY OF KINGSBURG
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
5-Year Exhibit B
Development Fee Account Summary
Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
REVENUES
Fees $ 133,771 $ 73,988 $ 442,130 $ 373,816 $ 380,981
Interest $ 5,745 $ 5,496 $ 10,283 $ 6,487 $ 6,201
Total Revenues $ 139,516 $ 79,483 $ 452,413 $ 380,303 $ 387,182
EXPENDITURES
Expense $ 50,798 $ 66,618 $ 21,624 $ - $ 212,000
Total Expenditures $ 50,798 $ 66,618 $ 21,624 $ - $ 212,000 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 88,718 $ 12,865 $ 430,789 $ 380,303 $ 175,182 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $ 720,005 $ 808,724 $ 821,589 1,252,378 1,632,681 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 808,724 $ 821,589 $ 1,252,378 1,632,681 1,807,863 Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
REVENUES
Fees $ 79,598 $ 31,819 $ 276,621 $ 198,411 $ 310,903
Interest $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Revenues $ 79,598 $ 31,819 $ 276,621 $ 198,411 $ 310,903
EXPENDITURES
Expense $ 18,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Expenditures $ 18,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 61,598 $ 31,819 $ 276,621 $ 198,411.27 $ 310,903 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $ (1,693,155) $ (1,631,557) $ (1,422,325) $ (1,145,704) $ (947,293) Fund Balance, End of Year $ (1,631,557) $ (1,599,738) $ (1,145,704) $ (947,293) $ (636,389) Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
REVENUES
Fees $ 94,949 $ 29,070 $ 759,612 $ 72,675 $ 184,374
Interest $ 4,405 $ 4,213 $ 7,884 $ 4,974 $ 4,727
Total Revenues $ 99,354 $ 33,283 $ 767,496 $ 77,649 $ 189,101
EXPENDITURES
Expense $ 50,000 $ 22,977 $ 618,130 $ 3,626 $ 32,064
Total Expenditures $ 50,000 $ 22,977 $ 618,130 $ 3,626 $ 32,064 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 49,354 $ 10,306 $ 149,366 $ 74,023 $ 157,037 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $ 548,894 $ 598,247 $ 608,554 $ 757,919 $ 831,942 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 598,247 $ 608,554 $ 757,919 $ 831,942 $ 988,978
TRAFFIC CAPITAL FACILITIES
PUBLIC SAFETY
SPECIALIZED RECREATION
Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
REVENUES
Fees $ 68,649 $ 25,168 $ 220,354 $ 173,029 $ 260,651
Interest $ 4,788 $ 4,580 $ 8,569 $ 5,406 $ 5,242
Total Revenues $ 73,437 $ 29,748 $ 228,923 $ 178,435 $ 265,893
EXPENDITURES
Expense $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 20,840
Total Expenditures $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 20,840
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 48,437 $ 29,748 $ 228,923 $ 178,435 $ 245,053 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $ 608,636 $ 657,073 $ 686,821 $ 915,744 $ 1,094,179 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 657,073 $ 686,821 $ 915,744 $ 1,094,179 $ 1,339,232 Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
REVENUES
Fees $ 96,823 $ 32,049 $ 234,665 $ 116,526 $ 316,021
Interest $ 4,213 $ 4,030 $ 7,541 $ 4,757 $ 4,445
Total Revenues $ 101,037 $ 36,079 $ 242,206 $ 121,283 $ 320,466
EXPENDITURES
Expense $ 37,500 $ 11,922 $ 22,489 $ 43,945 $ 13,750
Total Expenditures $ 37,500 $ 11,922 $ 22,489 $ 43,945 $ 13,750 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 63,537 $ 24,157 $ 219,717 $ 77,338 $ 306,716 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $ 516,093 $ 579,629 $ 603,786 $ 823,504 $ 900,842 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 579,629 $ 603,786 $ 823,504 $ 900,842 $ 1,207,558 Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
REVENUES
Fees $ 33,089 $ 17,115 $ 16,904 $ 112,959 $ 164,304
Interest $ 13,202 $ 10,764 $ 128,168 $ 7,211 $ 5,396
Total Revenues $ 46,291 $ 27,879 $ 145,072 $ 120,170 $ 169,700
EXPENDITURES
Expense $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Expenditures $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 21,291 $ 27,879 $ 145,072 $ 120,170 $ 169,700 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $ 1,027,775 $ 1,049,066 $ 1,076,945 $ 1,222,017 $ 1,342,187 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 1,049,066 $ 1,076,945 $ 1,222,017 $ 1,342,187 $ 1,511,887
SEWER CONNECTION SYSTEMS
WATER SYSTEM
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
REVENUES
Fees $ 39,503 $ 109,344 $ 11,131 $ 110,250 $ 81,706
Interest $ 585 $ 1,382 $ 3,375 $ 1,419 $ 968
Total Revenues $ 40,088 $ 110,726 $ 14,506 $ 111,669 $ 82,674
EXPENDITURES
Expense $ - $ - $ - $ 2,190 $ 184,254
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ 2,190 $ 184,254
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 40,088 $ 110,726 $ 14,506 $ 109,479 $ (101,580) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $ 27,050 $ 67,138 $ 177,864 $ 192,370 $ 301,849 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 67,138 $ 177,864 $ 192,370 $ 301,849 $ 200,270 Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
REVENUES
Fees $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Interest $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
EXPENDITURES
Expense $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $ 13,414 $ 13,414 $ 13,414 $ 13,414 $ 13,414 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 13,414 $ 13,414 $ 13,414 $ 13,414 $ 13,414 Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
REVENUES
Fees $ 22,692 $ 14,330 $ 70,992 $ 57,926 $ 135,740
Interest $ 2,511 $ 2,305 $ 4,147 $ 1,942 $ 1,837
Total Revenues $ 25,203 $ 16,635 $ 75,139 $ 59,868 $ 137,577
EXPENDITURES
Expense $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 25,203 $ 16,635 $ 75,139 $ 59,868 $ 137,577 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $ 246,367 $ 271,569 $ 288,204 $ 363,344 $ 423,212 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 271,569 $ 288,204 $ 363,344 $ 423,212 $ 560,789
STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS
TRAFFIC IMPACT ZONE
PARK & RECREATION FUND (NEIGHBORHOOD PARK & COMMUNITY)
B. C.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
JUSTIFICATION STUDY
CITY OF KINGSBURG
JANUARY 27, 2016
Prepared by:
DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1302 LINCOLN AVENUE, SUITE 204 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95125
(800) 969-4382
ASSOCIATES, INC.
Public Finance
Public Private Partnerships
Urban Economics
Clean Energy Bonds
TAUSSIG
Newport Beach
San Francisco
San Jose
Riverside
Dallas, Texas
DAVID
&
City of Kingsburg TOC
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................... 1 SECTION I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 3 SECTION II. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.................. 4 SECTION III. DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................ 8 SECTION IV. THE NEEDS LIST............................................................................................... 13 SECTION V. METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE FEES ................................................... 17 A. TRAFFIC FACILITIES................................................................................................................19 B. WATER FACILITIES .................................................................................................................23 C. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES......................................................................................................26 D. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES ........................................................................................31 E. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES .........................................................................................35 SECTION VI. SUMMARY OF FEES.......................................................................................... 40
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: FEE DERIVATION WORKSHEETS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Kingsburg Page 1
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 In order to adequately plan for new development and identify the public facilities and costs associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of new development, David Taussig & Associates, Inc. (“DTA”) was retained by the City of Kingsburg (the “City”) to prepare an updated AB 1600 Fee Justification Study (the “Fee Study”). The Fee Study is intended to comply with Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code, which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying additional public facilities required by new development (“Future Facilities”) and determining the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of the Future Facilities. The Future Facilities and associated construction costs are identified in the Needs List, which is included in Section IV of the Fee Study. A description of the methodology used to calculate the fees is included in Section V. All new development may be required to pay its “fair share” of the cost of the new infrastructure through this development fee program.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Section I of this report provides an introduction to the Fee Study including a brief description of areas surrounding the City and background information on development fee financing.
Section II provides an overview of the legal requirements for implementing and imposing the fee amounts identified in the Fee Study. Section III includes a discussion of projected new development and demand variables such as future population and employment, assuming current growth trends in housing, retail, office, industrial, and institutional development extrapolated through buildout in 2035. Projections of future development are based on data provided by the City of Kingsburg and the County of Fresno. Section IV includes a description of the Needs List, which identifies the facilities needed to serve new development through buildout in 2035 that are eligible for funding through the impact fee program. The Needs List provides the total estimated facilities costs, offsetting revenues, net costs to the City, and costs allocated to new development for all facilities listed in the Needs List. This list is a compilation of projects and costs identified by various City departments. Section V discusses the findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act and requirements necessary to be satisfied when establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of new development, and satisfies the nexus requirements for each facility included as part of this study. Section V also contains the description of the methodology used to determine the fees for all facility types.
Finally, Section VI includes a summary of the proposed fees justified by this Fee Study.
Appendix A includes the calculations used to determine the various fee levels.
IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
The total fee amounts required to finance new development’s share of the costs of facilities identified in the Needs List are summarized in Table ES-1 below. These fees reflect the maximum fee levels that may be imposed on new development.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Kingsburg Page 2
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 TABLE ES-1
CITY OF KINGSBURG
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
Fees Per Unit/1,000 Square Feet
Traffic Water Public
Safety
Parks
and Rec.
Gen.
Gov. Admin. TotalFees [1]
Single Family Residential
$2,023 per
PM Peak
Hour Trip
$2,368 $2,725 $3,876 $3,330 $369 $12,668
Multi-Family Residential $1,090 $2,180 $3,100 $2,664 $271 $9,305 Retail $1,439 $1,848 N/A $2,258 $166 $5,710
Office $1,439 $1,386 N/A $1,693 $136 $4,653
Industrial $237 $462 N/A $564 $38 $1,302
Institutional $119 $231 N/A $282 $19 $651
[1] Full Single Family Residential fee load equals $15,356 when including $2,083 for Traffic fee and $605 for Stormwater/Drainage. EXEMPTIONS California Government Code permits fee exemptions for affordable housing and senior housing at the discretion of local jurisdictions. Such fee exemptions are a policy matter that should be based on the consideration of the greater public good provided by the use exempted from the fee.
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
City of Kingsburg Page 3
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 The City of Kingsburg is a growing community with a current population of 11,500, and covers approximately 2.8 square miles of land. Located in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley between San Francisco and Los Angeles, it is within a two-hour drive of Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon National Parks, as well as the scenic Central Coast.
In order to adequately plan for new development and identify the public facilities and costs associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of this new development, David Taussig & Associates, Inc. (“DTA”) was retained by the City of Kingsburg (the “City”) to prepare an updated AB 1600 Fee Justification Study (the “Fee Study”). DTA is updating elements of the impact fee study prepared in 2004 by MuniFinancial, itself an update of an impact fee study developed in 1992 by Grunwald & Associates and John W.
Cone. Of note, DTA is leaving several fees outlined in a 2005 Peters Engineering Group Study unchanged following discussions with the City, such as fees for Stormwater/Drainage. For the most part, this Fee Study generally follows similar methodologies used in the 2005, 2004, and 1992 reports. Revised impact fees are calculated here using updated information on development and City facilities, and are intended to replace the corresponding existing impact fee. Moreover, the methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).
More specifically, the Fee Study is intended to comply with Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code, which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying additional public facilities required by new development (“Future Facilities”) and determining the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of the Future Facilities. Fee amounts have been determined that will finance facilities at levels identified by the various City departments as deemed necessary to meet the needs of new development. The Future Facilities and associated construction costs are identified in the Needs List, which is included in Section IV of the Fee Study. All new development may be required to pay its “fair share” of the cost of the new infrastructure through the development impact fee program. The fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities needed to meet the needs of new development. The steps followed in the Fee Study include:
1. Demographic Assumptions: Identify future growth that represents the increased demand for facilities.
2. Facility Needs and Costs: Identify the amount of public facilities required to support the new development and the costs of such facilities. Facilities costs and the Needs List are discussed in Section IV.
3. Cost Allocation: Allocate costs via the equivalent dwelling unit methodology. 4. Fee Schedule: Calculate the fee per residential unit or per non-residential square foot.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 4
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 The imposition of impact fees is one authorized method of financing the public facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development. A fee is “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project...” (California Government Code, Section 66000). A fee may be imposed for each type of capital improvement required for new development, with the payment of the fee typically occurring prior to the beginning of construction of a dwelling unit or non-residential building. Fees are often imposed at final map recordation, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or more commonly, at building permit issuance. However, Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2604 (Torrico) which was signed into law in August 2008, encourages public agencies to defer the collection of fees until close of escrow to an end user in an attempt to assist California’s troubled building industry.
AB 1600, which created Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code, was enacted by the State of California in 1987.
In 2006, Government Code Section 66001 was amended to clarify that a fee cannot include costs attributable to existing deficiencies, but can fund costs used to maintain the existing level of service (“LOS”) or meet an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.
Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code thus requires that all public agencies satisfy the following requirements when establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of new development:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(1))
2. Identify the use to which the fee will be put. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(2))
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(3))
4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(4))
5. Discuss how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
This section presents each of these items as they relate to the imposition of the proposed fees in the City of Kingsburg.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 5
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 A. PURPOSE OF THE FEE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(1)) New residential and non-residential development within the City of Kingsburg will generate additional residents and employees who will require additional public facilities. Land for these facilities will have to be acquired and public facilities and equipment will have to be expanded, constructed, or purchased to meet this increased demand.
The Fee Study has been prepared in response to the projected direct and cumulative effect of future development. Each new development will contribute to the need for new public facilities. Without future development many of the new public facilities on the Needs List would not be necessary as the existing facilities are generally adequate for the City’s present population. In instances where facilities would be built regardless of new development, the costs of such facilities have been allocated to new and existing development based on their respective level of benefit.
The proposed impact fee will be charged to all future development, irrespective of location, in the City. First, the property owners and/or the tenants associated with any new development in the City can be expected to place additional demands on the City’s facilities that are funded by the fee. Second, these property owners and tenants are dependent on and, in fact, may not have chosen to utilize their development, except for residential, retail, employment, and recreational opportunities located nearby on other existing and future development. As a result, all development projects in the City contribute to the cumulative impacts of development.
The impact fees will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of public facilities identified on the Needs Lists to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development in the City. B. THE USE TO WHICH THE FEE IS TO BE PUT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(2)) The fee will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of public facilities identified on the Needs Lists, included in Section IV of the Fee Study and other appropriate costs to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development in the City. The fee will provide a source of revenue to the City to allow for the acquisition, installation, and construction of public facilities, which in turn will both preserve the quality of life in the City and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the existing and future residents and employees.
C. DETERMINE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEE’S USE AND THE TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP) (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(3))
As discussed in Section A above, it is the projected direct and cumulative effect of future development that has prompted the preparation of the Fee Study. Each development will contribute to the need for new public facilities. Without future SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 6
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 development, the City would have no need to construct many of the public facilities on the Needs List. For all other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing and new development based on their level of benefit. Consequently, all new development within the City, irrespective of location, contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth.
The fees will be expended for the acquisition, installation, and construction of the public facilities identified on the Needs List and other authorized uses, as that is the purpose for which the fees are collected. As previously stated, all new development creates either a direct impact on public facilities or contributes to the cumulative impact on public facilities. Moreover, this impact is generally equalized among all types of development because it is the increased demands for public facilities created by the future residents and employees that create the impact upon existing facilities.
For the aforementioned reasons, new development benefits from the acquisition, construction, and installation of the facilities on the Needs Lists.
D. DETERMINE HOW THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEED FOR THE PUBLIC
FACILITY AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (IMPACT RELATIONSHIP) (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(4))
As previously stated, all new development within the City, irrespective of location, contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth. Without future development, many of the facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary. For certain other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing and new development based on their level of benefit.
For the reasons presented herein, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities included on the Needs List and all new development within the City. E. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE AND THE COST OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (“ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY” RELATIONSHIP) (GOVERNMENT CODE 66001(A) As set forth above, all new development in the City impacts public facilities. Moreover, each individual development project and its related increase in population and/or employment, along with the cumulative impacts of all development in the City, will adversely impact existing facilities. Thus, imposition of the fee to finance the facilities on the Needs Lists is an efficient, practical, and equitable method of permitting development to proceed in a responsible manner.
New development impacts facilities directly and cumulatively. In fact, without any future development, the acquisition, construction, and/or installation of many of the SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 7
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary as existing City facilities are generally adequate. Even new development located adjacent to existing facilities will utilize and benefit from facilities on the Needs List.
The proposed fee amounts are roughly proportional to the impacts resulting from new development based on the analyses contained in Section V. Thus there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Kingsburg Page 8
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 In order to determine the public facilities needed to serve new development as well as establish fee amounts to fund such facilities, the City provided DTA with projections of future population and development within the City. DTA categorized developable residential land uses as Single Family and Multi-Family. Moreover, developable non-residential land uses within the City’s commercial, industrial, and office zones are categorized as Retail, Office, Industrial, and Institutional. Additional details are included in the table below. Based on these designations, DTA established fees for the following six (6) land use categories to acknowledge the difference in impacts resulting from various land uses and to make the resulting fee program implementable. LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION
FOR FEE STUDY
DEFINITION
Single Family Includes single family attached and detached homes Multi-Family
Includes buildings with attached residential units including apartments, town homes, condominiums, and all other residential units not classified as Single Family
Retail
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Retail Service-oriented business activities Department stores, discount stores, furniture/appliance outlets, home improvement centers
Entertainment centers
Sub-regional and regional shopping centers
Office Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Business/professional office Industrial
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Light manufacturing, warehouse/distribution, logistics, wholesaling Wholesale and warehouse retail Service-oriented commercial activities Automobile dealerships
Support commercial services
Institutional
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Professional medical offices and hospitals Schools
Other public uses
The Fresno Council of Governments’ San Joaquin Valley Demographic Forecasts were used as estimates for the number of housing units and non-residential building square feet to be built within the City. These figures are generally confirmed by the City’s 1992 General Plan (the “General Plan”) and the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, the forecasts and the General Plan were used to project the additional population generated from new development.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Kingsburg Page 9
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 Notably, DTA attempted to utilize metrics (e.g. average household size) that standardized existing demographics with the projections found in the General Plan. Future residents and employees will create additional demand for facilities that cannot be adequately served by existing public facilities. In order to accommodate new development in an orderly manner, while maintaining the current quality of life in the City, the facilities on the Needs List (see Section IV), as reviewed and approved by the City Council on October 21, 2015, will need to be constructed. For those facilities that are needed to mitigate demand from new development, facility costs have been allocated to new development only. In those instances when it has been determined that the new facilities will serve both existing and new development, facility costs have been allocated based on proportionate level of benefit (see Equivalent Dwelling Unit (“EDU”) discussion in Section V).
The following sections summarize the existing and future development figures that were used in calculating the impact fees. 1. EXISTING POPULATION FOR LAND USE CATEGORIES A. According to information provided by the City of Kingsburg and the Fresno Council of Governments, and generally confirmed by the U.S. Census Bureau, there are currently 9,051 existing Single Family and 2,525 Multi-Family residents residing in 3,068 and 1,070 units respectively, within the City. B. DTA has used the following demographic information provided by the City, which assumes a City resident-per-unit factor of 2.95 per Single Family unit and 2.36 per Multi-Family unit (approximately four-fifths of the Single Family rate). Therefore, the City population is generally comprised of 11,576 residents living in 4,138 Single Family and Multi-Family homes. Importantly, many figures may not sum due to rounding.
C. Table 1 below summarizes the existing demographics for the residential land uses.
TABLE 1
CITY OF KINGSBURG
ESTIMATED EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Residential Land Use Existing
Residents
Existing Housing
Units
Average Household
Size
Single Family Residential 9,051 3,068 2.95
Multi-Family Residential 2,525 1,070 2.36
Total/Average 11,576 4,138 NA
DTA has also utilized the following demographic information provided by the City which estimates existing City employees using employees-per-thousand-square-foot factors SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Kingsburg Page 10
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 of 4.00, 3.00, 1.00, and 0.50 employees per 1,000 building square feet of Retail, Office, Industrial, and Institutional, respectively. This results in a total of 4,774 existing employees, comprised of 1,108 Retail employees, 2,034 Office employees, 1,275 Industrial employees, and 358 Institution employees within the City, as shown in Table 2 below.
Importantly, for many of the facilities considered in this Fee Study, EDUs are calculated based on the number of residents or employees (“Persons Served”) generated by each land use class. “Persons Served” equal Residents plus 50% of Employees, and is a customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees. For existing Persons Served estimates, please reference Table 2 below.
TABLE 2
CITY OF KINGSBURG
ESTIMATED EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Non-Residential
Land Use Existing B.S.F. Employees per1,000 B.S.F. ExistingEmployees Persons Served
per 1,000 B.S.F. Existing PersonsServed [1]
Retail 276,892 4.00 1,108 2.00 554
Office 677,908 3.00 2,034 1.50 1,017
Industrial 1,274,658 1.00 1,275 0.50 637
Institutional 716,100 0.50 358 0.25 179
Total/Average 2,945,558 NA 4,774 NA 2,387
[1]Persons served equal Residents plus 50% of employees.
2. FUTURE POPULATION FOR NEW LAND USE CATEGORIES (2035) A. According to information provided by the City and the Fresno Council of Governments, in 2035 (the time horizon utilized for this Fee Study) the City is projected to include an additional 750 Single Family units and 288 future Multi- Family units. These figures comply with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance.
B. DTA has used the following demographic information provided by the City which assumes City future resident-per-unit factors of 2.95 and 2.36 per Single Family unit and per Multi-Family unit, respectively. This results in an additional 2,894 residents living in 1,039 Single Family and Multi-Family homes Citywide.
C. Table 3 on the following page summarizes the future demographics for the residential land uses.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Kingsburg Page 11
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 TABLE 3
CITY OF KINGSBURG
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Residential Land Use Projected
Residents
Projected
Housing Units
Average Household
Size
Single Family Residential 2,214 750 2.95
Multi-Family Residential 680 288 2.36
Total/Average 2,894 1,039 NA
As noted previously, DTA estimated City employees using employees-per-thousand- square-foot factors, provided by the City, of 4.00, 3.00, 1.00, and 0.50 employees per 1,000 building square feet of Retail, Office, Industrial and Institutional, respectively.
This resulted in a projection of 298 Retail employees, 548 Office employees, 343 Industrial employees, and 96 Institutional additional employees Citywide, as shown in Table 4 below.
Again, for many of the facilities considered in this Fee Study, EDUs are calculated based on the number of residents or employees (“Persons Served”) generated by each land use class. “Persons Served” equal Residents plus 50% of Employees, and is a customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees. For future Persons Served estimates, please reference Table 4 below.
TABLE 4
CITY OF KINGSBURG
FUTURE NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Non-Residential
Land Use
Future
Building S.F. Employees
per 1,000
Building S.F. Future
Employees
Persons Served
per 1,000
Building S.F. Future Persons
Served [1]
Retail 74,604 4.00 298 2.00 149
Office 182,652 3.00 548 1.50 274
Industrial 343,437 1.00 343 0.50 172
Institutional 192,942 0.50 96 0.25 48
Total/Average 793,635 NA 1,286 NA 643
[1]Persons served equal Residents plus 50% of employees.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Kingsburg Page 12
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016
3. EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT (EDU) AND EQUIVALENT BENEFIT UNIT (EBU) PROJECTIONS EDUs are a means of quantifying different land uses in terms of their equivalence to a residential dwelling unit, where equivalence is measured in terms of potential infrastructure use or benefit for each type of public facility. Since nearly all of the facilities proposed to be financed by the levy of impact fees will serve both residential and non-residential property, DTA projected the number of future EDUs based on the number of residents or employees generated by each land use class. For other facilities, different measures, such as trip generation rates and gallons per day, more accurately represent the benefit provided to each land use type. The EDU projections for each facility are shown in the fee derivation worksheets in Appendix A.
SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Kingsburg Page 13
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 Identification of the facilities to be financed is a critical component of any development impact fee program. In the broadest sense, the purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. “Public Facilities” per Government Code Section 66000 includes “public improvements, public services, and community amenities.” Government Code Section 66000 requires the identification of those facilities for which impact fees are going to be used as the key financing mechanism. Identification of the facilities may be made in an applicable general or specific plan, other public documents, or by reference to a Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”). DTA has worked closely with City staff to develop the list of facilities to be included in the Fee Study (the “Needs List”). Additionally, the Needs List was reviewed and approved by the City Council at a public hearing on October 21, 2015. For purposes of the City’s fee program, the Needs List is intended to be the official public document identifying the facilities eligible to be financed, in whole or in part, through the levy of a development impact fee on new development within the City. The Needs List is organized by facility element (or type) and includes a cost section consisting of six (6) columns, which are defined in Table 5 below:
TABLE 5
CITY OF KINGSBURG
NEEDS LIST
EXPLANATION OF COST SECTION
Column Title Contents Source
Total Cost for Facility
The total estimated facility cost including
engineering, design, construction, land
acquisition, and equipment (as applicable)
City
Offsetting Revenues
to New and Existing
Development
Share of Total Offsetting Revenues
allocated to new and existing development City
Net Cost to City
The difference between the Total Cost and
the Offsetting Revenues (column 1 plus
column 2)
Calculated by DTA
Percent of Cost
Allocated to New
Development
Net Cost Allocated to New Development
based on New Development’s Share of
Facilities
Calculated by DTA and
City
Net Cost Allocated to
New Development
The Net Cost to City Multiplied by the
Percentage Cost Allocated to New
Development
Calculated by DTA
Policy Background or
Objective
Identifies policy source or rationale for
facility need
City General Plan, Parks
Master Plan, Water
Master Plan, and Capital
Improvements Program
SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Kingsburg Page 14
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 DTA surveyed City staff and City consultants on required facilities needed to serve new development as a starting point for its fee calculations. The survey included the project description, justification, public benefit, estimated costs, and project financing for each proposed facility. Through discussions between DTA and City staff, the Needs List has gone through a series of revisions to fine-tune the needs, costs, and methodologies used in allocating the costs for each facility.
The final Needs List is shown on the following pages.
SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Kingsburg Page 15
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Kingsburg Page 16
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 17
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 There are many methods or ways of calculating fees, but they are all based on determining the cost of needed improvements and assigning those costs equitably to various types of development. Each of the fee calculations employs the concept of an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (“EDU”) or Equivalent Benefit Unit (“EBU”) to allocate benefit among the six (6) land use classes. EDUs are a means of quantifying different land uses in terms of their equivalence to a residential dwelling unit, where equivalence is measured in terms of potential infrastructure use or benefit for each type of public facility. For many of the facilities considered in this Fee Study, EDUs are calculated based on the number of residents or employees (“Persons Served”) generated by each land use class. For other facilities, different measures, such as number of vehicle trips, more accurately represent the benefit provided to each land use class. Table 6 below shows total existing and projected EDUs or EBUs by facility type.
Notably, “Persons Served” equal Residents plus 50% of Employees, and is a customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees.
TABLE 6
CITY OF KINGSBURG
EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS
Countywide Facility
Type Service Factor ExistingEDUs/EBUs
Projected
EDUs/EBUs
% Increase
(Existing to
Projected)
Total
Traffic Trip Generation Rate 11,999 3,157 26% 15,156
Water Gallons per Minute 4,304 1,083 25% 5,388
Public Safety Persons Served 4,733 1,199 25% 5,932
Parks and
Recreation Residents 3,924 981 25% 4,905
General Government Persons Served 4,733 1,199 25% 5,932 The following sections present the reasonable relationship for benefit, impact, and rough proportionality tests for each fee element (i.e., traffic facilities, water facilities, public safety facilities, parks and recreation facilities, and general government facilities) and the analysis undertaken to apportion costs for each type of facility on the Needs List. More detailed fee calculation worksheets for each type of facility are included in Appendix A.
Importantly, given that the level of service (“LOS”) requested for new development by the City is above the existing service level for certain types of facility, the cost of the new facilities has been carefully apportioned between existing and new development in the following manner:
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 18
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016
1. New development was assigned 100% of the cost for a LOS that is equivalent to the existing LOS within the City. 2. The cost of the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being requested by the City and the existing LOS was then allocated between existing development and new development, based on the relative number of EDUs assigned to existing development and new development.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 19
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 A. TRAFFIC FACILITIES
The Circulation Element of the General Plan includes facilities necessary to provide safe and efficient vehicular access throughout the City. In order to meet the traffic demand of new development through build out, the City identified the need for new road construction and equipment as shown in the Needs List.
TABLE 7
TRAFFIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
Identify Purpose of Fee Traffic Facilities.
Identify Use of Fee Various roadway improvements including, but not limited to, intersection and road widening
modifications. Demonstrate how there
is a reasonable
relationship between the
need for the public
facility, the use of the
fee, and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
New residential and non-residential development will
generate additional residents and employees who
will create additional vehicular and non-vehicular
traffic within the City limits. Streets will have to be improved or extended to meet the increased demand
and traffic signals will have to be installed to
efficiently direct increased traffic flow. Thus there is a relationship between new development and the
need for new traffic facilities. Fees collected from
new development will be used exclusively for traffic
facilities on the Needs List.
Table 8 below identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the fees collected for Traffic Facilities. The costs provided in Table 8 are based on estimates provided by the City.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 20
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 TABLE 8
TRAFFIC FACILITIES COSTS
Traffic Facilities Cost
Academy Parkway-Mountain View to Simpson $8,750,000
Caruthers-Bethel to Madsen $3,430,400
Bethel-SR 99 to Kern $2,176,000
Clarkson-Greenwood to Rd 12 $1,728,000
Kamm Ave-Simpson to 10th (Academy) $1,696,000
Kamm Avenue-10th Ave. (Academy) to Madsen $1,696,000
Kamm Avenue-Golden State Blvd to 10th Avenue $1,696,000 Madsen Avenue Widening - Kamm to Sierra $1,689,600
18th-Mountain View to Kamm $1,664,000
Stroud-10th to Simpson: 2 L to 4 L $960,000
Kern-Rafer Johnson Drive to Bethel: 2 L to 4 L $864,000 Kern-Rafer Johnson Drive to 10th $864,000
10th St (Academy)-Union St to Kamm Ave $840,000
Sierra St.-Bethel Ave. to RJD $364,000
Sierra Street / RJD Traffic Signal $300,000
10th Ave / Stroud Avenue Traffic Signal $300,000
Kamm Ave / Academy Ave Traffic Signal $300,000
Stroud Ave / 18th Ave Traffic Signal $300,000
Bethel Ave / Sierra Street Traffic Signal $300,000
Kamm / 18th Avenue Traffic Signal $300,000
10th Avenue-Mehlert Ave to Clarkson Ave $240,000
Madsen Avenue Bicycle Path - Stroud to Kamm $200,000
Total $30,658,000
Calculation Methodology
As discussed previously, Traffic Facilities benefit residents and employees by providing safe and efficient vehicular access throughout the City. As a result, the traffic fee is calculated for both residential and non-residential land uses, details of which may be found in Appendix A.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 21
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 Fees for roads and traffic signals were calculated for each of the six (6) land use categories based on the number of PM Peak Hour Trips generated by each land use. Total average trips were calculated by applying these trip rates to the various dwelling unit counts and non-residential square feet identified in the demographics section of this report. The total facilities cost was then divided by the total number of trips to establish a uniform cost per trip. This unit cost was then applied to the various land uses and their respective trip generation rates to determine the proposed fees. Expected revenue from new development was also calculated as a check, ensuring that collected fees match the calculated cost responsibility of new development.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual provides trip generation rates for the different land uses. These rates are generally confirmed by various local studies, including the Traffic Impact Study performed for the City by Peters Engineering in 2011. Accordingly, 79.17% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 20.83% of the costs will be allocated to new development. TABLE 9
TRAFFIC FACILITIES
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 79.17% $24,272,416
New Development 20.83% $6,385,584
Total 100.00% $30,658,000
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 22
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 Fee Amounts
Fee amounts to finance Traffic Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table 10. Again, details regarding the analysis related to Traffic Facilities are included in Appendix A. TABLE 10
TRAFFIC FACILITIES
FEE DERIVATION SUMMARY
Land Use Type
Trip Generation Rate
per Unit/ per 1,000
Non-Res. S.F.
Fee per Unit/per
1,000 Non-Res.
S.F.
Number of
Units/Non-Res.
1,000 S.F.
Cost Financed
By Fees
Single Family Residential 1.00 $2,023 750 $1,517,853
Multi-Family Residential 1.00 $2,023 288 $583,161
Retail 1.87 $7,545 75 $562,891
Office 1.87 $7,545 183 $1,378,112
Industrial 1.08 $4,369 343 $1,500,557
Institutional 0.54 $4,369 193 $843,009
Initial Allocation to New Development: $6,385,584
Offsetting Revenues ($684,468)
Total Allocated to New Development: $5,701,116
Total Allocated to Existing Development $24,272,416
Total Facilities Costs: $29,973,532
Based on the development projections in Appendix A, the fee amounts presented in Table 10 will finance 19.02% of the net costs of the traffic facilities identified on the Needs List. The remaining 80.98% of the net costs of facilities will be funded through other sources.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 23
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 B. WATER FACILITIES
The Water Facilities category includes those facilities used by the City to provide basic water supply and distribution services to residents and employees within the City.
TABLE 11
WATER FACILITIES ELEMENT
Identify Purpose of Fee Water Facilities.
Identify Use of Fee Improvements to certain facilities including but not limited to, water storage, supply, and distribution facilities.
Demonstrate how there is
a reasonable relationship
between the need for the
public facility, the use of
the fee, and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
New residential and non-residential development will generate an increased demand for Water Facilities.
Population and growth has a direct impact on the need for Water Facilities. Therefore, new development and the consequential increase in demand will necessitate the improvement/expansion of existing facilities. Notably, fees collected from new development will be used exclusively on Water Facilities identified in the Needs List.
Table 12 below identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the fees. The costs provided in Table 12 are based on estimates provided by the City.
TABLE 12
WATER FACILITIES COSTS
Water Facilities Cost
Four New 2,000 GPM Wells (Well 17-20) $9,000,000
Install 12-inch Water Mains $2,950,000
Install 8-inch Water Mains $2,300,000
Water Main Oversizing $1,000,000
Groundwater Monitoring and Master Planning $300,000
Total $15,550,000
Calculation Methodology
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non-residential land uses as detailed in Appendix A.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 24
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 The specific facilities required within the City were provided by the City’s engineer. Utilizing specific water related data found in City and County planning documents, including the Water and Sewer System Master Plan Update performed by the Fresno County Department of Public Works and Planning, as well as numerous discussions with City staff, DTA was subsequently able to determine the appropriate allocation of costs to new development. Accordingly, 79.89% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 20.11% of the costs will be allocated to new development as shown in Table 13 below.
TABLE 13
WATER FACILITIES
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 79.89% $12,422,910
New Development 20.11% $3,127,090
Total 100.00% $15,550,000
Fee Amounts
Fee amounts to finance Water Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table 14. Further details regarding on derivation of this fee are included in Appendix A.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 25
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 TABLE 14
WATER FACILITIES
FEE DERIVATION SUMMARY
Land Use Type
EDUs per
Unit/1,000
Non-Res. S.F.
Fee per Unit/per
1,000 Non-Res.
S.F.
Number of
Units/Non-Res.
1,000 S.F.
Cost Financed
By Fees
Single Family Residential 1.00 $2,368 750 $1,776,630
Multi-Family Residential 0.46 $1,090 288 $314,109
Retail 0.61 $1,439 75 $107,337
Office 0.61 $1,439 183 $262,791
Industrial 0.10 $237 343 $81,554
Institutional 0.05 $119 193 $22,908
Initial Allocation to New Development: $3,127,090
Offsetting Revenues ($561,760)
Total Allocated to New Development: $2,565,329
Total Allocated to Existing Development $12,422,910
Total Facilities Costs: $14,988,240
Based on the development projections in Appendix A, the fee amounts presented in Table 14 will finance 17.12% of the net costs of the Water Facilities identified on the Needs List. The remaining 82.88% of the net costs of facilities will be funded through other sources.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 26
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 C. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
The Public Safety Facilities category includes those facilities required within the City to maintain adequate public safety services, including police and fire. In order to serve new development through build-out, the City identified the need for building expansion, and equipment and vehicle replacements.TABLE 15
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES ELEMENT
Identify Purpose of Fee Public Safety Facilities. Combined Police and Fire fees.
Identify Use of Fee Building expansion and replacement of vehicles and equipment. Demonstrate how there is a
reasonable relationship between
the need for the public facility, the
use of the fee, and the type of
development project on which the
fee is imposed
New residential and non-residential development will
generate additional residents and employees who will
increase service calls and in turn increase the need for trained public safety personnel. Equipment and vehicles used to provide these services will have to be purchased or replaced to meet this increased demand. Thus a
reasonable relationship exists between the need for Public Safety Facilities and the impact of residential and non- residential development. The Public Safety Facility fees collected from new development will be used exclusively for public safety purposes identified on the Needs List. Table 16 below identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the collection of Public Safety fees. The costs provided in Table 16 are based on estimates provided by the City.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 27
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 TABLE 16
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES COSTS
Public Safety Cost
Buildings - Main Station (12,000 sq. ft.) $4,491,849
Buildings - Westside Station (8,000 sq. ft.) $2,994,566 Vehicles and Equipment - Apparatus I (2 Vehicles) $918,145 Vehicles and Equipment - Apparatus II (1 Vehicle) $882,832 Vehicles and Equipment - Apparatus III (2 Vehicles) $452,010 Vehicles and Equipment - Apparatus IV (1 Vehicle) $254,256 Land - Main Station (3 Acres) $127,128
Police Station (Remainder of Principal and Interest) $222,337 Vehicles (6 @ $43,788) $262,731
Total $10,605,853
Calculation Methodology
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non-residential land uses as detailed in Appendix A. Each land use classification was assigned an EDU factor which was derived from the number of Persons Served, which again is defined as the persons per household (for residential units) and 50% of the number of employees per 1,000 building square feet of each category of non-residential development.
Importantly, given that the LOS requested for new development by the City is above the existing service level for certain types of facility, the cost of the new facilities has been carefully apportioned between existing and new development in the following manner:
1. New development was assigned 100% of the cost for a LOS that is equivalent to the existing LOS within the City. 2. The cost of the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being requested by the City and the existing LOS was then allocated between existing development and new development, based on the relative number of EDUs assigned to existing development and new development.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 28
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 Public Safety Facilities
According to the City, it has been determined that these facilities are needed to serve new development. Currently, existing facilities are generally operating at an appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore, the costs of the new facilities have been allocated to new development and existing development based on their percentage of the expected facility usage at build-out. Consequently, the costs will be allocated to both existing development and new development, as outlined in the tables below. TABLE 17
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES - FIRE STATION (BUILDING)
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 74.26% $5,559,041
New Development 25.74% $1,927,374
Total 100.00% $7,486,415
TABLE 18
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES - FIRE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 59.58% $1,493,705
New Development 40.42% $1,013,538
Total 100.00% $2,507,243
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 29
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 TABLE 19
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES - FIRE STATION (LAND)
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 72.21% $91,797
New Development 27.79% $35,331
Total 100.00% $127,128
TABLE 20
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES - POLICE STATION (REMAINDER OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST)
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 59.58% $132,459
New Development 40.42% $89,878
Total 100.00% $222,337
TABLE 21
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES – POLICE VEHICLES
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 23.26% $61,116
New Development 76.74% $201,615
Total 100.00% $262,731
Fee Amounts
Fee amounts to finance Public Safety Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table
22. Please refer to Appendix A for details regarding the derivation of this fee.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 30
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 TABLE 22
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
FEE DERIVATION SUMMARY
Land Use Type
EDUs per
Unit/1,000
Non-Res. S.F.
Fee per Unit/per
1,000 Non-Res.
S.F.
Number of
Units/Non-Res.
1,000 S.F.
Cost Financed
By Fees
Single Family Residential 1.00 $2,725 750 $2,045,018
Multi-Family Residential 0.80 $2,180 288 $628,559
Retail 0.68 $1,848 75 $137,845
Office 0.51 $1,386 183 $253,112
Industrial 0.17 $462 343 $158,640
Institutional 0.08 $231 193 $44,562
Initial Allocation to New Development: $3,267,736
Offsetting Revenues $0
Total Allocated to New Development: $3,267,736
Total Allocated to Existing Development $7,338,117
Total Facilities Costs: $10,605,853
Based on the development projections in Appendix A, the fee amounts presented in Table 22 will finance 30.81% of the net costs of the Public Safety Facilities identified on the Needs List. The remaining 69.19% of the net costs of facilities will be funded through other sources.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 31
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 D. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
The Parks and Recreation Facilities category identifies facilities will serve the City’s residents by enhancing the community’s appeal and quality of life. The Fee Study includes (i) the acquisition of parkland and recreational areas needed for park and recreational facilities, and (ii) construction of park and recreational facilities, including, sports fields, ball fields, soccer fields, trails, restrooms, and park beautification needed to serve new and existing residential development through build out The Parks and Recreation Facilities will serve only the residents of the City by providing facilities for recreation while enhancing the community’s appeal and quality of life.
TABLE 23
PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
Identify Purpose of Fee Parks and Recreation Facilities. Combined fee for Specialized Recreation and, Recreation Area
Acquisition and Improvement.
Identify Use of Fee Construction of Parks and Recreation Facilities, including, but not limited to a ball park complex, a
skateboard facility, bike pathways, playground area,
and related facilities.
Demonstrate how there is a
reasonable relationship
between the need for the
public facility, the use of the
fee, and the type of
development project on which
the fee is imposed
New residential development will generate an
increased demand for Park and Recreational Facilities.
Population growth has a direct impact on the need for
Park and Recreation facilities. New development and
the consequential increase in demand will necessitate
the improvement/expansion of existing Park and
Recreational Facilities. Fees collected from new
development will be used exclusively for the
improvement of Park and Recreation Facilities on the
Needs List.
Table 24 below identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the collection of Parks and Recreation fees. Costs are based on estimates provided by the City.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 32
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 TABLE 24
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES COSTS
Parks and Recreation Cost
Ball Park Complex $2,768,468
Community Park - Improvements (20 Acres) $1,384,234
Skateboard Facility $692,117
Community Park - Land (20 Acres) $830,540
Bike Pathways $103,818
Athwal Park/Playground Area and Restrooms $335,000
Skate Park Land Acquisition $250,000
Regional Sports Park Land and Skate Park Acquisition
and Development $3,900,000
Upgrade Downtown Park Arbor and Restrooms $266,700
Crandell Swim Complex Replaster $300,000
Total $10,830,876
Calculation Methodology
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for residential land uses only, as detailed in Appendix A. Each land use classification was assigned an EDU factor which was derived from the number of persons per household.
Importantly, given that the LOS requested for new development by the City is above the existing service level for certain types of facility, the cost of the new facilities has been carefully apportioned between existing and new development in the following manner:
1. New development was assigned 100% of the cost for a LOS that is equivalent to the existing LOS within the City. 2. The cost of the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being requested by the City and the existing LOS was then allocated between existing development and new development, based on the relative number of EDUs assigned to existing development and new development.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 33
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 Parks and Recreation Facilities
According to the City, it has been determined that these facilities are needed to serve new development. Currently, these facilities are operating at an appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore, the costs of facilities have been allocated to new development and existing development based on their percentage of the expected facility usage at build-out. Consequently, 60.00% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 40.00% of the costs will be allocated to new development, as presented in Table 25 below.
Table 25
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 60.00% $6,498,491
New Development 40.00% $4,332,385
Total 100.00% $10,830,876
Fee Amounts
Fee amounts to finance Parks and Recreation Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table 26. Further details on the derivation of this fee are included in Appendix A.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 34
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 TABLE 26
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
FEE DERIVATION SUMMARY
Land Use Type
EDUs per
Unit/1,000 Non- Res. S.F.
Fee per Unit/per
1,000 Non-Res.
S.F.
Number of
Units/Non-Res.
1,000 S.F.
Cost Financed
By Fees
Single Family Residential 1.00 $3,876 750 $2,908,163
Multi-Family Residential 0.80 $3,100 288 $893,856
Retail 0.00 N/A N/A N/A
Office 0.00 N/A N/A N/A
Industrial 0.00 N/A N/A N/A
Institutional 0.00 N/A N/A N/A
Initial Allocation to New Development: $4,332,385
Offsetting Revenues ($530,365)
Total Allocated to New Development: $3,802,020
Total Allocated to Existing Development $6,498,491
Total Facilities Costs: $10,300,511
Based on the development projections in Appendix A, the fee amounts presented in Table 26 will finance 36.91% of the net costs of the Parks and Recreation Facilities identified on the Needs List. The remaining 63.09% of the net costs of facilities will be funded through other sources.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 35
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 E. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
The General Government Facilities category includes library facilities and other facilities used by the City to provide general governmental services. TABLE 27
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES ELEMENT
Identify Purpose of Fee General Government Facilities. Combined fee for Corporate Yard, City Hall, and Library).
Identify Use of Fee Acquisition and renovation of library facilities and other facilities used by the City to provide general governmental services. Table 28 below identifies those facilities that serve all residents, employees, and development within the City, regardless of location.
Demonstrate how
there is a reasonable
relationship between
the need for the public
facility, the use of the
fee, and the type of
development project
on which the fee is
imposed
New residential and non-residential development in the City will generate additional residents and employees who will increase the demand for library facilities and general
government functions. Population and growth has a direct impact on the need for government services and facilities, thus a reasonable relationship exists between new development and government facilities, which will have to be acquired to meet the increased demand. Fees collected from new
development will be used exclusively for General Government Facilities on the Needs List.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 36
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 Table 28 below identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the fees.
TABLE 28
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES COST
General Government Cost
City Hall Expansion - Buildings (13,200 sq. ft.) $5,481,566 Buildings - Equipment Storage (10,000 sq. ft.) $1,937,927 Buildings - Shop/Office (6,000 sq. ft.) $1,162,756
Corporate Yard Expansion - Land (8 Acres) $332,216
City Hall Expansion - Land (4 Acres) $166,108
Buildings (11,057 sq. ft.) $7,184,174
Volumes (25,559 volumes) $884,525
Land (2 Acres) $83,054
Total $17,232,327
Calculation Methodology
According to the City, it has been determined that these facilities are needed to serve new development. Currently, these facilities are generally operating at an appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore, the costs of facilities have been allocated to new development and existing development based on their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.
Importantly, given that the LOS requested for new development by the City is above the existing service level for certain types of facility, the cost of the new facilities has been carefully apportioned between existing and new development in the following manner:
1. New development was assigned 100% of the cost for a LOS that is equivalent to the existing LOS within the City. 2. The cost of the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being requested by the City and the existing LOS was then allocated between existing development and new development, based on the relative number of EDUs assigned to existing development and new development.
General Government Facilities
According to the City, it has been determined that these facilities are needed to serve new development. As the existing facilities are operating at an appropriate and SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 37
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 acceptable level of service, the cost of new facilities has been allocated to new development and existing development based on their percentage of the expected facility usage at build-out. Consequently, the costs will be allocated to both existing development and new development, as presented in Table 29 below.
TABLE 29
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES - BUILDINGS
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 79.79% $5,798,361
New Development 20.21% $1,468,867
Total 100.00% $7,267,228
TABLE 30
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES – CITY HALL EXPANSION (BUILDING)
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 76.28% $4,181,493
New Development 23.72% $1,300,073
Total 100.00% $5,481,566
TABLE 31
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES – EQUIPMENT STORAGE
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 61.28% $1,900,208
New Development 38.72% $1,200,475
Total 100.00% $3,100,684
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 38
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 TABLE 32
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES – VOLUMES
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 62.71% $554,717
New Development 37.29% $329,808
Total 100.00% $884,525
TABLE 33
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES – CORPORATE YARD EXPANSION
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type
Percentage
Allocated to New
Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 74.48% $247,442
New Development 25.52% $84,775
Total 100.00% $332,216
TABLE 34
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES – CITY HALL EXPANSION (LAND)
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Development Type Percentage Allocated
to New Development
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 79.43% $131,946
New Development 20.57% $34,162
Total 100.00% $166,108
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 39
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 Fee Amounts
Fee amounts to finance General Government Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table 35. Details regarding the analysis related to General Government Facilities are included in Appendix A.
TABLE 35
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
FEE DERIVATION SUMMARY
Land Use Type
EDUs per
Unit/1,000
Non-Res. S.F.
Fee per Unit/per
1,000 Non-Res.
S.F.
Number of
Units/Non-Res.
1,000 S.F.
Cost Financed
By Fees
Single Family Residential 1.00 $3,330 750 $2,498,722
Multi-Family Residential 0.80 $2,664 288 $768,010
Retail 0.68 $2,258 75 $168,427
Office 0.51 $1,693 183 $309,267
Industrial 0.17 $564 343 $193,836
Institutional 0.08 $282 193 $54,448
Initial Allocation to New Development: $4,418,160
Offsetting Revenues ($425,450)
Total Allocated to New Development: $3,992,710
Total Allocated to Existing Development $12,814,168
Total Facilities Costs: $16,806,877
Based on the development projections in Appendix A, the fee amounts presented in Table 35 will finance 23.76% of the net costs of the General Government facilities identified on the Needs List. The remaining 76.24% of the net costs of facilities will be funded through other sources.
SECTION VI: SUMMARY OF FEES
City of Kingsburg Page 40
Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 27, 2016 The total fee amounts required to finance new development’s “fair share” of the costs of facilities in the Needs Lists are summarized in Table 36 below.
TABLE 36
CITY OF KINGSBURG
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
Fees Per Unit/1,000 Square Feet
Traffic Water Public
Safety
Parks
and Rec.
Gen.
Gov. Admin. TotalFees [1]
Single Family Residential
$2,023 per
PM Peak
Hour Trip
$2,368 $2,725 $3,876 $3,330 $369 $12,668
Multi-Family Residential $1,090 $2,180 $3,100 $2,664 $271 $9,305 Retail $1,439 $1,848 N/A $2,258 $166 $5,710
Office $1,439 $1,386 N/A $1,693 $136 $4,653
Industrial $237 $462 N/A $564 $38 $1,302
Institutional $119 $231 N/A $282 $19 $651
[1] Full Single Family Residential fee load equals $15,356 when including $2,083 for Traffic fee and $605 for Stormwater/Drainage.
Appendix A
Fee Derivation Worksheets
{1} {2} {3} {4} {5} {6}
Facility Name Total Cost for
Facility
Off-setting
Revenues Net Cost to City
Percent of Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
Cost Allocated to
New Development
Policy Background or
Objective
A. TRAFFIC FACILITIES
1 Academy Parkway-Mountain View to Simpson $8,750,000 $0 $8,750,000 20.83% $1,822,489 Council Objective 2 Caruthers-Bethel to Madsen $3,430,400 $0 $3,430,400 20.83% $714,499 Council Objective 3 Bethel-SR 99 to Kern $2,176,000 $0 $2,176,000 20.83% $453,227 Council Objective 4 Clarkson-Greenwood to Rd 12 $1,728,000 $0 $1,728,000 20.83% $359,915 Council Objective 5 Kamm Ave-Simpson to 10th (Academy) $1,696,000 $0 $1,696,000 20.83% $353,250 Council Objective 6 Kamm Avenue-10th Ave. (Academy) to Madsen $1,696,000 $0 $1,696,000 20.83% $353,250 Council Objective 7 Kamm Avenue-Golden State Blvd to 10th Avenue $1,696,000 $0 $1,696,000 20.83% $353,250 Council Objective 8 Madsen Avenue Widening - Kamm to Sierra $1,689,600 $0 $1,689,600 20.83% $351,917 Council Objective 9 18th-Mountain View to Kamm $1,664,000 $0 $1,664,000 20.83% $346,585 Council Objective 10 Stroud-10th to Simpson: 2 L to 4 L $960,000 $0 $960,000 20.83% $199,953 Council Objective 11 Kern-Rafer Johnson Dr to Bethel: 2 L to 4 L $864,000 $0 $864,000 20.83% $179,958 Council Objective 12 Kern-Rafer Johnson Drive to 10th $864,000 $0 $864,000 20.83% $179,958 Council Objective 13 10th St (Academy)-Union St to Kamm Ave $840,000 $0 $840,000 20.83% $174,959 Council Objective 14 Sierra St.-Bethel Ave. to RJD $364,000 $0 $364,000 20.83% $75,816 Council Objective 15 Sierra Street / RJD Traffic Signal $300,000 $0 $300,000 20.83% $62,485 Council Objective 16 10th Ave / Stroud Avenue Traffic Signal $300,000 $0 $300,000 20.83% $62,485 Council Objective 17 Kamm Ave / Academy Ave Traffic Signal $300,000 $0 $300,000 20.83% $62,485 Council Objective 18 Stroud Ave / 18th Ave Traffic Signal $300,000 $0 $300,000 20.83% $62,485 Council Objective 19 Bethel Ave / Sierra Street Traffic Signal $300,000 $0 $300,000 20.83% $62,485 Council Objective 20 Kamm / 18th Avenue Traffic Signal $300,000 $0 $300,000 20.83% $62,485 Council Objective 21 10th Avenue-Mehlert Ave to Clarkson Ave $240,000 $0 $240,000 20.83% $49,988 Council Objective 22 Madsen Avenue Bicycle Path - Stroud to Kamm $200,000 $0 $200,000 20.83% $41,657 Council Objective 23 Traffic Facilities Revenues not yet Committed ($684,468) ($684,468) ($684,468) TOTAL TRAFFIC FACILITIES $30,658,000 ($684,468) $29,973,532 19.02% $5,701,116 B. WATER FACILITIES
1 Four New 2,000 GPM Wells (Well 17-20) $9,000,000 $0 $9,000,000 20.11% $1,809,891 Water Master Plan 2 Install 12-inch Water Mains $2,950,000 $0 $2,950,000 20.11% $593,242 Water Master Plan 3 Install 8-inch Water Mains $2,300,000 $0 $2,300,000 20.11% $462,528 Water Master Plan 4 Water Mains Oversizing $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 20.11% $201,099 Water Master Plan 5 Groundwater Monitoring and Master Planning $300,000 $0 $300,000 20.11% $60,330 Water Master Plan 6 Water Facilities Revenues not yet Committed ($561,760) ($561,760) ($561,760) TOTAL WATER FACILITIES $15,550,000 ($561,760) $14,988,240 17.12% $2,565,329 C. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
1. Fire Facilities
1 Buildings - Main Station (12,000 sq. ft.) $4,491,849 $0 $4,491,849 25.74% $1,156,424 Council Objective 2 Buildings - Westside Station (8,000 sq. ft.) $2,994,566 $0 $2,994,566 25.74% $770,950 Council Objective 3 Vehicles and Equipment - Apparatus I (2 Vehicles) $918,145 $0 $918,145 40.42% $371,155 Council Objective 4 Vehicles and Equipment - Apparatus II (1 Vehicle) $882,832 $0 $882,832 40.42% $356,880 Council Objective 5 Vehicles and Equipment - Apparatus III (2 Vehicles) $452,010 $0 $452,010 40.42% $182,722 Council Objective 6 Vehicles and Equipment - Apparatus IV (1 Vehicle) $254,256 $0 $254,256 40.42% $102,781 Council Objective 7 Land - Main Station (3 Acres) $127,128 $0 $127,128 27.79% $35,331 Council Objective
2. Police Facilities
1 Police Station (Remainder of Principal and Interest) $222,337 $0 $222,337 40.42% $89,878 Council Objective 2 Vehicles (6 @ $43,788) $262,731 $0 $262,731 76.74% $201,615 Council Objective 3 Public Safety Facilities Revenues not yet Committed $0 $0 $0 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES $10,605,853 $0 $10,605,853 30.81% $3,267,736
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
CITY OF KINGSBURG
PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS LIST THROUGH 2035
{1} {2} {3} {4} {5} {6}
Facility Name Total Cost for
Facility
Off-setting
Revenues Net Cost to City
Percent of Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
Cost Allocated to
New Development
Policy Background or
Objective
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
CITY OF KINGSBURG
PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS LIST THROUGH 2035
D. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES (FUND NOS. _____ AND ____ TO BE COLLAPSED) 1 Ball Park Complex $2,768,468 $0 $2,768,468 40.00% $1,107,396 Parks Master Plan 2 Community Park - Improvements (20 Acres) $1,384,234 $0 $1,384,234 40.00% $553,698 Parks Master Plan 3 Skateboard Facility $692,117 $0 $692,117 40.00% $276,849 Parks Master Plan 4 Community Park - Land (20 Acres) $830,540 $0 $830,540 40.00% $332,219 Parks Master Plan 5 Bike Pathways $103,818 $0 $103,818 40.00% $41,527 Parks Master Plan 6 Athwal Park/Playground Area and Restrooms $335,000 $0 $335,000 40.00% $134,001 Capital Improvement Program 7 Skate Park Land Acquisition $250,000 $0 $250,000 40.00% $100,001 Capital Improvement Program 8 Regional Sports Park Land and Skate Park Acquisition and Development $3,900,000 $0 $3,900,000 40.00% $1,560,013 Capital Improvement Program 9 Upgrade Downtown Park Arbor and Restrooms $266,700 $0 $266,700 40.00% $106,681 Capital Improvement Program 10 Crandell Swim Complex Replaster $300,000 $0 $300,000 40.00% $120,001 Capital Improvement Program 11 Parks and Recreation Facilities Revenues not yet Committed ($530,365) ($530,365) ($530,365) TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES $10,830,876 ($530,365) $10,300,511 36.91% $3,802,020 E. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES (FUND NOS. _____, _____ AND ____ TO BE COLLAPSED) 1 Buildings (11,057 sq. ft.) $7,184,174 $0 $7,184,174 20.21% $1,452,080 Council Objective 2 City Hall Expansion - Buildings (13,200 sq. ft.) $5,481,566 $0 $5,481,566 23.72% $1,300,073 Council Objective 3 Buildings - Equipment Storage (10,000 sq. ft.) $1,937,927 $0 $1,937,927 38.72% $750,297 Council Objective 4 Buildings - Shop/Office (6,000 sq. ft.) $1,162,756 $0 $1,162,756 38.72% $450,178 Council Objective 5 Volumes (25,559 volumes) $884,525 $0 $884,525 37.29% $329,808 Council Objective 6 Corporate Yard Expansion - Land (8 Acres) $332,216 $0 $332,216 25.52% $84,775 Council Objective 7 City Hall Expansion - Land (4 Acres) $166,108 $0 $166,108 20.57% $34,162 Council Objective 8 Land (2 Acres) $83,054 $0 $83,054 20.21% $16,787 Council Objective 9 General Government Revenues not yet Committed ($425,450) ($425,450) ($425,450) TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES $17,232,327 ($425,450) $16,806,877 23.76% $3,992,710 TOTAL ALL FACILITIES $84,877,057 ($2,202,044) $82,675,014 23.38% $19,328,911 I. Existing EDU Calculation
Total
PM PHTs
Land Use Type (per Unit/1,000 S.F.)
Single Family Residential 1.00 3,068 3,068
Multi Family Residential 1.00 1,070 1,070
Retail 3.73 276,892 1,033
Office 3.73 677,908 2,529
Industrial 2.16 1,274,658 2,753
Institutional 2.16 716,100 1,547
11,999
II. Future EDU Calculation
Total
PM PHTs
Land Use Type (per Unit/1,000 S.F.)
Single Family Residential 1.00 750 750
Multi Family Residential 1.00 288 288
Retail 3.73 74,604 278
Office 3.73 182,652 681
Industrial 2.16 343,437 742
Institutional 2.16 192,942 417
3,157
III. Proposed Facilities Cost
Facility
Cost
Traffic Facilities Cost $30,658,000
Offsetting Revenues Deducted Below
$30,658,000
IV. Allocation of Facilities to Existing and New Development (based on PM PHTs) Total Percentage of Facility
Number of PM PHTs Cost Allocated Cost
Existing Development 11,999 79.17% $24,272,416
New Development 3,157 20.83% $6,385,584
15,156 100% $30,658,000
Total
Facility
Total Facilities Cost
Development
Total Facilities Cost
Trip Generation Rate per Unit/ per 1,000 Non-Res.
S.F.
Number of Units
/Non-Res. S.F.
City of Kingsburg
Traffic Facilities Fee Calculation
Trip Generation Rate per Unit/ per 1,000 Non-Res.
S.F.
Number of Units
/Non-Res. S.F.
Total
City of Kingsburg
Traffic Facilities Fee Calculation
V. Allocation of Facilities to New Development (based on New EDUs) Facility Cost
Total Allocated to Cost per
Facility Number of PM PHTs New Development PM Peak Hour Trip Traffic Facilities Cost 3,157 $6,385,584 $2,022.80
3,157 $2,022.80
VI. Developer Fees and Cost Financed by Fees per Unit/per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
Estimated Trip Generation Rate per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. (Pass-Throughs Applied)
Fee per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res.
S.F. Cost Financed by DIF
Single Family Residential 1.00 $2,022.80 $1,517,853
Multi Family Residential 1.00 $2,022.80 $583,161
Retail 1.87 $3,772.51 $281,445
Office 1.87 $3,772.51 $689,056
Industrial 1.08 $2,184.62 $750,278
Institutional 0.54 $1,092.31 $210,752
$4,032,547
Offsetting Revenues ($684,468)
Total Allocated to New Development $3,348,079
$24,272,416
$28,304,963
[1] Source: Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (2012); Peters Engineering, various local traffic studies. * Estimate, subject to change. City will utilize ITE manual and PM Peak Hour rate arrived at above to actually calculate traffic fee; amounts noted in Box VI are only for discussion purposes.
Total Facilities Cost
Land Use Type
Initial Allocation to New Development
Total Allocated to Existing Development
Total Facilities Costs
I. Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units
Water Facilities Improvements - Integrated Facility Water Facilities NA NA II. Existing EDU Calculation
[a] [b] [c] [d]
Water Demand (GPD) Estimated Number of Total per Unit/ EDUs per Unit/ Units/ Number of EDUs Land Use Type per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. [b]*[c] Single Family Residential 339 1.00 3,068 3,068
Multi Family Residential 156 0.46 1,070 492 Retail 206 0.61 277 168 Office 206 0.61 678 412 Industrial 34 0.10 1,275 128
Institutional 17 0.05 716 36 Total 4,304
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units per 1,000 EDU's
Water Facilities Improvements - Integrated Facility - Water Facilities NA NA NA III. Future EDU Calculation
[a] [b] [c] [d]
Water Demand (GPD) Estimated Number of Total per Unit/ EDUs per Unit/ Units/ Number of EDUs Land Use Type per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. [b]*[c] Single Family Residential 339 1.00 750 750 Multi Family Residential 156 0.46 288 133 Retail 206 0.61 75 45 Office 206 0.61 183 111 Industrial 34 0.10 343 34
Institutional 17 0.05 193 10 Total 1,083
IV. Proposed Inventory, Cost, and Service Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units Facility Cost per 1,000 EDU's Water Facilities Improvements 1 Integrated Facility $15,550,000 0.92 Offsetting Revenues ($561,760) Total Cost of Water Facilities $14,988,240 City of Kingsburg
Water Facilities Fee Calculation
City of Kingsburg
Water Facilities Fee Calculation
V. Allocation of Water Facilities to Existing & New Development (based on total EDUs) A.1 Water Facilities Improvements
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Integrated Facility Allocated 100% Proposed Service Integrated Facility per 1,000 Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Total Proposed Integrated Facility EDU's To New Development Standard per EDU's Beyond Existing Service Standard New Integrated Facility 1,000 EDUs [a]*[b]/1,000 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.00 1,083.49 0.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 A.2 Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility Units Split Facility Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units Development EDU's EDU's Existing Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,304 79.89% 0.80 NA 0.80 New Development 1,083 20.11% 0.20 0.00 0.20 Total 5,388 100.00% 1.00 1.00 A.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Integrated Facility Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 0.80 79.89% $12,422,910
New Development 0.20 20.11% $3,127,090 Total 1.00 100.00% $15,550,000 Cost Allocated Total Cost per
Facility Type to New Development Future EDU's EDU Water Facilities Improvements $3,127,090 1,083 $2,886.13 Offsetting Revenues ($561,760) 1,083 ($518.47) Total $2,565,329 $2,367.66 VII. Development Impact Fee per Unit or per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
EDUs per Fees per Number of Units/ Cost Financed by
Land Use Type Unit/1,000 Non-Res. S.F. Unit/1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. DIF Single Family Residential 1.00 $2,368 750 $1,776,630 Multi Family Residential 0.46 $1,090 288 $314,109 Retail 0.61 $1,439 75 $107,337 Office 0.61 $1,439 183 $262,791 Industrial 0.10 $237 343 $81,554
Institutional 0.05 $119 193 $22,908
Total Allocated to New Development $2,565,329
Outside Funding Responsibility $12,422,910 Total Cost of Water Facilities $14,988,240 VI. Summary Cost Data
I. Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units
Land - Station 65,340 Square Feet
Buildings (Station, Storage, Garage) 5,475 Square Feet
Apparatus I 1 Integrated Facility
Apparatus II 1 Integrated Facility
Apparatus III 1 Integrated Facility
Apparatus IV 1 Integrated Facility
Police Station Improvements 1 Integrated Facility Vehicles 17 No. of Vehicles Public Safety Facilities NA NA II. Existing EDU Calculation
[a] [d] Number of [b] [c] Total Units/ persons Served per Unit/ EDUs per Unit/ Number of EDUs Land Use Type 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. [a]*[c] Single Family Residential 3,068 2.95 1.00 3,068
Multi Family Residential 1,070 2.36 0.80 856 Retail 277 2.00 0.68 188 Office 678 1.50 0.51 345 Industrial 1,275 0.50 0.17 216
Institutional 716 0.25 0.08 61 Total 4,733
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units per 1,000 EDU's
Land - Station 65,340 Square Feet 13,804.75
Buildings (Station, Storage, Garage) 5,475 Square Feet 1,156.66 Apparatus I 1 Integrated Facility 0.21 Apparatus II 1 Integrated Facility 0.21 Apparatus III 1 Integrated Facility 0.21 Apparatus IV 1 Integrated Facility 0.21 Police Station Improvements 1 Integrated Facility 0.21 Vehicles 17 No. of Vehicles 3.59 Public Safety Facilities NA NA NA III. Future EDU Calculation
[a] [b] [d] Number of Residents per Unit/ [c] Total Units/ Employees per EDUs per Number of EDUs Land Use Type 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. Unit/per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. [a]*[c] Single Family Residential 750 2.95 1.00 750 Multi Family Residential 288 2.36 0.80 231 Retail 75 2.00 0.68 51 Office 183 1.50 0.51 93 Industrial 343 0.50 0.17 58
Institutional 193 0.25 0.08 16 Total 1,199
IV. Proposed Inventory, Cost, and Service Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units Facility Cost per 1,000 EDU's Land - Station 174,240 Square Feet $127,128 145,318.27
Buildings (Station, Storage, Garage) 20,000 Square Feet $7,486,415 16,680.24 Apparatus I 1 Integrated Facility $918,145 0.83 Apparatus II 1 Integrated Facility $882,832 0.83 Apparatus III 1 Integrated Facility $452,010 0.83 Apparatus IV 1 Integrated Facility $254,256 0.83 Police Station Improvements 1 Integrated Facility $222,337 0.83 Vehicles 6 No. of Vehicles $262,731 5.00 Offsetting Revenues $0 Total Cost of Public Safety Facilities $10,605,853
V. Allocation of Public Safety Facilities to Existing & New Development (based on total EDUs) A.1 Land - Station [a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Square Feet Allocated 100% Proposed Service Square Feet per EDU Square Feet Beyond Existing Total Proposed Square Feet EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Service Standard New Square Feet per 1,000 EDUs [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 13,804.75 1,199.02 16,552.22 145,318.27 131,513.52 157,687.78 174,240.00 City of Kingsburg
Public Safety Fee Calculation
City of Kingsburg
Public Safety Fee Calculation
A.2 Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility Units Split Facility Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 125,815.61 NA 125,815.61 New Development 1,199 20.21% 31,872.17 16,552.22 48,424.39 Total 5,932 100.00% 157,687.78 174,240.00 A.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Square Feet Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 125,815.61 72.21% $91,797
New Development 48,424.39 27.79% $35,331 Total 174,240 100.00% $127,128 B.1 Buildings (Station, Storage, Garage)
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Square Feet Allocated 100% Proposed Service Square Feet per EDU Square Feet Beyond Total Proposed Square Feet per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 1,156.66 1,199.02 1,386.87 16,680.24 15,523.58 18,613.13 20,000.00 B.2 Square Feet Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Square Feet allocated 100% to New Development Square Feet Split Square Feet Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Square Feet Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 14,851.01 NA 14,851.01 New Development 1,199 20.21% 3,762.12 1,386.87 5,148.99 Total 5,932 100.00% 18,613.13 20,000.00 B.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development New Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 14,851.01 74.26% $5,559,041
New Development 5,148.99 25.74% $1,927,374 Total 20,000.00 100.00% $7,486,415 C.1 Apparatus I
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100% Proposed Service Integrated Facility per EDU Integrated Facility Beyond Total Proposed Integrated Facility per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.21 1,199.02 0.25 0.83 0.62 0.75 1.00 C.2 Square Feet Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Square Feet allocated 100% to New Development Square Feet Split Square Feet Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Square Feet Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 0.60 NA 0.60 New Development 1,199 20.21% 0.15 0.25 0.40 Total 5,932 100.00% 0.75 1.00 C.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 0.60 59.58% $546,991
New Development 0.40 40.42% $371,155 Total 1.00 100.00% $918,145 D.1 Apparatus II
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100% Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed Facility Units per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.21 1,199.02 0.25 0.83 0.62 0.75 1.00 D.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility Units Split Facility Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 0.60 NA 0.60 New Development 1,199 20.21% 0.15 0.25 0.40 Total 5,932 100.00% 0.75 1.00 City of Kingsburg
Public Safety Fee Calculation
D.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 0.60 59.58% $525,952
New Development 0.40 40.42% $356,880 Total 1.00 100.00% $882,832 E.1 Apparatus III
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100% Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed Facility Units per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.21 1,199.02 0.25 0.83 0.62 0.75 1.00 E.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility Units Split Facility Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 0.60 NA 0.60 New Development 1,199 20.21% 0.15 0.25 0.40 Total 5,932 100.00% 0.75 1.00 E.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 0.60 59.58% $269,288
New Development 0.40 40.42% $182,722 Total 1.00 100.00% $452,010 F.1 Apparatus IV
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100% Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed Facility Units per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.21 1,199.02 0.25 0.83 0.62 0.75 1.00 F.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility Units Split Facility Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 0.60 NA 0.60 New Development 1,199 20.21% 0.15 0.25 0.40 Total 5,932 100.00% 0.75 1.00 F.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 0.60 59.58% $151,474
New Development 0.40 40.42% $102,781 Total 1.00 100.00% $254,256 G.1 Police Station Improvements
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100% Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed Facility Units per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.21 1,199.02 0.25 0.83 0.62 0.75 1.00 City of Kingsburg
Public Safety Fee Calculation
G.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility Units Split Facility Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 0.60 NA 0.60 New Development 1,199 20.21% 0.15 0.25 0.40 Total 5,932 100.00% 0.75 1.00 G.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 0.60 59.58% $132,459
New Development 0.40 40.42% $89,878 Total 1.00 100.00% $222,337 H.1 Vehicles [a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Units Allocated 100% Proposed Service No. of Vehicles per EDU No. of Vehicles Beyond Total Proposed No. of Vehicles per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New No. of Vehicles 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 3.59 1,199.02 4.31 5.00 1.41 1.69 6.00 H.2 No. of Vehicles Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus No. of Vehicles allocated 100% to New Development No. of Vehicles Split No. of Vehicles Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total No. of Vehicles Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 1.35 NA 1.35 New Development 1,199 20.21% 0.15 4.31 4.46 Total 5,932 100.00% 1.50 5.81 H.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 1.35 23.26% $61,116
New Development 4.46 76.74% $201,615 Total 5.81 100.00% $262,731 Cost Allocated Total Cost per
Facility Type to New Development Future EDU's EDU
Public Safety Facilities $3,267,736 1,199 $2,725.33
Offsetting Revenues $0 1,199 $0.00 Total $3,267,736 $2,725.33 VII. Development Impact Fee per Unit or per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
EDUs per Fees per Number of Units/ Cost Financed by
Land Use Type Unit/1,000 Non-Res. S.F. Unit/1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. DIF Single Family Residential 1.00 $2,725 750 $2,045,018 Multi Family Residential 0.80 $2,180 288 $628,559 Retail 0.68 $1,848 75 $137,845 Office 0.51 $1,386 183 $253,112 Industrial 0.17 $462 343 $158,640
Institutional 0.08 $231 193 $44,562
Total Allocated to New Development $3,267,736
Outside Funding Responsibility $7,338,117
Total Cost of Public Safety Facilities $10,605,853
VI. Summary Cost Data
I. Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units
Ball Park Complex 40 Acres Community Park - Improvements 20 Acres Community Park - Land 20 Acres Skateboard & Bicycle Pathway Improvements 1 Integrated Facility Playground, Parks, and Swimming Complex Improvements 1 Integrated Facility Parks Land and Skate Park Acquisitions & Development 1 Integrated Facility Parks & Recreation Facilities NA NA II. Existing EDU Calculation
[a] [b] [d] Number of Residents per Unit/ [c] Total Units/ Persons Served per EDUs per Unit/ Number of EDUs Land Use Type 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. [a]*[c] Single Family Residential 3,068 2.95 1.00 3,068
Multi Family Residential 1,070 2.36 0.80 856 Retail 0 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0
Institutional 0 0 0 0 Total 3,924
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units per 1,000 EDU's
Ball Park Complex 40 Acres 10.19 Community Park - Improvements 20 Acres 5.10 Community Park - Land 20 Acres 5.10 Skateboard & Bicycle Pathway Improvements 1 Integrated Facility 0.25 Playground, Parks, and Swimming Complex Improvements 1 Integrated Facility 0.25 Parks Land and Skate Park Acquisitions & Development 1 Integrated Facility 0.25 Parks & Recreation Facilities NA NA NA III. Future EDU Calculation
[a] [b] [d] Number of Residents per Unit/ [c] Total Units/Non-Res. Persons Served per EDUs per Number of EDUs Land Use Type 1,000 S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. Unit/per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. [a]*[c] Single Family Residential 750 2.95 1.00 750 Multi Family Residential 288 2.36 0.80 231 Retail 0 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0
Institutional 0 0 0 0 Total 981
IV. Proposed Inventory, Cost, and Service Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units Facility Cost per 1,000 EDU's Ball Park Complex 40 Acres $2,768,468 40.77 Community Park - Improvements 20 Acres $1,384,234 20.39 Community Park - Land 20 Acres $830,540 20.39 Skateboard & Bicycle Pathway Improvements 1 Integrated Facility $795,934 1.02 Playground, Parks, and Swimming Complex Improvements 1 Integrated Facility $901,700 1.02 Parks Land and Skate Park Acquisitions & Development 1 Integrated Facility $4,150,000 1.02 Offsetting Revenues ($530,365) Total Cost of Parks & Recreation Facilities $10,300,511 V. Allocation of Parks & Recreation Facilities to Existing & New Development (based on total EDUs) A.1 Ball Park Complex
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Acres Allocated 100% Proposed Service Acres per EDU Acres Beyond Existing Total Proposed Acres EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Service Standard New Acres 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 10.19 981.01 10.00 40.77 30.58 30.00 40.00 A.2 Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility Units Split Facility Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 3,924 80.00% 24.00 NA 24.00 New Development 981 20.00% 6.00 10.00 16.00 Total 4,905 100.00% 30.00 40.00 City of Kingsburg
Parks & Recreation Facilities Fee Calculation
City of Kingsburg
Parks & Recreation Facilities Fee Calculation
A.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Acres Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 24.00 60.00% $1,661,072
New Development 16.00 40.00% $1,107,396 Total 40 100.00% $2,768,468 B.1 Community Park - Improvements
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Acres Allocated 100% Proposed Service Acres per EDU Acres Beyond Total Proposed Acres per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 5.10 981.01 5.00 20.39 15.29 15.00 20.00 B.2 Acres Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Acres Split Acres Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Acres Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 3,924 80.00% 12.00 NA 12.00 New Development 981 20.00% 3.00 5.00 8.00 Total 4,905 100.00% 15.00 20.00 B.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development New Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 12.00 60.00% $830,536
New Development 8.00 40.00% $553,698 Total 20.00 100.00% $1,384,234 C.1 Community Park - Land
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100% Proposed Service Acres per EDU Acres Beyond Total Proposed Acres per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 5.10 981.01 5.00 20.39 15.29 15.00 20.00 C.2 Acres Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Acres allocated 100% to New Development Acres Split Acres Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Acres Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 3,924 80.00% 12.00 NA 12.00 New Development 981 20.00% 3.00 5.00 8.00 Total 4,905 100.00% 15.00 20.00 C.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 12.00 60.00% $498,322
New Development 8.00 40.00% $332,219 Total 20.00 100.00% $830,540 D.1 Skateboard & Bicycle Pathway Improvements
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Integrated Facility Allocated 100% Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed Integrated Facility per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.25 981.01 0.25 1.02 0.76 0.75 1.00 D.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility Units Split Facility Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 3,924 80.00% 0.60 NA 0.60 New Development 981 20.00% 0.15 0.25 0.40 Total 4,905 100.00% 0.75 1.00 City of Kingsburg
Parks & Recreation Facilities Fee Calculation
D.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 0.60 60.00% $477,558
New Development 0.40 40.00% $318,376 Total 1.00 100.00% $795,934 E.1 Playground, Parks, and Swimming Complex Improvements [a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Allocated 100% Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed Integrated Facility per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.25 981.01 0.25 1.02 0.76 0.75 1.00 E.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility Units Split Facility Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 3,924 80.00% 0.60 NA 0.60 New Development 981 20.00% 0.15 0.25 0.40 Total 4,905 100.00% 0.75 1.00 E.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 0.60 60.00% $541,017
New Development 0.40 40.00% $360,683 Total 1.00 100.00% $901,700 F.1 Parks Land and Skate Park Acquisitions & Development [a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Allocated 100% To Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed per EDU's New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.25 981.01 0.25 1.02 0.76 0.75 1.00 F.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility Units Split Facility Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 3,924 80.00% 0.60 NA 0.60 New Development 981 20.00% 0.15 0.25 0.40 Total 4,905 100.00% 0.75 1.00 F.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 0.60 60.00% $2,489,987
New Development 0.40 40.00% $1,660,013 Total 1.00 100.00% $4,150,000 Cost Allocated Total Cost per
Facility Type to New Development Future EDU's EDU
Parks & Recreation Facilities $4,332,385 981 $4,416.25
Offsetting Revenues ($530,365) 981 ($540.63) Total $3,802,020 $3,875.62 VII. Development Impact Fee per Unit or per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
EDUs per Fees per Number of Units/ Cost Financed by
Land Use Type Unit/1,000 Non-Res. S.F. Unit/1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. DIF Single Family Residential 1.00 $3,876 750 $2,908,163 Multi Family Residential 0.80 $3,100 288 $893,856 Retail 0.00 $0 0 $0 Office 0.00 $0 0 $0 Industrial 0.00 $0 0 $0
Institutional 0.00 $0 0 $0
Total Allocated to New Development $3,802,020
Outside Funding Responsibility $6,498,491 Total Cost of Parks & Recreation Facilities $10,300,511 VI. Summary Cost Data
I. Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units
City Hall Expansion - Building 2,289 Square Feet
Corporation Yard Buildings 9,155 Square Feet
Corporation Yard - Land 2.1 Acres City Hall Expansion - Land 0.07 Acres Building Improvements - Square Feet Volumes 21,591.00 Units Land Purchase - Acres General Government Facilities NA NA II. Existing EDU Calculation
[a] [b] [c] [d] Number of Residents per Unit/ Total Units/ Persons Served per EDUs per Unit/ Number of EDUs Land Use Type 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. Per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. [a]*[c] Single Family Residential 3,068 2.95 1.00 3,068
Multi Family Residential 1,070 2.36 0.80 856 Retail 276,892 2.00 0.68 188 Office 677,908 1.50 0.51 345 Industrial 1,274,658 0.50 0.17 216
Institutional 716,100 0.25 0.08 61 Total 4,733
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units per 1,000 EDU's
City Hall Expansion - Building 2,289 Square Feet 483.61 Corporation Yard Buildings 9,155 Square Feet 1,934.23 Corporation Yard - Land 2 Acres 0.44 City Hall Expansion - Land 0 Acres 0.01 Building Improvements 0 Square Feet - Volumes 21,591 Units 4,561.65 Land Purchase 0 Acres - General Government Facilities NA NA NA III. Future EDU Calculation
[a] [b] [d] Number of Residents per Unit/ [c] Total Units/ Persons Served per EDUs per Number of EDUs Land Use Type 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. Unit/per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. [a]*[c] Single Family Residential 750 2.95 1.00 750 Multi Family Residential 288 2.36 0.80 231 Retail 74,604 2.00 0.68 51 Office 182,652 1.50 0.51 93 Industrial 343,437 0.50 0.17 58
Institutional 192,942 0.25 0.08 16 Total 1,199
IV. Proposed Inventory, Cost, and Service Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units Facility Cost per 1,000 EDU's City Hall Expansion - Building 13,200 Square Feet $5,481,566 11,008.96 Corporation Yard Buildings 10,000 Square Feet $3,100,684 8,340.12 Corporation Yard - Land 8 Acres $332,216 6.67 City Hall Expansion - Land 4 Acres $166,108 3.34 Building Improvements 11,057 Square Feet $7,184,174 9,221.67 Volumes 25,559 Units $884,525 21,316.52 Land Purchase 2 Acres $83,054 1.67 Offsetting Revenues ($425,450) Total Cost of General Government Facilities $16,806,877 V. Allocation of General Government Facilities to Existing & New Development (based on total EDUs) A.1 City Hall Expansion - Building
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Square Feet Allocated 100% Proposed Service Square Feet per EDU Square Feet Beyond Existing Total Proposed Square Feet EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Service Standard New Square Feet 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 483.61 1,199.02 579.86 11,008.96 10,525.35 12,620.14 13,200.00 City of Kingsburg
General Government Facilities Fee Calculation
City of Kingsburg
General Government Facilities Fee Calculation
A.2 Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility Units Split Facility Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units Facility Type EDU's EDU's Existing Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 10,069.33 NA 10,069.33 New Development 1,199 20.21% 2,550.81 579.86 3,130.67 Total 5,932 100.00% 12,620.14 13,200.00 A.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Facility Type Square Feet Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 10,069.33 76.28% $4,181,493
New Development 3,130.67 23.72% $1,300,073 Total 13,200 100.00% $5,481,566 B.1 Corporation Yard Buildings
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Square Feet Allocated 100% Proposed Service Square Feet per EDU Square Feet Beyond Total Proposed Square Feet per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 1,934.23 1,199.02 2,319.19 8,340.12 6,405.89 7,680.81 10,000.00 B.2 Square Feet Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Square Feet Split Square Feet Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Allocated 100% To Total Square Feet Development EDU's EDU's Existing Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 6,128.35 NA 6,128.35 New Development 1,199 20.21% 1,552.46 2,319.19 3,871.65 Total 5,932 100.00% 7,680.81 10,000.00 B.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development New Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 6,128.35 61.28% $1,900,208
New Development 3,871.65 38.72% $1,200,475 Total 10,000.00 100.00% $3,100,684 C.1 Corporation Yard - Land
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100% Proposed Service Acres per EDU Acres Beyond Total Proposed Acres per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.44 1,199.02 0.53 6.67 6.23 7.47 8.00 C.2 Square Feet Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Square Feet allocated 100% to New Development Square Feet Split Square Feet Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Square Feet Development EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 5.96 NA 5.96 New Development 1,199 20.21% 1.51 0.53 2.04 Total 5,932 100.00% 7.47 8.00 C.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 5.96 74.48% $247,442
New Development 2.04 25.52% $84,775 Total 8.00 100.00% $332,216 D.1 City Hall Expansion - Land
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Acres Allocated 100% Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed Acres per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Facility Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.01 1,199.02 0.02 3.34 3.32 3.98 4.00 City of Kingsburg
General Government Facilities Fee Calculation
D.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility Units Split Facility Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units Development EDU's EDU's Existing Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 3.18 NA 3.18 New Development 1,199 20.21% 0.80 0.02 0.82 Total 5,932 100.00% 3.98 4.00 D.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 3.18 79.43% $131,946
New Development 0.82 20.57% $34,162 Total 4.00 100.00% $166,108 E.1 Building Improvements
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Square Feet Allocated 100% Proposed Service Square Feet per EDU Square Feet Beyond Total Proposed Square Feet per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard Square Feet 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.00 1,199.02 0.00 9,221.67 9,221.67 11,057.00 11,057.00 E.2 Square Feet Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Square Feet allocated 100% to New Development Square Feet Split Square Feet Allocated Number of Percentage of Total Between New and 100% To New Total Square Feet Development EDU's EDU's Existing Development Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 8,822.14 NA 8,822.14 New Development 1,199 20.21% 2,234.86 0.00 2,234.86 Total 5,932 100.00% 11,057.00 11,057.00 E.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number Percentage of Development of Square Feet Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 8,822.14 79.79% $5,732,094
New Development 2,234.86 20.21% $1,452,080 Total 11,057.00 100.00% $7,184,174 F.1 Volumes
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Units Allocated 100% Proposed Service Units per EDU Units Beyond Total Proposed Units per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Units 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 4,561.65 1,199.02 5,469.53 21,316.52 16,754.86 20,089.47 25,559.00 F.2 Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Units allocated 100% to New Development Units Split Units Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Allocated 100% To Total Units Development EDU's EDU's Existing Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 16,028.95 NA 16,028.95 New Development 1,199 20.21% 4,060.52 5,469.53 9,530.05 Total 5,932 100.00% 20,089.47 25,559.00 F.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 16,028.95 62.71% $554,717
New Development 9,530.05 37.29% $329,808 Total 25,559.00 100.00% $884,525 G.1 Land Purchase [a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g]
Existing Total Future Acres Allocated 100% Proposed Service Acres per EDU Acres Beyond Total Proposed Acres per EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard New Acres 1,000 EDU's [a]*[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]*[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 0.00 1,199.02 0.00 1.67 1.67 2.00 2.00 City of Kingsburg
General Government Facilities Fee Calculation
G.2 Acres Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Acres allocated 100% to New Development Acres Split Acres Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Allocated 100% To Total Acres Development EDU's EDU's Existing Development New Development Allocated Existing 4,733 79.79% 1.60 NA 1.60 New Development 1,199 20.21% 0.40 0.00 0.40 Total 5,932 100.00% 2.00 2.00 G.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Development Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost Existing 1.60 79.79% $66,267
New Development 0.40 20.21% $16,787 Total 2.00 100.00% $83,054 Cost Allocated Total Cost per
Facility Type to New Development Future EDU's EDU General Government Facilities $4,418,160 1,199 $3,684.80 Offsetting Revenues ($425,450) 1,199 ($354.83) Total $3,992,710 $3,329.97 VII. Development Impact Fee per Unit or per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
EDUs per Unit/ Fees per Unit/ Number of Units/ Cost Financed by Land Use Type 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. DIF Single Family Residential 1.00 $3,330 750 $2,498,722 Multi Family Residential 0.80 $2,664 288 $768,010 Retail 0.68 $2,258 75 $168,427 Office 0.51 $1,693 183 $309,267 Industrial 0.17 $564 343 $193,836
Institutional 0.08 $282 193 $54,448
Total Allocated to New Development $3,992,710
Outside Funding Responsibility $12,814,168 Total Cost of General Government Facilities $16,806,877 VI. Summary Cost Data
Existing EDU Calculation
Service Factor (Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit**/
Number of Persons Served per EDUs per Unit/ Estimated Number of Units/ Total Land Use Type Persons Served * 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. Non-Res. S.F. Number of EDUs Single Family Residential 9,051 2.95 1.00 3,068 3,068
Multi Family Residential 2,525 2.36 0.80 1,070 856
Retail 554 2.00 0.68 276,892 188
Office 1,017 1.50 0.51 677,908 345
Industrial 637 0.50 0.17 1,274,658 216
Institutional 179 0.25 0.08 716,100 61
Total 13,963 4,733
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; City of Kingsburg General Plan, San Joaquin Valley Demographic Forecasts, Nielsen Company, CoStar, U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts (ACS). ** Persons Served = Residents plus 50% of Employees, customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees. Subject to change.
Future EDU Calculation
Service Factor (Future Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit**/
Number of Persons Served per EDUs per Unit/ Projected Number of Units/ Total Land Use Type Persons Served * 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. Non-Res. S.F. ** Number of EDUs Single Family Residential 2,214 2.95 1.00 750 750
Multi Family Residential 680 2.36 0.80 288 231
Retail 149 2.00 0.68 74,604 51
Office 274 1.50 0.51 182,652 93
Industrial 172 0.50 0.17 343,437 58
Institutional 48 0.25 0.08 192,942 16
Total 3,537 1,199
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; City of Kingsburg General Plan, San Joaquin Valley Demographic Forecasts, Nielsen Company, CoStar, U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts (ACS). ** Persons Served = Residents plus 50% of Employees, customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees. Subject to change. *** Complies with City Growth Management Ordinance, Kingsburg Municipal Code Chapter 16.09.020.
City of Kingsburg
EBU & EDU Calculation Year to Build-Out (2035)
Existing EDU Calculation
Service Factor (Residents and Employees)
Water Demand (GPD) EDUs per Unit/ Estimated Number of Units/ Total Land Use Type Per Unit/per 1,000 Non-Res S.F. per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. Non-Res. S.F. Number of EDUs Single Family Residential 339 1.00 3,068 3,068
Multi Family Residential 156 0.46 1,070 492
Retail 206 0.61 276,892 168
Office 206 0.61 677,908 412
Industrial 34 0.10 1,274,658 128
Institutional 17 0.05 716,100 36
Total 4,304
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; City of Kingsburg General Plan, San Joaquin Valley Demographic Forecasts, Nielsen Company, CoStar, U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts (ACS). ** Source: Water and Sewer System Master Plan Update (2006), Fresno County Department of Public Works and Planning.
Future EDU Calculation
Service Factor (Future Residents and Employees)
Water Demand (GPD) EDUs per Unit/ Projected Number of Units/ Total Land Use Type Per Unit/per 1,000 Non-Res S.F. per 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. Non-Res. S.F. ** Number of EDUs Single Family Residential 339 1.00 750 750
Multi Family Residential 156 0.46 288 133
Retail 206 0.61 74,604 45
Office 206 0.61 182,652 111
Industrial 34 0.10 343,437 34
Institutional 17 0.05 192,942 10
Total 1,083
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; City of Kingsburg General Plan, San Joaquin Valley Demographic Forecasts, Nielsen Company, CoStar, U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts (ACS). ** Source: Water and Sewer System Master Plan Update (2006), Fresno County Department of Public Works and Planning. *** Complies with City Growth Management Ordinance, Kingsburg Municipal Code Chapter 16.09.020.
City of Kingsburg
Water Facilities EBU & EDU Calculation Year to Build-Out (2035) Public Finance
Public Private Partnerships
Urban Economics
Clean Energy Bonds
1302 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 204
San Jose, CA 95125
Phone (800) 969-4382