Agenda — Kingsburg City Council, October 15, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

Since 2016, the City has issued allocations for over 500 single family dwellings and 78 multifamily units. The City's Growth Management System has not restricted any residential development, either single-family or multifamily.

Continue. See new Program 17.

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 1H-203 SECTION 1H-5: REVIEW OF PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Table 1H-32 Review of Previous Housing Element Programs Program Implementation Status Continue, Modify, Delete
 By 2018 and at least bi-annually, monitor and modify as appropriate, the Growth Management System to ensure that the allocation process does not unduly constrain housing development in the community.

Program 13: Monitoring of Planning and Development Fees The City charges various fees to review and process development applications. Such fees may add to the cost of housing development. Timeframe and Objectives:
 Continue to monitor the various fees charged by the City to ensure they do not unduly constrain housing development.
 As appropriate, consider incentives such as deferred or reduced fees to facilitate affordable housing development.

The City reviews fees on an annual basis. The City also offers a 25 percent reduction or more on impact fees for all new construction. The Stone Plaza 10-unit mixed-use project received a 90 percent reduction on impact fees for the residential portion of the project.

Modify. See new Program 20.

Program 14: Fresno County Housing Assistance Rehabilitation Program (HARP) This program provides loans to qualifying homeowners in the unincorporated County and participating cities for the improvement of their homes. The City of Kingsburg is a participating city. Eligible improvements include energy efficiency upgrades and installations, health and safety and hazard corrections, and accessibility modifications. Loan terms under this program vary according to household income and the improvements and repairs that are needed. Timeframe and Objectives:
 Promote available housing rehabilitation resources on the City website and public counters.
 Refer interested households to County program with the goal of assisting four low-income households during the planning period.

The City refers homes in need of rehabilitation to the County by promoting resources and assistance on the City’s website and social media in English and Spanish. Staff turnover and limited funding for staff time have precluded the ability to consistently track and report program outcomes. The City will continue to seek ways to implement programs efficiently and create systems for record keeping.

Modify. See new Program 23.
1H-204 FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 APPENDIX 1H: CITY OF KINGSBURG
Table 1H-32 Review of Previous Housing Element Programs Program Implementation Status Continue, Modify, Delete
Program 15: Fresno County Rental Rehabilitation Program (RRP) This program provides no interest loans to qualifying property owners in the unincorporated County and participating cities for making improvements to their rental properties. The City of Kingsburg is a participating city. Eligible improvements include repairing code deficiencies, completing deferred maintenance, lead-based paint and asbestos abatement, HVAC repairs, energy efficiency upgrades, accessibility modifications, and kitchen and bathroom upgrades. Timeframe and Objectives:
 Promote available housing rehabilitation resources on the City website and public counters.
 Refer interested property owners to County program.

Modify. See new Program 24.

Program 16: Code Enforcement The City’s Building Division is in charge of enforcing the City’s building codes with the objective of protecting the health and safety of residents. Timeframe and Objectives:
 Continue to utilize code enforcement and substandard abatement processes to bring substandard housing units and residential properties into compliance with city codes.  Refer income-eligible households to County housing rehabilitation programs for assistance in making the code corrections.

The City utilizes the Substandard Housing Code to abate substandard housing in Kingsburg and refers households that require significant rehabilitation to the County to utilize the County's rehabilitation programs. Staff turnover and limited funding for staff time have precluded the ability to consistently track and report program outcomes. The City will continue to seek ways to implement programs efficiently and create systems for record keeping.

Modify. See new Program 25.

Program 17: Fresno County Homebuyer Assistance Program (HAP) City of Kingsburg participates in the County’s Homebuyer Assistance Program. This program assists lower-income families with purchasing their first home by providing a zero interest, deferred payment loan that does not exceed 20 percent of the purchase price of the single family residence (plus loan closing costs). Households earning up to 80 percent AMI in unincorporated Fresno County and participating cities are eligible for this program.

The City utilizes materials available through the County HOME programs. Information is made available on the City’s website. Staff turnover and limited funding for staff time have precluded the ability to consistently track and report program outcomes. The City will continue to seek ways to implement programs efficiently and create systems for record keeping.

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 1H-205 SECTION 1H-5: REVIEW OF PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Table 1H-32 Review of Previous Housing Element Programs Program Implementation Status Continue, Modify, Delete
Timeframe and Objectives:
 Promote available homebuyer resources on the City website and public counters.
 Refer interested households to County program with the goal of assisting four households.

Program 18: First-Time Homebuyer Resources Kingsburg residents have access to a number of homebuyer assistance programs offered by the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA):
 Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC): The MCC Tax Credit is a federal credit which can reduce potential federal income tax liability, creating additional net spendable income which borrowers may use toward their monthly mortgage payment. This MCC Tax Credit program may enable first-time homebuyers to convert a portion of their annual mortgage interest into a direct dollar for dollar tax credit on their U.S. individual income tax returns.  CalPLUS Conventional Program: This is a first mortgage loan insured through private mortgage insurance on the conventional market. The interest rate on the CalPLUS Conventional is fixed throughout the 30- year term. The CalPLUS Conventional is combined with a CalHFA Zero Interest Program (ZIP), which is a deferred-payment junior loan of three percent of the first mortgage loan amount, for down payment assistance.  CalHFA Conventional Program: This is a first mortgage loan insured through private mortgage insurance on the conventional market. The interest rate on the CalHFA Conventional is fixed throughout the 30- year term.

CalHFA loans are offered through local loan officers approved and trained by CalHFA.

The City continues to investigate first-time homebuyer programs and makes information available on the City’s website and at public counters. This program will be modified to ensure effectiveness in the future. Staff turnover and limited funding for staff time have precluded the ability to consistently track and report program outcomes. The City will continue to seek ways to implement programs efficiently and create systems for record keeping.

Modify. See new Program 26.
1H-206 FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 APPENDIX 1H: CITY OF KINGSBURG
Table 1H-32 Review of Previous Housing Element Programs Program Implementation Status Continue, Modify, Delete
Timeframe and Objectives:
 Promote available homebuyer resources on City website and public counters in 2016.
 Annually review funding resources available at the state and federal levels and pursue as appropriate to provide homebuyer assistance.

Program 19: Energy Conservation The City promotes energy conservation in housing development and rehabilitation. Timeframe and Objectives:
 Consider incentives to promote green building techniques and features in 2017, and as appropriate, adopt incentives in 2018.
 Continue to promote and support Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Company programs that provide energy efficiency rebates for qualifying energy-efficient upgrades by providing a link to PG&E programs on City website and make available brochures about PG&E programs at City counters.  Expedite review and approval of alternative energy devices.

The City provides information to potential developers on PG&E programs as well as providing expedited review for all solar-mounted units for single family dwellings. The City also promotes the use of the Green Building Code and has partnered and approved eligible PACE programs. Information regarding PG&E programs is made available on the City’s website.

Modify. See new Program 27.

Program 20: Housing Choice Vouchers The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program extends rental subsidies to extremely low- and very low-income households, including families, seniors, and the disabled. The program offers a voucher that pays the difference between the current fair market rent (FMR) as established by the HUD and what a tenant can afford to pay (i.e. 30 percent of household income). The Fresno Housing Authority administers the housing choice voucher program in Fresno County. Timeframe and Objectives:
 Provide information on the HCV program on City website and public counters in 2016.

The City works closely with the Fresno Housing Authority, including partnering on two affordable projects, one 49-unit complex and one 47-unit senior housing complex, to promote housing opportunities. The City provides information about the HCV program on the City’s website, referring interested households to the Fresno Housing Authority, and encourages landlords to register their properties with the Housing Authority for accepting HCVs. Staff turnover and limited funding for staff time have precluded the ability to consistently track and report program outcomes. The City will continue to seek ways to implement Modify. See new Program 28.

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 1H-207 SECTION 1H-5: REVIEW OF PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Table 1H-32 Review of Previous Housing Element Programs Program Implementation Status Continue, Modify, Delete
 Refer interested households to the Fresno Housing Authority and encourage landlords to register their properties with the Housing Authority for accepting HCVs.  Work with the Housing Authority to disseminate information on incentives for participating in the HCV program throughout the City neighborhoods with varying income levels to promote housing opportunities for all residents. programs efficiently and create systems for record keeping.

Program 21: Fair Housing Residents in the Central Valley, including Fresno County, can access fair housing services provided by the Fair Housing Council of Central Valley (FHCCC). FHCCC offers mediation, counseling, advocacy, research, and fair housing training and workshops for residents as well as housing providers. Other fair housing resources include the Fresno Housing Authority, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) division of HUD, and the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). The City will assist in promoting fair housing resources available in the region. Timeframe and Objectives:
 Participate in the Fresno Urban County’s efforts in updating the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice required by the CDBG program.  Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions in the region to provide education to lenders, real estate professionals, and the community at large.  Actively advertise fair housing resources at the public counter, community service agencies, public libraries, and City website.  Refer fair housing complaints to HUD, DEFH, Fair Housing Council of Central California, and other housing agencies, as appropriate.

The City’s refers all fair-housing-related complaints to the Fair Housing Council of Central California. The City works with Fresno County, who administers the CDBG program with HUD, to update the Analysis of Impediments. Further, the Planning and Building Department provides educational materials regarding fair housing at the department front counters Modify. See new Program 29.
1H-208 FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 APPENDIX 1H: CITY OF KINGSBURG
This page intentionally left blank.

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 1H-209 SECTION 1H-6: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
SECTION 1H-6: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
State law requires cities and counties to make a diligent effort to achieve participation from all segments of the community in preparing a Housing Element. Section 65583[c][6] of the California Government Code specifically requires that “[t]he local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the program shall describe this effort.”
The diligent effort required means that local jurisdictions must do more than issue the customary public notices and conduct standard public hearings prior to adopting a Housing Element. State law requires cities and counties to take active steps to inform, involve, and solicit input from the public, particularly lowincome and racial and ethnic households that might otherwise not participate in the process. To this end, Spanish-language materials were available, and Spanish translation was made available by request.

To meet the requirements of state law, the City of Kingsburg completed the public outreach at both the local level and as part of the regional Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element effort to encourage community involvement. These efforts included:
 Regional Project Website
 Stakeholder Consultations and Focus Groups
 Study Sessions with Planning Commissions, City Councils, and the County Board of Supervisors  Community Workshops
 Community Survey
Regional efforts included three sets of community workshops, consultations, and a community survey, all of which are discussed in detail in Appendix 1: Regional Housing Element Public Outreach.

Joint Planning Commission/City Council Study Session #1 On August 11, 2022, a Joint Planning Commission/City Council Study Session was held to introduce the 2023-2031 Housing Element update and to review new State laws. The public was also invited to attend and participate in this event. Staff presented an overview of the Housing Element update process and the required contents of the element, discussed early strategies and possible sites to meet the City’s RHNA, reviewed new state laws, and solicited feedback from the City Council, Planning Commission, and community members on these strategies and other housing needs in Kingsburg. Council and Commission members expressed a tension between state and local land use control, with local officials desiring more local control. No public comments or questions were received during the study session. 1H-210 FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 APPENDIX 1H: CITY OF KINGSBURG
Community Workshop
A community workshop was held on October 5, 2022, at 6:00 pm. To invite the community to the event, the following outreach efforts were conducted:
 Flyers in English and Spanish were distributed through the Fresno COG email list and a list of regional stakeholders and CBOs.
 Eventbrite registration pages were created in both English and Spanish along with a Facebook event.
 The Eventbrite and Facebook pages advertised that Spanish language interpretation, refreshments, and activities for kids would be provided.  Flyers were sent out through the Fresno Housing Authority to send to residents of affordable housing.
 Flyers were posted at City Hall and Council Chambers and were posted on the City’s Facebook page.
 The event was livestreamed to Facebook, where it was viewed by 271 people.

In the presentation, members of the public were introduced to the process of developing the Housing Element both for the region and for the City of Kingsburg. They were also given information about current housing conditions in the region and in Kingsburg and were invited to participate in a discussion about local housing needs. The discussion was prompted by the following questions:
 What do you think are the most critical housing issues in your community?  What do you think are the housing types most needed in the community?  When assessing new housing development that might be built in the next 8 to 10 years, what should be the community’s most important consideration?
 Is there anything else that you can share regarding additional housing opportunities in the community?
 Any suggestions for soliciting additional Housing Element feedback? Two community members attended the workshop along with City staff. The community members were a local developer and a representative from the local congressman. Participants expressed a need for more affordable housing and housing for families and larger households. Participants also wanted the city to maintain its current community feel.

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 1H-211 SECTION 1H-6: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
Joint Planning Commission/City Council Study Session #2 On May 11, 2023, a Joint Planning Commission/City Council Study Session was held to introduce the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element update and receive feedback on the draft. The public was also invited to attend and participate in this event. Staff presented an overview of the Housing Element update process and the contents of the Draft Housing Element, and solicited feedback from the City Council, Planning Commission, and community members on these strategies and other housing needs in Kingsburg. Council and Commission members asked about the draft programs in the housing element, what programs are required, challenges with bringing lower income housing projects to fruition, questions about the stakeholders interviewed, questions about the advantages of mixed use projects, questions about allowing ADUs, and questions about default density. No public comments or questions were received during the study session.

Planning Commission Hearing
On May 9, 2024, the Planning Commission held a hearing on the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element. The purpose of this meeting was to present the Adoption Draft Housing Element and CEQA review document to seek Planning Commission’s approval to present the documents to the City Council for adoption.

City Staff and consultants facilitated the meeting with the Planning Commission. The public was also invited to attend. No public comments or questions were received during the hearing. Staff presented an update on the Housing Element update process and the revised contents of the Draft Housing Element.

Commission members made the following comments:
 Concerned about the increase in height to 50 feet in HC district called for in Program 5 and the fact that the City doesn’t have a fire truck that can access that height  Placing a minimum density of 20 units per acre on some parcels will reduce property rights  They aren’t seeing young families buying the new homes here because they are mostly market-rate single-family homes that are for-sale
 Objective design standards can lead to good design of 20 du/ac projects and good ADUs, commented that small homes are needed in Kingsburg
 The upzoning/increased densities called for in Program 16 will preclude some amount of greenspace/amenities on projects on those sites
 They are concerned about the 35 foot height
 Kingsburg should be encouraging more duplexes and triplexes to chip away at the RHNA instead of larger multifamily projects. It is hard to mandate though. Developers want to build single-family projects.
1H-212 FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 APPENDIX 1H: CITY OF KINGSBURG
The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the Housing Element and approve the environmental document.

City Council Hearings
On June 19 and July 17, 2024, the City Council held hearings on the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element.

The purpose of this meeting was to present the Adoption Draft Housing Element and CEQA review document to seek City Council approval.

City Staff and consultants facilitated the meetings with the City Council. The public was also invited to attend. No public comments or questions were received during the hearings. Staff presented an update on the Housing Element update process and the revised contents of the Draft Housing Element. At the meeting on June 19th Council members asked about the requirement to rezone and about whether all the sites in the inventory were vacant. The Council continued the item to the July 17th meeting and asked staff to look into the sites inventory. The Council considered the revised Housing Element at their July 17th meeting and adopted it along with approving the Addendum to the General Plan EIR. There were no public comments or comments from the Council at the July 17th meeting. The Council authorized staff to submit the Adopted Housing Element to HCD for certification review.

Stakeholder Interviews
Throughout the summer and fall of 2022, several interviews were conducted with stakeholders who work in areas such as housing, homelessness, and other social services in Kingsburg and throughout the Fresno County area. Summaries of their responses are below.

BIA of Fresno/Madera Counties
The president of the Building Industry Association of Fresno/Madera Counties (BIA), Mike Prandini, was interviewed in November 2022. The BIA is an industry organization that represents builders, developers, subcontractors, and affiliated businesses in the residential, commercial, and industrial building industry throughout the region.

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 1H-213 SECTION 1H-6: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
The current shortage of housing has created demand, which can be a positive for BIA’s members. Most jurisdictions have sufficient available land to build new housing. Kingsburg was identified as an outlier in this, as they have a growth management ordinance, so the two builders that work in the area have been able to work but at a slower pace. The statewide move to require all-electric utilities rather than gas is a concern.

For market-rate housing, the State’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) regulations are a large barrier, as transit isn’t reliable, and a car is necessary to get around. Builders have to pay a fee to get around the cost of mitigating car miles unless City Councils can make a finding of an unavoidable impact. For affordable housing, the prevailing wage requirements are a barrier to development due to the increased cost.

Infrastructure costs also affect both types of projects. Streamlining tools help with increasing costs, but not enough. A lack of local water access is also a barrier to development. He expressed concern that the State assigned the RHNA without this in mind. There may not be enough water access to support the housing development that the State is looking to see.

In his experience, single-family homes are in greatest demand. There is a lot of demand for low-income housing projects, but these aren’t financially viable for developers without government subsidies. However, including government subsidies in projects increases the overall cost to build, as it triggers prevailing-wage requirements. A recent affordable development in the City of Fresno cost around $400,000 per unit to build.

Condo-style projects are also a possibility, but in his experience, they don’t tend to be successful in this region. To keep prices within reach of local residents, recent projects have needed to be built at higher densities. A typical project is between 8 and 15 units per acre on small lots, with single-family homes built as two-story structures in order to reach 1,200 or 1,300 square feet. Developers need to build higher-density projects to spread out the cost of infrastructure among a larger number of units. Demand isn’t as high in smaller communities as it is in the Cities of Fresno and Clovis. These cities have better access to jobs, education, and medical centers. VMT mitigation costs increase in communities that are far from these economic centers, so it’s less of an issue in closer communities like Sanger, Reedley, Kingsburg, Fowler, and Kerman. Coalinga is too far away from the economic center of the region, which causes challenges.

Many residents of Mendota and San Joaquin have incomes that are too low to afford development at its current costs. He indicated that more downpayment assistance and maintenance programs are needed throughout the region. Fresno Housing Authority has some, but they’re limited.

Fair Housing of Central California
A representative of Fair Housing of Central California (FHCCC) was interviewed on September 27, 2022.

The organization works to eliminate housing discrimination and expand housing opportunities to all persons. The FHCCC receives fair housing complaints and tracks them by location, zip code, gender, race or ethnicity, and type of complaint. The most common fair housing issue that clients report is discrimination related to disability or race. She expressed concern that fair housing practices are not really embraced by local government, and that cities should avoid promoting the development of new housing in neighborhoods where segregation is deliberately continued by landlords and real estate agents. Her clients prefer decent, affordable, and accessible housing, but as the cost of purchasing a home increases, opportunities decline.

She feels there is adequate rental housing in the community, including for seniors and persons with disabilities, but affordability and accessibility remain barriers. 1H-214 FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 APPENDIX 1H: CITY OF KINGSBURG
Fresno Madera Continuum of Care
As a representative for the Fresno Madera Continuum of Care (CoC), Laura Moreno was interviewed in October 2022. Ms. Moreno is a program manager for Fresno County’s Department of Social Services (DSS). The CoC does not provide direct services, but instead is a collaborative of agencies that work together to provide homeless services. At present, there is insufficient low-income housing for those who are homeless. Many people in the region are on a fixed income, including disability or social security, and cannot afford housing.

Law Office of Patience Milrod
Fresno-area civil rights attorney Patience Milrod was interviewed on October 31, 2022. While Ms. Milrod supports the continued attention to inclusionary housing, she has concerns about the passive language of “facilitate” and “encourage” that has been common in past Housing Elements. She identified code enforcement as a strategy for improving housing quality that could be strengthened. At present, rents are increasing while the quality of housing is decreasing and there isn’t a lot of energy locally to correct that imbalance. This particularly hurts lower-income households. With more aggressive code enforcement in place, she suggested that some landlords may decide that the cost of maintaining their property isn’t worthwhile and may choose to sell to a community land trust or Habitat for Humanity rather than entering receivership. She would like to see that as a specific goal. The biggest barrier to finding affordable, decent housing in the region that she identified was that lower-cost housing tends to also be low quality or ill maintained. However, she cautioned that the supply problem won’t be solved with suburban or exurban single-family dwelling units. There’s also local disinclination to build lower-income housing in areas of opportunity. She suggested that cities should ask for affordability covenants in perpetuity and highlighted the land trust model as a way to enable that.

Central Valley Urban Institute
On September 7, 2022, Eric Payne, the executive director of the Central Valley Urban Institute (CVUI), was interviewed. The CVUI is an advocacy organization working throughout the Fresno area. He indicated that there may be opportunities to increase affordable housing stock production, particularly in infill areas and brownfields, as well as to increase homeownership through programs like the downpayment assistance program. However, he expressed concerns about high building costs, lack of financing, and poor leadership in the area. Community members would like to see intergenerational housing, middle-income housing, and “missing-middle” sized housing as well as housing to end homelessness, particularly among college-aged youth. At present, he does not believe that there are adequate opportunities for homeownership or adequate rental housing. The largest barriers are access to credit, lack of financial education, and existing housing cost burden. There is a lack of investment in programs that serve low- to moderate-income communities.

Resources for Independence Central Valley
On November 1, 2022, a representative from the organization Resources for Independence Central Valley was interviewed. The representative expressed concern about laws in the City of Fresno that prevent FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 1H-215 SECTION 1H-6: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
homeless community members from camping or living in their cars. Homelessness is increasing, but the City is investing resources in enforcing these laws rather than providing assistance. There is funding to move homeless people around, but not to improve anyone’s living situation. Access to Section 8 can be a challenge, as the waiting list can be four or five years long. Additionally, rental housing can require incomes of two to three times the rent, which can be a barrier to some who need to access rental housing. For those who may be able to access housing, some landlords levy additional fees during the application process that can present a prohibitive cost. Credit checks are becoming a barrier for residents to get into housing.

Community members with disabilities can experience additional challenges trying to find homes that have necessary accessibility features. Homeowners with disabilities end up needing to make expensive home improvements in order to make their homes accessible for themselves. For renters, these improvements may be more challenging to implement, and those who use service or support animals may experience discrimination against pets. There isn’t enough higher-density housing, housing near transit or major transportation corridors, or housing in good repair.

Llaves de tu Casa Iniciativa
As a follow-up to the regionwide stakeholder focus groups held in October and November 2022, a collection of members from the Llaves de tu Casa Iniciativa (LDTC) met on December 13, 2022, to respond to several stakeholder interview questions. The initiative is a financial education program open to all County of Fresno residents but with a focus on increasing Latino homeownership rates. Eight initiative members represented organizations and companies including Envision Fresno (Mirna Garcia), Self Help Enterprises (Rick Gonzales, Alicia Bohigian), CORE Home Loans (Pablo Estrada), Union Bank (Reyes Ruiz), the California Association of Realtors (Sabrina Brown), and the National Association of Hispanic Realtors (Aldiva Rubalcava, Lucy Sandoval). The group collectively serves Fresno County, and members also serve other counties in the Central Valley.

The opportunities for future housing in the region that the initiative members identified included LTDC’s ability to provide homeownership education virtually and in partnership with other local organizations.

There has been a lack of financial literacy in the community along with challenges in using technology and language barriers.

The initiative members expressed concerns about affordability, including the location of affordable housing in undesirable areas. Upzoning single-family zoning would create more opportunities for the development of multifamily housing in more desirable locations. Some funding is only available in certain areas, which can exacerbate existing patterns of segregation and close proximity to industrial uses. They also expressed concern about investors displacing community members in order to establish short-term rentals while community members live in hotels. The State’s mandate to install solar panels on new homes was also cited as an additional cost that will drive up the buyers’ or renters’ cost. 1H-216 FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 APPENDIX 1H: CITY OF KINGSBURG
The gap between ownership housing affordability and program income limits was identified as a barrier to accessing housing. Moderate-income households earn too much to qualify for housing assistance, but those who qualify aren’t able to afford the housing available. In addition to a lack of multifamily rental housing, there aren’t many condo buildings in the region, which could present another affordable homeownership strategy. The establishment of land trusts was also identified as a potential strategy for increasing affordability, as well as donations of land from municipalities.

Self Help Enterprises has partnered with the City of Clovis on their recent accessory dwelling unit program and has partnered with Salt + Light to develop tiny homes for transitional housing.

Fresno Housing Authority
Two representatives from the Fresno Housing Authority, Doreen Eley and Michael Duarte, were interviewed on January 11, 2023. The Fresno Housing Authority currently has housing projects in every jurisdiction participating in the Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element except for Coalinga. The City of Fresno has a separate Housing Authority.

The representatives noted that there is tremendous demand for housing in all communities in Fresno County.

The last time the Section 8 waiting list opened they received more than 50,000 applications. Recently, when a 60-unit development in Clovis opened, they received more than 10,000 applications. When a project in downtown Fresno opened, they received 4,000 applications within a two-week period. Rents are high, which is challenging for residents but good for developers. The region needs more housing opportunities for people experiencing homelessness.

In rural and unincorporated communities, lack of water and sewer capacity is a major concern. The Housing Authority can’t build housing in areas with no services.

For local developers, state funding and streamlining programs trigger skilled, trained, and prevailing wage requirements, which can be a barrier. Entitlement processing timelines are a barrier to development for the Housing Authority. The representatives gave the example of a recent project in San Joaquin where streamlined initiatives were used, but the project still took a year to finish the project review process. Many communities don’t have much staff capacity and have part-time consultants to complete the work.

There is also a lack of capacity among agencies that provide services in rural and unincorporated areas.

This is especially challenging for special needs populations that need mental health services. There is a countywide Department of Behavioral Health, but no offices in smaller cities. The representatives gave the example of a Homekey project in Huron that the Housing Authority wanted to assist with, but there were no service providers available to serve the project.

While there is a lot of interest in the community for homeownership opportunities, more funding is available for multifamily rental projects. The Housing Authority is more focused on rental projects and arriving at deeper affordability levels.

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 1H-217 SECTION 1H-6: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
The Housing Authority is following the State’s lead in providing housing in high opportunity areas. There are lots of incentives to do this to compete for tax credits and other state funding programs. The representatives mentioned that they are trying to balance this need by also working to improve the lowerresource areas where folks are already living along with disadvantaged communities like Del Ray and Lenar.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought challenges for many residents of Housing Authority projects. There were increases in domestic violence, and it was challenging for property managers to enforce rules.

Public Comments
The City has not received ongoing public comments during the drafting of the Housing Element. A single comment letter was received after the submittal of the draft Housing Element, from Self Help Enterprises, see below section.

Any future comments received will be considered and used to inform the sites analysis and assessment of fair housing issues, and goals, policies, and actions.

Noticing of Study Sessions and Community Workshops
Notice of the Joint Study Session was made available as part of the City’s standard meeting notice process for City Council and Planning Commission meetings.

The Community Workshop was advertised to members of the public through multiple information channels.

Flyers in English and Spanish were distributed through the Fresno COG email list and list of regional stakeholders and CBOs. Flyers were also put up at City Hall and the Council Chambers and were sent to the Fresno Housing Authority for them to post and distribute.

Noticing of the Draft Housing Element
Per California Government Code Section 65585, the draft Housing Element was made available for public comment for 30 days, from May 2 to June 1, 2023. No public comment was received. The draft was made available on the City’s website and was noticed to residents through the same methods as the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Additional direct noticing was sent to local housing advocate groups and other stakeholders.

Public Comments
The City solicited ongoing public comment during the drafting of the Housing Element. Following submittal of the draft to HCD, the City received public comment from Self-Help Enterprises (SHE). SHE provided a comment letter to several Fresno COG jurisdictions with numerous broadly applicable recommendations. The City of Kingsburg has taken these recommendations into careful consideration. SHE urges its service area members, including the City of Kingsburg, to prioritize high-potential sites that unlock access to opportunity and not just basic shelter. As shown in Figure 1H-6 Local TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, sites counted towards each RHNA income category are distributed across the City. The whole city 1H-218 FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 APPENDIX 1H: CITY OF KINGSBURG
is in high and highest resourced TCAC categories. SHE encourages the City to streamline approvals and create financial incentives (including fee waivers or deferrals) for 100 percent affordable housing. Per Programs 8, 10, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21 and 22, the City will continue to use streamlined approvals and offer incentives (including fee waivers or deferrals) to facilitate lot consolidations and lot splits, encourage affordable housing, housing for farmworkers and ADUs. SHE encourages jurisdictions to add a program to revise their zoning ordinance to add a manufactured home on a permanent foundation to be allowed in all zones that allow single-family residences, which Kingsburg already allows as such. SHE calls for a collaborative effort and the City of Kingsburg stands ready to partner with SHE as opportunities arise.

Summary of Public Input Incorporated into the Housing Element Highlights of public input and the programs that address it are provided in Table 1H-33.

Table 1H- 33 Summary of Public Input was Incorporated into the Housing Element Public Comment Relevant Program(s)
Special Housing Needs
During the regional community
workshops, participants discussed the
lack of ADA complaint housing in the
City. Participants noted a lack of
housing for vulnerable populations,
especially seniors and persons with
disabilities. During the local
community workshop participants
expressed a need for housing for
families and larger households
Per Program 8, the City will:
 Provide financial support to organizations that serve populations with special housing needs and expand regulatory incentives for the development of units affordable to extremely low-income households and housing for special-needs groups, including persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), and individuals and families in need of
emergency/transitional housing.
 Expand affordable housing opportunities, particularly for those with special housing needs by collaborating with other
agencies (such as the Housing Authority), housing developers, community stakeholders, and employers; promoting the State density bonus; providing streamlined processing; providing incentives to builders such as fee reductions and deferrals, reduced setbacks, reduced parking requirements, and technical assistance with applications for funding and letters of support.  Provide incentives to builders to provide housing with multiple bedrooms affordable to lower- and moderate-income
households, aiming for construction of at least 20 units that meet these sizes, to meet the needs of female-headed, singleparent, and large-family households of all income levels Per Program 18, The City will develop and formalize a general process that a person with physical and developmental disabilities can use to make a reasonable accommodation request to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities and streamline the permit review process. The City will encourage housing developers to include mobility-impaired accessibility in their project designs and prioritize these types of projects to increase housing mobility opportunities for seniors and persons with disabilities.

During the regional and local
stakeholder consultations,
interviewees expressed concern that
homelessness is increasing. Concern
Per Program 3, the City will cooperate with neighboring cities, the County, and other agencies in the development of programs aimed at providing homeless shelters and related services. During this coordination, the City will monitor the demographic composition of the FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 1H-219 SECTION 1H-6: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
Public Comment Relevant Program(s)
was also expressed regarding the
cultural competency of homeless
services. Amongst the Asian/pacific
islander community, members who
are experiencing homelessness prefer
to couch surf rather than use formal
homeless services.
unhoused population to identify needs for targeted resources and determine what efforts to take, such as providing education on financial assistance and identifying specific programs that are available. The City will also support local homeless service providers, agencies, and other community organizations to pursue funding from available sources for homeless services.

During the regional stakeholder
consultations, interviewees were
concerned about the lack of available
affordable farmworker housing.

The farmworker and farm employer
surveys concluded that there was not
a significant amount of interest in
farmworkers living in farm labor
housing if developed because
farmworkers prefer to live in a home
located off-site from the farm where
they work. Farmworker employers
expressed interest in developing farm
labor or work camp only if it was
subsidized.

Per Program 9, the City will annually monitor the status of farmworker housing as part of their annual report to HCD on Housing Element progress and evaluate if City efforts are effective in facilitating the provision of farmworker housing. If appropriate, the City will make necessary changes to enhance opportunities and incentives for farmworker housing development. The City will provide technical support and offer incentives to housing developers, such as the Fresno Housing Authority and Self-Help Enterprises, in the application of funds for farmworker housing, including HCD and USDA Rural Development loans and grants and other funding sources that may become available.

The City will also continue to offer incentives such as density bonuses, streamlined processing, and the minor deviation process to facilitate development of farmworker housing.

Per Program 10, the City will require that the developer give qualified farmworker households a preference for 10 percent of the new units.

Including preferences for farmworkers in new affordable housing developments provides an alternative to housing on farms, which addresses the results of the survey.

Water
During the both the local and regional
community workshops and both the
regional and local stakeholder
consultations, participants discussed
their concern for the City water
supply and its’ capacity to provide
adequate water to the City if housing
is developed.

Per Program 7, as the water provider in the city, the City will adopt a written policy with specific objective standards for meeting the priority requirement for proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income households consistent with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65589.7.

Affordable Housing Development
During the regional stakeholder
consultations, and local community
workshop, participants discussed the
need for affordable housing incentives
for developers; especially for special
needs groups like farmworkers.

Per Program 8, the City will continue to work with housing developers to expand affordable housing opportunities by continuing to provide incentives such as fee deferrals, parking reductions, and streamlined review of housing.

Per Program 9, the City will The City will continue to offer incentives such as density bonuses, streamlined processing, and the minor deviation process to facilitate development of farmworker housing.

Per Program 13, the City will identify and implement incentives for construction of ADUs with new development, which may include deferred collection of impact fees for the square footage associated with the ADU.

During regional stakeholder
consultations, interviewees were
concerned about the lack of financing
and high construction costs of
Per Program 8, the City will provide incentives to builders such as fee reductions and deferrals, reduced setbacks, reduced parking requirements, and technical assistance with applications for funding and letters of support to facilitate affordable housing development and 1H-220 FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 APPENDIX 1H: CITY OF KINGSBURG
Public Comment Relevant Program(s)
developing housing units. special-needs projects, particularly those on infill sites.

During the regional stakeholder
consultations, interviewees were
concerned about the siting of
affordable housing units far from
opportunity areas, such as job
opportunities, educational resources,
and medical resources.

Per Program 9, the City will encourage housing mobility by facilitating development of lower-income units in high-resource areas such as the Kamm/Madsen neighborhood, North Kingsburg, Lincoln Square, and the neighborhood near Kingsburg High School.

Per Program 13, the City will encourage the construction of ADUs, particularly in predominantly single-family neighborhoods with higher median incomes, such as the Kamm/Madsen neighborhood, to reduce concentrations of lower-income households.

Per Program 30, the City will work to improve access to resources and opportunities citywide with an emphasis on neighborhoods with a concentration of lower-income residents who often face additional barriers in accessing resources. The City will meet with school district representatives to analyze whether housing security poses a barrier to residents, and the City will prioritize projects that facilitate place-based revitalization through the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.

Removal of Governmental Constraints
During the both the regional
community workshops, participants
discussed the viability of developing
ADUs in neighborhoods with small
lots and less parking opportunities.

Per Program 13, The City will encourage the construction of ADUs, particularly in predominantly single-family neighborhoods with higher median incomes, such as the Kamm/Madsen neighborhood, where lots are larger and can accommodate more parking and street parking is ample.

During the regional stakeholder
consultations, interviewees expressed
their desire to see single-family
zoning to be upzoned to create more
opportunities for the development of
multifamily housing in more desirable
locations.

Per Program 5, the City will amend the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow 20 units per acre or greater by-right in the Highway Commercial district with a maximum building height of 50 feet. This will allow for multifamily housing in close proximity to services, transit, and residential districts.

Per Program 8, the City will work with developers of multifamily and affordable housing projects to identify site opportunities in higherresource areas and areas with higher median incomes to reduce concentrations of poverty and improve access to resources.

Housing Quality and Quantity
During the both regional stakeholder
consultations, interviewees were
concerned about overcrowding in
rental units.

Per Program 15, the City will encourage a variety of housing types to address the housing needs of a variety of household types, sizes, and incomes.

During the regional stakeholder
consultations, interviewees said there
was a need for rehabilitation of rental
units and mobile homes throughout
the region.

Per Program 23 and 24, the City will promote available housing rehabilitation resources on the City’s website and at public counters, and target in areas of need to assist in reducing displacement risk for residents by improving living conditions and enabling them to stay in their home and community
During both the regional community
workshops and both the regional and
local stakeholder consultations,
participants discussed their concern
for the lack of a variety housing types in
the City that address the differing
needs of the City population.

Per to Program 15, The City will encourage housing types to address the housing needs of a variety of household types, sizes, and incomes. This could include duplexes, townhomes, apartment buildings, and condominiums in neighborhoods and new subdivisions.

Per to Program 13, the City will encourage the construction of ADUs, particularly in predominantly single-family neighborhoods with higher median incomes to reduce concentration of lower-income households.

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 1H-221 SECTION 1H-6: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
Public Comment Relevant Program(s)
Housing Assistance
During both of the regional
community workshops, participants
discussed the need for
homeownership opportunities.

Per Program 26, the City will promote the Fresno County Homebuyer Assistance Program and other available homebuyer resources on the City’s website and public counters.

During the regional stakeholder
consultations, interviewees expressed
that there is need for mobile home
assistance programs.

Per Program 23, The City will encourage the use of the Fresno County Housing Assistance Rehabilitation Program (HARP) provides loans to qualifying homeowners, including owners of mobile or manufactured homes, in the unincorporated county and participating cities for the improvement of their homes.

Per Program 11, the City will provide financial support annually, as available, to organizations that provide counseling, information, education, support, housing services/referrals, and/or legal advice to extremely low-income households, to mitigate risk of displacement and support housing stability for extremely low-income households, persons with disabilities, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness.

During the regional stakeholder
consultations, interviewees expressed
their frustration with the income
eligibility of affordable housing
programs. Interviewees expressed that
people with higher incomes are not
eligible for the program, yet they
cannot afford housing on their
income.

Per Program 15, the City will encourage a variety of housing types to address the housing needs of a variety of household types, sizes, and incomes.

Per Program 26, the City will promote available homebuyer resources on the City’s website and at public counters, such as Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC), CalPLUS Conventional Program, and CalHFA Conventional Program.

Per Program 28, the City will work with the Housing Authority to disseminate information to landlords and property owners on incentives for participating in the HCV program throughout the City to promote housing opportunities for all residents. Also, the City will refer interested households to the Fresno Housing Authority and encourage landlords to register their properties with the Housing Authority for accepting HCV’s.
1H-222 FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 APPENDIX 1H: CITY OF KINGSBURG
This page intentionally left blank
A Regional Plan for Addressing Housing Needs
Fresno County Coalinga Firebaugh Fowler Fresno City Huron Kerman Kingsburg Mendota Orange Cove Parlier Reedley San Joaquin Sanger Selma O R A N G E C O U N T Y • B A Y A R E A • S A C R A M E N T O • C E N T R A L C O A S T • L O S A N G E L E S • I N L A N D E M P I R E PLACEWORKS.COM
WWW.TOWNSENDPA.COM
SACRAMENTO • WASHINGTON, DC
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA • CENTRAL CALIFORNIA • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Kingsburg
Legislative Update
October 15, 2025
2 Presentation Overview
2025 Legislative Session
Overview
Overview and Continuation
of Advocacy Efforts
End of Session Timeline Looking Forward to 2026
TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
3 State Budget Update
May Revision
Projected Deficit
CA-DC Fiscal
Dynamics Drive
Uncertainty
Overspending in
Key Programs
Trailer Bills & Budget
Bill Juniors
TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
4 State Budget Solutions
$7.1 Billion
Rainy Day Fund
withdrawal
$7.8 Billion
in revenue
generation and
internal borrowing
$1 Billion
in fund shifts from
Cap and Trade
$3.5 Billion
in cost reductions
$11.2 Billion
remaining in Rainy
Day Fund
$228 Billion
General Fund
spending
TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
5 SB 707 (Durazo) – Brown Act Modernization
Modernizes the Brown Act:

Requires hybrid public
participation options (e.g.,
call-in and video), public
meeting websites, and
accessible meeting info.

Teleconferencing
Requirements
Mandates translated
agendas and interpretation
request systems for city
councils and boards of
supervisors.

Public Language Access
Expands notice and agenda
rules, clarifies closed session
provisions, and increases
public comment
opportunities.

Transparency Improvements
Impacts:
• Increases compliance costs and staff workload (e.g., translation, livestreaming, remote access).
• Adds flexibility for advisory bodies to hold hybrid/remote meetings. • Requires updates to public engagement practices and accessibility policies.

TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
6 SB 79 (Weiner) – Land Use: Public Transit
Details
Status
• Makes transit-oriented development an allowable use on any site zoned residential, mixed, commercial, or light industrial development
• Must be near transit-oriented development stops
• Allows a transit agency to adopt objective standards for both residential and commercial developments proposed on land owned by the transit agency
• Pending final action.

TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
7 AB 379 (Shultz) – Loitering/Sex Trafficking
Details
• Makes it a misdemeanor to loiter with the intent to purchase commercial sex
• Increases the penalty for solicitation of a minor in specified circumstances
• CalVCB must establish a grant program to provide moneys from the Fund to CBOs that provide services to victims of sex trafficking and exploitation
Status
• Signed into law.

TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
8 SB 346 (Durazo) – Transient Occupancy Taxes
Details
Status
• Enacts the Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025, which authorizes local agencies to require short-term rental platforms to report key property information to aid in tax regulation and collection.
• Intended to help give consistency to local governments when it comes to enforcing TOT ordinances and the collection and remittance of these taxes.
• Pending final action.

TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
9 2025 Key Federal Issues
119th Congress:

Evolving Federal
Dynamics
CA/DC Dynamics:

H.R. 1, Sanctuary and
Climate Policies
Shutdown Watch Budget
Reconciliation
TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
10 Federal Government Shutdown
2013 shutdown lasted 16
days
2018 shutdown lasted
35 days
Administration already
withholding DOT funds
from New York
Similar threats have been
made against other blue
states
Local Agencies should
expect:
• Agency-specific
shutdown plans and
potential delays
• No issuing of new
discretionary funding
• Most previously
awarded funds should
remain accessible
TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
11 FY 2025 Community Project Funding
City Hall & Emergency Operations Center Project
Details
Status
• As the City continues to grow, additional staff and space are needed to meet local needs with an enhanced City Hall
location. The complex would also serve as an Emergency
Operations Center, providing the area with a vital resource to respond to emergency events related to weather and public safety.
• Submitted by Congressman Jim Costa.
• Included in the Ag, Rural Development, Food and Ag
Appropriations Bill for $1,000,000.

TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
12 Continuation of Advocacy Efforts
Federal and State Funding Requests
Ensure Positive Relationships With Our
Elected Representatives
Legislative, Budget, and Grant Funding
Updates
Vigilance for Legislation with Potential
Impacts
TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
13 Looking Ahead to 2026 – Sacramento
End of
Session
Recap
Continued
Budget
Tightening
November
Election
TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
14 Looking Ahead to 2026 – Washington D.C.

Infrastructure Spending
Budget Negotiations
Surface Transportation
Reauthorization
TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg
15 California Advocacy | Federal Advocacy | Grant Writing www.TownsendPA.com | (949) 399-9050
Questions?
California Advocacy:

Christopher Townsend
President
[email protected]
Cori Takkinen
Vice President
Chief Executive Officer
[email protected]
Spencer Street
Senior Associate
[email protected]
Federal Advocacy:

Ben Goldeen
Fed. Advocacy Director
[email protected]
Joseph Melo
Senior Associate
[email protected]
Sammi Maciel
Senior Associate
[email protected]
TPA Advocacy Briefing for the City of Kingsburg

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor Pursell & City Council
REPORT FROM: Alexander J. Henderson, ICMA-CM REVIEWED BY: CW AGENDA ITEM: Developer Impact Fee Nexus Study – Proposal Discussion ACTION REQUESTED: ___Ordinance ___Resolution _ Motion ___Receive/File

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
California's Government Code Section 66001 (part of the Mitigation Fee Act) requires local agencies to conduct nexus studies for developer impact fees (DIF), establishing a reasonable relationship (or nexus) between the fee's purpose and the impact of development. These studies ensure fees are used to fund public capital facilities and improvements necessitated by new development and must be periodically updated to reflect current needs and conditions. The fees are a condition of project approval, and agencies must demonstrate how the fee is used to fund specified public improvements.

In September of 2021, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 602 and the Governor signed it into law. AB602 created new requirements for development impact fees. Specifically, the new law amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and added Section 66016.5 to impose the reporting requirements on cities, counties and special districts. In addition to new website reporting requirements, AB602 also changed some requirements for impact fee nexus studies. As a summary, AB602 requires a nexus study to be performed every eight years, starting January 1, 2022. All impact fees must now be adopted after the completion of a nexus study. When applicable, nexus studies shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service and explain why the new level of service is appropriate.

The City Council last approved an updated Nexus Study in 2016. Given the new State mandates and amount of time that has elapsed since the last city update, council authorized a budget allocation to complete a new nexus study. Staff crafted and released a request for proposal on August 1, 2025, with responses due by August 22, 2025. The city received two (2) qualified responses. The city has worked with both firms and staff has confidence that both are capable of meeting the scope of work outlined on the RFP.

1. DTA (Not to exceed cost of $49,210)
- DTA performed the City’s DIF Nexus Study in 2016
- Has completed DIF justification studies for a number of California Communities - DTA administers the City’s Community Facilities Districts fee collection

2. Willdan Financial Services ($87,300)
- Willdan administers the City’s Landscape & Lighting Districts Both firms are proposing approximately 6 months to complete the update. Staff intends to incorporate any proposed fee changes with the FY27 budget development, meaning any new impact fees would be considered by Council at that time, to take effect on July 1, 2026. As is dictated by State law, any existing projects that have received development entitlements would be grandfathered and would pay the current DIF rates.

While staff is confident that either firm can successfully complete the justification study, we are Meeting Date: 10/15/2025
Agenda Item: 16
recommending DTA given their proposed cost for services.

The Finance Committee reviewed both proposals during their October 6, 2025 meeting and have recommended DTA for the City DIF Nexus Study.

RECOMMENDED ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL

1. Staff is recommending that the Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with DTA to complete a development impact fee update and nexus study for the not to exceed cost of $49,210.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. N/A

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/KEY METRIC

1. Financial Stability

2. Preserve the Kingsburg Experience

3. Support Businesses

4. Community Safety

5. Community Engagement

FINANCIAL INFORMATION
The City has budgeted $50,000 to complete the study update.

PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
The Finance Committee and City Council have discussed the need for a DIF fee and nexus study update, with funding appropriated in the FY25 capital improvement budget.

ATTACHMENTS

1. DTA Proposal Response

2. Willdan Proposal Response

3. City’s Request for Proposal

4. Current Developer Impact Fee Nexus Study
FISCAL IMPACT:

1. Is There A Fiscal Impact? Yes

2. Is it Currently Budgeted? Yes

3. If Budgeted, Which Line? 210 – DIF FUNDS

▪▪▪

▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

▪▪▪▪

▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪
▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪

▪▪▪▪▪▪▪
▪▪▪▪▪▪

CITY OF KINGSBURG
Development Impact Fee Update
and Nexus Study

CALIFORNIA
Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study i
City of Kingsburg, CA
Table of Contents
Letter of Interest.............................................................................................................................................................. ii Project Understanding and Approach ..................................................................................................................1 Project Understanding ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Relevant Experience...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Firm Profile.............................................................................................................................................................. 5 References .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Similar Studies........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Project Manager / Key Staff ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Project Team ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Resumes................................................................................................................................................................ 11 James Edison, JD, MPP, MA ................................................................................................................................. 12 Carlos Villarreal, MPP............................................................................................................................................. 14 Proposed Scope of Services..................................................................................................................................... 16 Project Disclaimer ................................................................................................................................................ 19 Budget and Schedule................................................................................................................................................. 20 Project Timeline .................................................................................................................................................... 22 Signature Sheet..............................................................................................................................................................23 T 800.755.6864 | 66 Franklin Street, Suite 300, Oakland, California 94607 | www.willdan.com ii Letter of Interest
August 22, 2025
Ms. Christina Windover
Assistant City Manager
City of Kingsburg
1401 Draper Street
Kingsburg, CA 93631
Re: Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study for the City of Kingsburg Dear Ms. Windover:

Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) is pleased to present this proposal to the City of Kingsburg (“City”) to conduct a Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study. Willdan’s project approach helps to ensure the preparation of an impact fee study that will withstand technical challenges and public scrutiny. Given Willdan’s unmatched impact fee experience, we are particularly well positioned to serve the City and help achieve established long-term goals. Outlined below are the advantages and benefits that Willdan will provide for the City.

Unmatched experience implementing and defending fee programs. Willdan’s impact fee staff has assisted more than 100 California government agencies with the development and/or update of all fee types and is fortunate to be in a position that will provide a tremendous benefit to the City. Each project has required defensible documentation and thorough coordination of fee program changes for different agency departments and stakeholders within the business community.

In some cases, Willdan has been required to negotiate fees with stakeholders and, on occasion, defend them in meetings and public forums.

Established Law and Recent Legislation. We are particularly strong in advising our clients on the advantages and disadvantages of different fee schedule structures (citywide versus multiple-fee districts/zones; more versus fewer landuse categories; etc.) and methods of fee calculation that are based on the City’s and stakeholder priorities. Impact fees also need to be developed in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., also known as Assembly Bill 1600) so that they are defensible and transparent. We are also current on the changes to fee programs and the adoption of nexus studies resulting from AB 602, which took effect in 2022.

Recent Experience with the City of Kingsburg. Willdan collaborated with the City of Kingsburg on the preparation of a Cost Allocation Plan in 2020 and continues to provide annual administration services for Assessment District No. 93-01, including preparation of the Engineer’s Report for the levy and collection of assessments. Through this work, we have gained direct insight into the City’s financial framework, service delivery processes, and organizational structure, and we maintain the models and data from these efforts.

We will leverage this knowledge and our established relationships with City staff to streamline and expedite our work, reducing the need for extensive data gathering and allowing us to focus more time on analysis. This enables us to provide clear, defensible results and meaningful recommendations that other firms cannot match, allowing City staff to dedicate their time to core operations.

Innovative Methodologies. As Willdan operates nationally, we possess unique experiences in numerous jurisdictions dealing with multiple challenges. Our ability to produce studies that accommodate various options and viewpoints ensures fair-minded and sensible projects. Our methodology and approach to impact fees has proven to be effective for Cities and Counties, the development community, and the public. Utilizing focus groups, with established guidelines, during the study, fully informs the development community and the public of the justification of the impact fees, and their positive effect on community growth.

Successful project completion. Willdan has successfully completed many development impact fee studies, including most recently in the Counties of Madera, San Benito, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne and Yolo, as well as the Cities of Carpinteria, Garden Grove, Hollister, Murrieta, Oroville, Rialto and Santa Clara.

Ms. Christina Windover, Assistant City Manager
City of Kingsburg, CA
Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study August 22, 2025 | Page iii
Best-in-class impact fee team that can work immediately to prepare an impact fee program. The Willdan team begins a project by evaluating the agency’s existing fee program, if available, and current capital planning policies and funding programs. Not all capital projects are amenable to funding from impact fee programs, and we identify sources that complement fee revenues to fully fund the capital improvement program. The team’s Principal-in-Charge and Project Manager are well respected by our clients for their skill in proactively organizing a clear, consensus-based project approach.

Willdan affirms our ability to perform all work outlined in this RFP and to comply fully with the City’s requirements, including the established project schedule. We are ready to begin immediately upon award. Our project team will be fully available from October 2025 through June 2026, and we commit to maintaining this availability throughout the study. The proposed schedule anticipates a kickoff meeting in November 2025 and project completion in April 2026, well within the City’s required timeframe.

I, Chris Fisher, am an authorized signer for Willdan Financial Services and submit this proposal on the firm’s behalf. Mr.

James Edison will serve as the primary contact for this engagement. Should you wish to discuss any aspect of this submittal, please reach out to him directly; his contact information is provided in the table below.

Willdan Financial Services
Prime Contact
James Edison, JD, MPP
Managing Principal
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300, Oakland, California 94607 Direct #: (510) 912-4687| Email: [email protected]
Sincerely,
Willdan Financial Services
Chris Fisher
Vice President / Director
Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 1
City of Kingsburg, CA
Project Understanding and Approach
This section outlines Willdan Financial Services’ (“Willdan”) understanding of the City of Kingsburg’s (“City”) desire to update the Development Impact Fee Study, as well as identify the project objectives and discusses the background regarding public facilities financing in California. Also outlined is an overview of our impact fee project approach.

Project Understanding
As part of its broader financial planning efforts, the City seeks to evaluate the impacts of foreseeable future development on public services, infrastructure, and supporting facilities such as equipment and vehicles. The goal is to identify potential funding gaps for necessary improvements and to update the current impact fee program to ensure it is fair, reasonable, and compliant with the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and the new requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 602. The City is also interested in exploring opportunities to consolidate fee categories for clarity and administrative efficiency, as well as evaluating the feasibility of new fees, including groundwater recharge under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The resulting fees will reflect a legally defensible nexus, ensuring that new development funds its fair share of planned facilities without overburdening growth. To accomplish these objectives, the City has issued this RFP to prepare a comprehensive Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study.

Listed below are the development impact fees that are proposed to be included in this study. ▪ Traffic Facilities ▪ Public Safety Facilities
▪ General Government Facilities ▪ Parks and Recreation Facilities ▪ Water Facilities ▪ Storm Drain Facilities
▪ Sewer Connection Systems ▪ Administrative Fees
▪ Combined Recreation Area Acquisition and Improvement Fees ▪ Additionally, Willdan understands that the City wants to explore a fee for groundwater discharge Project Objectives
The objective of this project is to update development impact fees pursuant to State law, and to assist the City in understanding additional infrastructure needs necessitated by future development. To accomplish this objective, this study will:
▪ Develop a list of impact fee categories that will meet the City’s needs, including potential consolidation of existing categories for ease of administration;
▪ Develop a technically defensible fee justification, based on the reasonable relationship and deferential review standards;
▪ Review facility standards, capital facilities plans, development and growth assumptions, facilities master plans, and supporting infrastructure needs (equipment, vehicles, operational services); ▪ Identify potential additional fees to address unmet future capital facilities needs, including groundwater recharge fees required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA); ▪ Provide a schedule of maximum-justified fees by land use category; and ▪ Provide comprehensive documentation of assumptions, methodologies, and results, including findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act, and recommendations on credits, reimbursements, annual inflationary adjustments, and reporting best practices..

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:

1. The passage of a string of tax limitation measures starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;

2. Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;

3. Steep reductions in Federal and State assistance; and

4. Permanent shifting by the State of local tax resources to the State General Fund to offset deficit spending brought on by recessions.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 2
City of Kingsburg, CA
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of "growth pays its own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees, also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners or registered voters and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property.

Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit development jurisdiction-wide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.

Approach and Methodology
Willdan’s methodology for calculating public facilities fees is both simple and flexible. Simplicity is important so that the development community and the public can easily understand the justification for the fee program. At the same time, we use our expertise to reasonably ensure that the program is technically defensible.

Flexibility is important, so we can tailor our approach to the available data, and the agency’s policy objectives. Our understanding of the technical standards established by statutes and case law suggests that a range of approaches are technically defensible. Consequently, we can address policy objectives related to the fee program, such as economic development and affordable housing. Flexibility also enables us to avoid excessive engineering costs associated with detailed facility planning. We calculate the maximum justifiable impact fee and provide flexibility for the agency to adopt fees up to that amount.

Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The four steps followed in an impact fee study include:
▪ Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities; ▪ Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities; ▪ Determine facilities required to serve new development and their costs: Estimate the total amount and cost of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development; and ▪ Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the public facilities fee schedule.

We discuss key aspects of our approach to each of these steps in the subsections that follow.

Growth Projections
In most cases, we recommend use of long-range market-based projections of new development. By “long-range” we suggest 20 to 30 years to: capture the total demand often associated with major public facility investments; and support analysis of debt financing, if needed. In contrast to build out projections, market-based projections provide a more realistic estimate of development across all land uses. Build out projections typically overestimate commercial and industrial development because of the oversupply of these land uses relative to residential development.

Facility Standards
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (second bullet above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities.

Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.

Our approach recognizes three separate components of facility standards:

1. Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth. Examples include park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicles-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning;

2. Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates current facility design standards into the fee program to reflect the increasing construction cost of public facilities; and

3. Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), useful when disparate facilities are funded by a single fee program.

Examples include facility costs per capita, per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 3
City of Kingsburg, CA
Identifying New Development Facility Needs and Costs
We can take several different approaches to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development. Typically, this is a two-step process: 1) identify total facility needs; and 2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs. Total facility needs are often identified through a master facility planning process that typically takes place concurrent with or prior to conducting the fee study. Engineered facility plans are particularly important in the areas of traffic, water, sewer, and storm drain due to the specialized technical analysis required to identify facility needs.

There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs: 1) the existing inventory method; 2) the planned facilities method; and 3) the system plan method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.

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

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

Current Value of Existing Facilities = $/unit of demand Existing Development Demand Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition, the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.

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

Cost of Planned Facilities = $/unit of demand New Development Demand This method is appropriate when specific planned facilities can be identified that only benefit new development. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This method is appropriate when planned facilities would not serve existing development. Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used for the master facility plan.

System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the ratio of the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities divided by demand from existing plus new development:

Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities = $/unit of demand Existing + New Development Demand This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that work together to achieve the desired level of service. Police substations, civic centers, and regional parks are examples of similar facilities.

The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies. Often, facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities, required to correct the deficiency, to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 4
City of Kingsburg, CA
Calculating the Fee Schedule
At its simplest, the fee schedule uses the cost per unit of demand discussed in the last subsection to generate the fee schedule. This unit cost is multiplied by the demand associated with a new development project to calculate the fee for that project. The fee schedule uses different demand measures by land use category to provide a reasonable relationship between the type of development and the amount of the fee. We are familiar with a wide range of methods for identifying appropriate land use categories and demand measures depending on the study.

Related Approach Issues
Funding and Financing Strategies
In our experience, one of the most common problems with impact fee programs and with many CIPs is that the program or plan is not financially constrained to anticipated revenues. The result is a “wish list” of projects that generate community expectations that often cannot be fulfilled. Our approach is to integrate the impact fee program into the local agency’s existing CIPs while encouraging those plans to be financially constrained to available resources. We clearly state the cost of correcting existing deficiencies, if any, to document the relationship between the fee program and the need for additional non-fee funding.

We can also address one of the most significant drawbacks of an impact fee program – the inability to support conventional public debt financing, so projects can be built before all fee revenues have been received. In collaboration with financial advisors and underwriters, we have developed specific underwriting criteria so that fees can be used to pay back borrowing if another source of credit exists. Typically, this approach involves the use of Certificates of Participation or revenue bonds that are calibrated so that they can be fully repaid using impact fee revenues.

Economic Development Concerns
The development community often is concerned that fees and other exactions will become too high for development to be financially feasible under current market conditions. Local agencies have several strategies to address this concern, including:
▪ Conducting an analysis of the total burden placed on development, by exactions, to see if feasibility may be compromised by the proposed fees;
▪ Gathering similar data on the total fee burden imposed by neighboring or competing jurisdictions; ▪ Developing a plan for phasing in the fees over several years to enable the real estate market to adjust; ▪ Providing options for developers to finance impact fees through assessments and other types of financing districts; and
▪ Imposing less than the maximum justified fee.

If less than the maximum justified fee is imposed, we will work with staff to identify alternative revenues sources for the CIP. The CIP should remain financially feasible to maintain realistic expectations among developers, policymakers, and the public.

Stakeholder Participation
Stakeholder participation throughout the study supports a successful adoption process. Our approach is to create consensus first, around the need for facilities based on agreed upon facility standards. Second, we seek consensus around a feasible funding strategy for these needs, leading to an appropriate role for impact fees.

Gaining consensus among various groups requires a balanced discussion of both economic development and community service objectives. Often, our approach includes formation of an advisory committee to promote outreach to and input from the development community and other stakeholders. We have extensive experience facilitating meetings to explain the program and gain input.

Program Implementation
Fee programs require a certain level of administrative support for successful implementation. Our final report will include recommendations for appropriate procedures, such as:
▪ Regularly updating development forecasts;
▪ Regularly updating fees for capital project cost inflation; ▪ Regularly updating capital facility needs based on changing demands; ▪ Developing procedures for developer credits and reimbursements; and ▪ Including an administrative charge in the fee program.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 5
City of Kingsburg, CA
Relevant Experience
Firm Profile
Willdan Financial Services is an operating division
within Willdan Group, Inc. (WGI), which was founded
in 1964 as an engineering firm working with local
governments. Today, WGI is a publicly traded
company (WLDN). WGI, through its divisions, provides
professional technical and consulting services that
ensure the quality, value and security of our nation’s
infrastructure, systems, facilities, and environment.

The firm has pursued two primary service objectives
since its inception—ensuring the success of its clients and enhancing its surrounding communities.

A financially stable company, Willdan has
approximately 1,770 employees working in more than
a dozen states across the U.S. Our employees include
a number of nationally recognized Subject Matter
Experts for all areas related to the broadest definition of connected communities—including a team who
will be committed to contributing their expertise
throughout the duration of the City of Kingsburg’s
Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study
engagement.

Willdan has solved economic, engineering and energy challenges for local communities and delivered industry-leading solutions that have transformed government and commerce. Today, we are leading our clients into a future accelerated by a change in resources, infrastructure, technology, regulations, and industry trends.

Willdan Financial Services
Established on June 24, 1988, Willdan Financial Services, is a national firm and is one of the largest public sector economic and financial analysis consulting firms in the United States. Since that time, we have helped over 800 public agencies successfully address a broad range of infrastructure challenges.

Our staff of over 80 professionals support our clients by conducting year-round workshops and on-site training to assist them in keeping current with the latest developments in our areas of expertise.

Willdan assists local public agencies by providing the following services:

Willdan Financial Services
Services
▪ User fee studies;
▪ Cost allocation studies;
▪ Utility rate and cost of service studies;
▪ Feasibility studies;
▪ Municipal Advisory;
▪ Arbitrage and Continuing Disclosure Services;
▪ Economic development strategic plans;
▪ Debt issuance support
▪ Development impact fee establishment and analysis;
▪ District Administration Services;
▪ Real estate economic analysis;
▪ Property tax audits;
▪ Tax increment finance district formation and
amendment;
▪ Housing development and implementation strategies;
and
▪ Long-term financial plans and cash flow modeling.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 6
City of Kingsburg, CA
Experience and Expertise
Willdan has been preparing impact fee nexus studies since the passage of the Mitigation Fee Act. Our commitment to public agencies and public solutions has helped us develop the broad finance expertise that will be utilized to support the City’s Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study.

Willdan has worked on virtually every aspect of municipal finance, including fiscal and economic impact studies related to development and re-organization, the financing of
infrastructure and services through special district or supplemental taxes, and even working under contract as a department head of an entire municipality. This experience has provided Willdan team members with deep insight into the sources of municipal revenue and the costs of services.

Managing Principal James A. Edison and his team have
worked with public agencies on many community
development projects, including the full range of analysis related to feasibility, economic and fiscal impacts,
infrastructure finance, and negotiations with private
developers. Willdan is thoroughly familiar with both the Act and with the technical and policy issues surrounding impact fees.

Unique Qualifications
Willdan is uniquely qualified to assist the City of Kingsburg with the proposed Development Impact Fee Update and
Nexus Study. The following are specific advantages that we will provide for the proposed engagement.

Project Dedication
Willdan has assembled a project team of subject matter experts within the Financial Consulting Services group, to conduct the City of Kingsburg Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study engagement. This team has coordinated or participated in numerous public stakeholder and staff workshops regarding fees and cost of service-based charges.

Community Investment
Much of our success in developing impactful programs and studies is due to our experiences in meeting with citizen / stakeholder groups and elected officials. Our ability to explain technical information in a concise, understandable manner is a fundamental reason for our high degree of success. Willdan staff takes the time to include and inform the Community.

Proven Professionals
The Team’s quality is often as important as the consulting firm’s reputation. Willdan is known for its personal, customized service.

Our team will work with the City’s professional staff to provide the long‐term service, that is our prime goal.

Project Availability
Willdan’s Financial Consulting Services group is composed of a team of over 30 senior-level professional consultants.

While each member of the project team currently has work in progress with other clients, the workload is at a manageable level with sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the City specific to the schedule and budget for this engagement.

The team presented within this proposal
has worked collectively on numerous
projects, such as the one requested by the
City of Kingsburg; an established work
practice between the team members has
been forged, this proven long-standing
system has benefited our clients.

In the past five years Willdan has conducted
over 125 Impact Fee Studies
Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 7
City of Kingsburg, CA
References
Provided below are client references for projects completed by Willdan and the project team members proposed herein, which demonstrates our ability to provide the requested services. We are proud of our reputation for customer service and encourage you to contact our past clients regarding our commitment to excellence.

City of East Palo Alto
Development Impact Fee Nexus and Financial Feasibility Study In 2023, Willdan was selected through a competitive bidding process to conduct a comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus and Financial Feasibility Study for the City. The planned growth outlined in the City’s 2035 Vista General Plan represented significant changes to the anticipated development of the City, and the City’s impact fee program was due for an update pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act. Additionally, there has been an increasing interest in development within the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Transit-Oriented Development Specific Plan area that required modifications to the City’s infrastructure and financing plans.

To address these challenges, Willdan carried out a comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study update to revise the existing fees and conducted a Financial Feasibility Analysis to evaluate the effects of the maximum supportable impact fees on development projects. The impact fees included Water Capacity, Parks and Trails, Public Facilities, Transportation Infrastructure, and Storm Drainage.

For this project, the Willdan team evaluated nine development prototypes, compared impact fees with six similar cities, conducted extensive stakeholder outreach, and collaborated closely with City staff. The project was completed in March 2025.

Client Contact: Hanson Hom, FAICOP, Deputy Manager, Special Projects 1960 Tate Street, East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel #: (650) 519-5121 | Email: [email protected]
County of Stanislaus, CA
Development Impact Fee Update
Willdan has a long-standing relationship with the County of Stanislaus. In 2016, we assisted the County with an update to the existing impact fee program. The program is made up of a range of fee categories including animal control, behavioral health, criminal justice, detention, emergency services, health, library, park, sheriff patrol and investigation, and countywide information technology facilities. Fees are collected on new development countywide, including incorporated municipalities within the County, which include the Cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock and Waterford. The study also includes a Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF), which is currently being updated for the County. Considerable stakeholder outreach was an integral component of this project.

Willdan recently revised the Public Facilities Impact Fee Update report to include an accessory dwelling unit land use category.

Client Contact: Keith Boggs, Assistant Executive Officer (Retired, serving as independent consultant to the County) 1010 10th Street, Suite 6800, Modesto, CA 95354
Tel #: (209) 652-1514 | Email: [email protected]
Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 8
City of Kingsburg, CA
City of Pismo Beach, CA
Development Impact Fee Study
Willdan assisted the City of Pismo Beach with an update to their impact fee program. The program included the following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. This project was warranted due to the amount of time that had elapsed since the prior update, coupled with the adoption of new and revised public facility master plans that complemented the updated impact fees. Prior to fee program adoption, Willdan held a stakeholder meeting to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.

Willdan was re-engaged in 2024 to provide an update to the Development Impact Fee Study.

Client Contact: Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Tel #: (805) 773-7010 | Email: [email protected]
City of Murrieta, CA
Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study
Willdan was retained originally in 2013 to conduct a comprehensive update to the City’s impact fees. The team was once again retained through competitive bid in 2023 to update the following fees: Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, Streets and Minor Bridges, Traffic Signals, Storm Drainage, General Facilities, Bridge/Freeway/Ramps, Open Space Acquisition, Park Land Facilities, Community Center, and Public Library.

Willdan developed a technically defensible fee justification based on the reasonable relationship and deferential review standards; provided a schedule of maximum-justified fees by land use category; engaged stakeholders to facilitate public support for the impact fee; and provided comprehensive documentation of all assumptions, methodologies, and results, including findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Willdan was re-engaged in 2023 to provide an update to the Development Impact Fee Study.

Client Contact: Javier Carcamo, Finance Manager
1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA 92562
Tel #: (951) 461-6090 | Email: [email protected]
City of Fremont, CA
Comprehensive Impact Fee Update
Willdan’s impact fee staff has a long-standing relationship with the City of Fremont. In 2014/2015, Willdan successfully updated their impact fee programs, which included an update of the City’s transportation impact fee program and capital improvement program. The City retained Willdan again in 2020 to update their impact fee program and the project was completed during the second quarter of 2021.

Client Contact: Michelle Silva-Salinas, Public Works Business Manager 3300 Capitol Avenue, Fremont, CA 94538
Tel #: (510) 979-5705 | Email: [email protected] Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 9
City of Kingsburg, CA
Similar Studies
The following table lists Willdan’s development impact fee clientele that have utilized our services.

Willdan Financial Services
Development Impact Fee Experience
Partial Client List
City of Alameda, CA City of Pacifica, CA
City of Arcadia, CA City of Patterson, CA
City of Arroyo Grande, CA City of Parkland, FL
City of Artesia, CA City of Pismo Beach, CA
City of Atwater City of Pittsburg, CA
City of Azusa, CA City of Pleasant Hill, CA
City of Bakersfield, CA City of Rancho Mirage, CA
City of Barstow, CA City of Redwood City, CA
City of Bell, CA City of Rialto, CA
City of Bell Gardens, CA City of Richmond, CA
City of Bellflower, CA City of Rio Rancho, NM
City of Brea, CA City of Riverbank, CA
City of Calexico, CA City of Rolling Hills Estates, CA
City of Calimesa, CA City of Rosemead, CA
City of Carpinteria, CA City of San Carlos, CA
City of Chino Hills, CA City of San Fernando, CA
City of Claremont, CA City of San Gabriel, CA
City of Clovis, CA City of San Jacinto, CA
City of Coachella, CA City of San Marcos, CA
City of Commerce, CA City of San Ramon, CA
City of Compton, CA City of Santa Clara, CA
City of Corona, CA City of Sebastopol, CA
City of Covina, CA City of Selma, CA
City of Cudahy, CA City of Sierra Madre, CA
City of Dixon, CA City of Soledad, CA
City of Dublin, CA City of South Gate, CA
City of Eastvale, CA City of South Pasadena, CA
City of El Monte, CA City of South San Francisco, CA
City of El Segundo, CA City of St. Helena, CA
City of Emeryville, CA City of Tehachapi, CA
City of Fillmore, CA City of Temple City, CA
City of Fontana City of Thousand Oaks, CA
City of Fountain Valley, CA City of Tracy, CA
City of Fremont, CA City of Upland, CA
Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 10
City of Kingsburg, CA
Willdan Financial Services
Development Impact Fee Experience
Partial Client List
City of Garden Grove, CA City of Visalia, CA
City of Gilroy, CA City of Wasco, CA
City of Gonzales, CA City of Yucaipa, CA
City of Goose Creek, SC Coachella Valley Association of Governments, CA City of Guadalupe, CA Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Greenfield, CA County of Clay, FL
City of Grover Beach, CA County of Kern, CA
City of Hawthorne, CA County of Kings, CA
City of Healdsburg, CA County of Los Angeles, CA
City of Hemet, CA County of Madera, CA
City of Hercules, CA County of Merced, CA
City of Hollister, CA County of Placer, CA
City of Huntington Beach, CA County of Riverside, CA
City of Huntington Park, CA County of Sacramento, CA
City of Indian Wells, CA County of San Benito, CA
City of Irwindale, CA County of San Diego, CA
City of Kingsburg, CA County of San Joaquin, CA
City of La Mesa, CA County of San Luis Obispo, CA
City of La Verne, CA County of Santa Barbara, CA
City of Las Cruces, NM County of Solano, CA
City of Lake Elsinore, CA County of Sonoma, CA
City of Lake Forest, CA County of Stanislaus, CA
City of Lancaster, CA County of Tulare, CA
City of Lawndale, CA County of Yolo, CA
City of Livermore, CA East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Long Beach, CA Kern Council of Governments, CA
City of McFarland, CA Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, CA City of Madera, CA Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, CA City of Manteca, CA San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District, CA City of Menifee, CA Stanislaus Council of Governments, CA City of Moreno Valley, CA Tehachapi Valley Rec. & Park District, CA City of Morgan Hill, CA Town of Apple Valley, CA
City of Mountain View, CA Town of Mead, CO
City of Murrieta, CA Town of Windsor, CA
City of Newport Beach, CA Tulare County Association of Governments, CA City of Oroville, CA Village of Taos Ski Valley, NM
Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 11
City of Kingsburg, CA
Project Manager / Key Staff
Project Team
Our management and supervision philosophy for the project team is very simple: staff every position in sufficient numbers with experienced personnel to deliver a superior product and convey results to decision makers in meetings, on time and on budget. With that philosophy in mind, we have selected experienced professionals for the City’s engagement. We are confident that our team possesses the depth of experience that will successfully fulfill the desired work performance.

City of Kingsburg
Project Team
Key Team Member Project Role Responsibility to the Engagement James Edison, JD, MPP
Managing Principal Principal-in-Charge
▪ Ensure client satisfaction, flow of communication, and management of the project
▪ Technical guidance
▪ Project oversight
▪ Quality assurance & control, and
▪ Meeting and presentation attendance
Carlos Villarreal, MPP
Principal Consultant
Project Manager
▪ Collect, interpret, and disseminate key data
▪ Day to day contact
▪ Production of key elements of the analysis
▪ Model development
▪ Report preparation, and
▪ Meeting and presentation attendance
Staff Continuity
Mr. Edison has been assigned to serve as the City’s principal-in-charge; he has been selected for this role due to his extensive experience, which includes the preparation and supervision of numerous fee studies, as well as his experience presenting to governing bodies, stakeholders, and industry groups.

Resumes
Resumes for Willdan’s project team are presented on the following pages.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 12
City of Kingsburg, CA
Education
Juris Doctorate,
University of
California, Berkeley,
School of Law
Master of Public
Policy, Goldman
School of Public
Policy, University of
California, Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts,
magna cum laude,
Harvard University
Professional
Registrations
Member of State Bar,
California
Affiliations
Council of
Development Finance
Agencies
CFA Society of
San Francisco
Congress for the
New Urbanism
Urban Land Institute
Seaside Institute
International Economic
Development Council
26 Years’ Experience
James Edison, JD, MPP, MA
Principal-in-Charge
Mr. James Edison, Managing Principal, specializes in the nexus between public and private, with expertise in public-private partnerships, and the benefits of economic development to municipalities and state, provincial, regional, and national governments. He possesses deep expertise in land use economics, with a specialty in finance and implementation, including fiscal impact and the public and private financing of infrastructure and development projects, both in the U.S. and internationally. Mr.

Edison’s public-sector experience includes local and regional economic impact studies; fiscal impact evaluations; new government formation strategies; and the creation of impact fees, assessments, and special taxes to fund infrastructure and public facilities. He has conducted numerous evaluations of the economic and fiscal impact of specific plans and consulted on a wide variety of land use planning topics related to community revitalization and the economic and fiscal impacts of development.

As a former bond attorney, Mr. Edison understands the legal underpinnings and technical requirements of public financing instruments and has advised both public and private clients on the use of individual instruments, and the interaction between those instruments and the needs of developers and project finance.

Related Experience
City of Carpinteria, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison was the project manager for the City of Carpinteria’s Development Impact Fee update study engagement. The study included updates to the following fees: highways and bridges, streets and thoroughfares, traffic control, parking, storm drain, general government, aquatic, park and recreation, and open space. The City has engaged Willdan again to update their impact fees.

City of McFarland, CA – Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Edison was the principal-in-charge and technical advisor on the update to the City’s development impact fee program. The study included the following facility fee categories; general government, law enforcement, park and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer, storm drain, and traffic.

City of Manteca, CA – Fire Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the capacity of project manager for the update of the City’s fire services impact fee program.

City of Fillmore, CA – North Fillmore Specific Plan Nexus Study: Mr. Edison is currently assisting the City with an analysis of development impact fees needed to finance public facilities necessary for the development of the North Filmore Specific Plan. Public facilities included in this analysis include water, sewer systems, recycled water, and streets.

City of Pismo Beach, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the role of principal-in-charge of an update to the City’s impact fee program. The program included the following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. Prior to fee program adoption, a stakeholder meeting was held to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.

City of Morgan Hill, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as principal-incharge of an update to the City’s existing nexus study, which included general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library, and storm drain fee categories. The project scope included stakeholder outreach.

City of Fremont, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team in the successful update of the impact fee programs for the City of Fremont. The effort included an update of the City’s transportation impact fee program and capital improvement program.

County of San Benito, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison served as technical advisor to the County’s Impact Fee Study. The study included updates to the following fees: capital improvements, road equipment, fire mitigation, and park and recreation.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 13
City of Kingsburg, CA
City of Alameda, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team that updated the City of Alameda’s impact fee programs, as well as created a separate impact fee program for Alameda Point, the former Alameda Naval Air Station.

City of Santa Clara, CA – Parks Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as principal-in-charge of the City’s park impact fee update. This project included a demographic analysis and estimation of the cost of acquiring and improving public park land.

Stanislaus County Council of Governments, CA – Regional Transportation Fee Update: Mr.

Edison worked on an update of the County’s transportation impact fee program. Key tasks included a revised capital improvement program and fee model, along with a public participation process that ensures buy-in from the communities of Stanislaus County and the County government itself.

County of Tulare, CA – Countywide Impact Fees: Mr. Edison served as project manager for a study that involved the creation of an impact fee program for the County. The study included a range of facilities such as public protection, library, and parks, as well as a transportation facilities impact fee with different fees calculated for two zones in the County.

County of Riverside, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the effort to establish a comprehensive fee program for the County, including facilities fees for fire, police, parks, criminal justice, libraries, and traffic. He prepared the technical and analytical documents necessary to calculate the fee and establish the necessary nexus to collect it, as well as presented the fees during public hearings to the County Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, Mr. Edison is currently leading an update to the County’s development impact fees for 2030.

City of Moreno Valley, CA – Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison was the principal-in-charge for the City’s comprehensive impact update. Fee categories included arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities.

City of Murrieta, CA – Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Update: Mr. Edison served as the principal-in-charge of the City’s study to update their Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report, to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Willdan was recently re-selected, through competitive bid, to update the Impact Fees.

City of Cudahy, CA – Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team that helped the City analyze impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Cudahy through buildout of the City’s General Plan.

City of Indian Wells, CA – Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison served as the principal-incharge for the City Indian Wells’ update to their development impact fees. The fee program was comprised of a variety of fee categories including transportation, public facilities, recreation, park, and storm drain.

City of Fountain Valley, CA – Development Impact Fee Update Study: Mr. Edison served as the project manager for the City of Fountain Valley’s update to their development impact fees. Fees included the park impact fee, traffic improvement fee, transportation impact fee, utility infrastructure impact fee and general plan surcharge fee.

J. Edison
Resume Continued
Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 14
City of Kingsburg, CA
Education
Master of Public Policy,
Goldman School of
Public Policy,
University of California,
Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts,
Geography, University
of California, Los
Angeles; Minor in Public
Policy and Urban
Planning
Areas of Expertise
Fiscal Impact Analyses
Development Impact
Fees
Public Facilities
Financing Plans
GIS Analysis
18 Years’ Experience
Carlos Villarreal, MPP
Project Manager
Mr. Carlos Villarreal, a Financial Consulting Group Principal Consultant, is proposed to serve in the role of project manager due to his experience documenting nexus findings for development impact fees, preparing capital improvement plans, facilitating stakeholder involvement, and analyzing the economic impacts of fee programs. He has supported adoption of fee programs funding a variety of facility types.

Related Experience
City of Pismo Beach, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager for the City’s impact fee project. The program included: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. Prior to fee program adoption, a stakeholder meeting was held to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.

City of Carpinteria, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal was the lead analyst to update the City of Carpinteria’s impact fees, which included highways and bridges, streets and thoroughfares, traffic control, parking, storm drain, general government, aquatic, park and recreation, and open space. The City has engaged Willdan again to update their impact fees and Mr.

Villarreal is serving in the role of project manager.

County of San Benito, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Study: As project manager, Mr. Villarreal assisted the County with the preparation of an updated and expanded impact fee program. The study included updates to the following fees: capital improvements, road equipment, fire mitigation, and park and recreation.

City of Oroville, CA – Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager for a study updating the City’s development impact fee program, including parks, law enforcement, general government, fire suppression, and traffic facilities. The fee program was adopted by the City Council in 2015. The City engaged Willdan again to update the 2015 study, and Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager.

City of McFarland, CA – Development Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager updating the City’s development impact fee program. The study comprehensively updated the City’s fee program, incorporating new facility master planning and infrastructure costs necessary to facilitate expected development in the City through 2040. The study included the following facility fee categories; general government, law enforcement, park and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer, storm drain, and traffic. The fees were adopted by the City Council in 2020.

County of Stanislaus, CA – Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager for a study updating the County’s existing impact fee program. The program includes a range of facilities, like public protection, library, and parks. The study also included a transportation facilities impact fee, with different fees calculated for two zones in the County. Considerable stakeholder outreach was an integral component of this project.

City of Soledad, CA – Development Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal managed the update of the City’s impact fee program, specifically changes in demographics, growth projections, project costs, and facility standards. In particular, the City had to revise its capital facilities needs to accommodate a much lower amount of growth than what was projected before 2007. The resulting fees funded new development’s share of planned facilities, while not overburdening development with unnecessary costs.

City of Morgan Hill, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served as lead analyst assisting with an update to the City’s existing nexus study, including general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library, and storm drain fee categories. The project scope included stakeholder outreach. The City engaged Willdan again to update the study and Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 15
City of Kingsburg, CA
City of Murrieta, CA – Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Update: Mr. Villarreal served as the project manager of the City’s study to update their Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report, to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Willdan was recently re-selected, through competitive bid, to update the Impact Fees.

City of Long Beach, CA – Park Impact Fee Update: Willdan assisted with an update to the City’s existing park impact fees, with Mr. Villarreal serving in the role of project manager. The project included updating demographic data and facility planning to properly update park facility standards.

He used this information to then calculate impact fees for single family and multi-family residential dwelling units and prepare a nexus study documenting the revised fees and the required legal findings under the Mitigation Fee Act.

County of Los Angeles/City of Santa Clarita, CA – Law Enforcement Facilities Fee Study: Mr.

Villarreal assisted with the development of an impact fee program to fund law enforcement facilities serving the City of Santa Clarita, and other Antelope Valley jurisdictions within the County of Los Angeles. The analysis involved the comparison of law enforcement facilities serving incorporated and unincorporated areas.

County of Riverside, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal was the lead analyst in the effort to establish a comprehensive fee program for the County, including facilities fees for fire, police, parks, criminal justice, libraries, and traffic. He assisted in the preparation of the technical and analytical documents necessary to calculate the fees and establish the necessary nexus. Mr.

Villarreal is once again serving on the project team to update the County’s impact fees through 2030.

City of Moreno Valley, CA – Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Villarreal served as the project manager for the City’s comprehensive impact update. Fee categories included arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities. In 2022 the City added a public arts fee and workforce development facility fee.

C. Villarreal
Resume Continued
Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 16
City of Kingsburg, CA
Proposed Scope of Services
Willdan will work with the City to update its impact fees consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and other relevant laws. We want to ensure that our scope of services is responsive to the City’s needs and specific local circumstances. We will work with the City to revise our proposed scope based on input prior to approval of a contract, and as needed during the course of the study.

Task 1: Identify Policy Issues
Objective: Identify and discuss potential policy issues raised by the study. Kick-off meeting with staff to review data needs, policy issues, schedule and discuss potential additional fee categories.

Description: Review agency documents related to existing capital planning policies and funding programs including existing impact fees. Bring policy issues to City staff’s attention, as appropriate, during the project and seek guidance prior to proceeding. Potential policy issues include:
▪ Previous study from 2015 and annual fee reports;
▪ Changes in implementation resulting from AB 602;
▪ Changes in approach and nexus findings necessary to comply with AB 602; ▪ Adequacy of General Plan and other public facility planning policies (e.g., level of service standards); impact fee ordinances and resolutions, and prior nexus studies; ▪ Availability of existing public facility master plans and CIPs to identify needed facilities; ▪ Types of facilities to be funded by each fee, including supporting infrastructure such as vehicles and equipment;
▪ Land use categories for imposition of fees;
▪ Nexus approach to determining facility standards;
▪ Nexus approach to allocating cost burden among land uses, including need for separate fee zones; ▪ Potential alternative funding sources, if needed;
▪ Potential fee zones or subareas to tailor the fee program or address other policy considerations; ▪ Opportunities for fee consolidation to simplify administration; ▪ Consideration of groundwater recharge facilities in compliance with SGMA; ▪ City fee accounting poliices;
▪ Fee credit and reimbursement policies;
▪ Suggested annual fee inflator;
▪ Funding existing deficiencies, if identified; and
▪ Implementation concerns and strategies, including best practices.

Deliverables: (1) Information requests; and (2) revised project scope and schedule (if needed).

Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth Objective: (1) Identify estimates of existing levels of development; and (2) identify a projection of future growth consistent with current planning policy.

Description: Identify base year for estimating existing levels of development and for calculating facility standards based on existing facility inventories (see Task 3). Include entitled development that would be exempt from fee program.

Consult with City staff to identify growth projections to a defined long-range planning horizon (10 to 30 years). Projections provide a basis for determining the facilities needed to accommodate growth (see Task 4). Projections will be consistent with the City’s General Plan, regional planning agency forecasts, and will provide a foundation for the City’s CIP needs.

Develop approach for converting land use data to measure of facility demand.

For example, identify population and employment density factors to convert population and employment estimates to dwelling units and building square footage. Select appropriate approach for each impact fee based on:
▪ Available local data on facility demand by land use category; ▪ Approaches used by other agencies; and
▪ Support for other agency policy objectives.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 17
City of Kingsburg, CA
Changes to estimates and projections during subsequent tasks could cause unanticipated effort and require an amendment to the scope of services and budget. Obtain approval of estimates and projections from City staff prior to proceeding.

Task 3: Determine Facility Standards
Note: Conduct Tasks 3, 4, and 5 separately for each intended facility and fee type. Conduct tasks concurrently because of the effect of facility standards (Task 3), facility needs (Task 4), and alternative funding (Task 5) on the fee calculation.

Objective: Determine standards to identify facilities required to accommodate growth.

Description: Identify and evaluate possible facility standards depending upon the facility type, current facility inventory data, and available facility planning documents. Consider use of: (1) adopted policy standards (e.g., General Plan, master facility plans); (2) standards derived from existing facility inventories; or (3) standards derived from a list of planned facility projects. City staff to provide policies, inventories, and project lists. Willdan will work with the City to identify additional costs that might be eligible for funding by the DIF, including costs for supporting infrastructure such as vehicles, equipment, or other operational needs.

Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs
Objective: Identify the type, amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate growth and correct deficiencies, if any.

Description: Quantify total planned facilities based on growth projection from Task 2 and facility standards from Task

3. Express planned facilities in general quantities such as acres of parkland, or as a specific list of capital projects from a master facility plan.

Location of planned facilities may or may not be specified. If only a general description of planned facilities is available through the planning horizon, City staff to provide a list of specific capital projects for use of fee revenues during the short term (e.g., five years).

Distinguish between: (1) facilities needed to serve growth (that can be funded by impact fees); and (2) facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies (that cannot be funded by impact fees). Use one of three cost allocation methods (existing inventory, system plan, or planned facilities).

Gather planning-level data on new facilities costs based on lump sum project cost estimates, or unit costs and project quantities (acres, building square feet, lane miles, etc.). Consider recent City experience, local market data such as land transactions, and consultant team experience from prior projects. Inflate older cost estimates to base year using appropriate cost indices.

Facility needs will reflect CIP priorities and may include evaluation of groundwater recharge facilities. The analysis will also identify opportunities for fee consolidation or restructuring based on updated facility needs.

This scope of work does not include additional engineering analysis, including traffic engineering, to identify total facility needs, existing deficiencies, or cost estimates. Any such engineering/design work can be provided under a separate contract with Willdan Engineering or a third party. However, Willdan can use rough descriptions and comparables to calculate a reasonable cost estimate sufficient for use in the DIF study.

Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives
Objective: Determine the extent of alternative (non-fee) funding available for new facilities.

Description: If impact fees are going to only partially fund a capital project, the Mitigation Fee Act requires the agency report on the anticipated source and timing of the additional funding every five years. There are two types of alternative funding sources that we will identify:

1. Funding from non-impact fee sources to correct existing deficiencies; and

2. Funding from new development other than impact fees that must be credited against new development’s impact fee contributions, possibly including taxes paid to finance facilities.

Evaluation will also include credits and reimbursements for facility oversizing and potential reimbursement agreements, as well as best practices for annual fee indexing (e.g., CPI, CCCI, or other indices) consistent with State law.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 18
City of Kingsburg, CA
Assume facilities to be funded predominantly on a pay-as-you-go basis. Scope does not include a cash flow analysis to analyze effect of timing of fee revenues on financing costs.

Task 6: Comparison Analysis
Objective: Provide a comparison of the current and proposed impact fees to those of comparable/surrounding jurisdictions in Fresno County.

Description: Willdan will compare a total of five Fresno County jurisdictions to be selected by the City.

Typically, Willdan prepares an analysis of fees charged to a series of prototype developments (such as residential, retail, etc.) to provide an “apples to apples” comparison, but the exact methodology will be determined in consultation with the City. Willdan will also provide an overview of the fee structures of comparable cities.

Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report
Objective: Provide technically defensible fee report that comprehensively documents project assumptions, methodologies, and results.

Description: Generate fee schedule to apportion facility costs to individual development projects. Use facility costs per unit of demand multiplied by demand by land use category based on data developed in prior tasks.

Prepare draft report tables for City staff to review, that document each step of the analysis, including schedule of maximum justified fees by facility type land use category and all other requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Following one (1) round of comments from City staff on the quantitative analysis and fee schedules, prepare administrative draft report. The report will contain all required calculations and assumptions. In addition, Willdan will provide the City with best practices regarding a range of policy decisions for consideration by the City Council, including incentives or deferrals for affordable housing and other economic development considerations.

Following one (1) round of comments on administrative draft, prepare public draft for presentation to interested parties, the public and elected officials. This public review draft will be presented and public stakeholder meetings and at a Council informational session. Prepare final report, if necessary, based on comments received on the public draft report. If requested, post the report on our website for public access. Note that as of January 2022, the Nexus study is adopted separately from the fees, and with a 30-day notice.

Fees will be calculating residential land uses in compliance with AB 602.

Provide legal counsel with copies of fee resolutions and ordinances used by other jurisdictions.

Administrative and public drafts will include summary visuals and handouts to support stakeholder and Council meetings.

Deliverables: We will provide up to two (2) bound copies of the draft report, one (1) unbound copy, one (1) Microsoft Word copy; and up to two (2) bound copies of the final report.

Task 8: Meetings
Objective: The project manager or other necessary Willdan staff will attend project meetings. A member of the Impact Fee project team will attend up to four (4) in-person meetings and presentations throughout the City’s engagement. In person meetings will include a kick-off meeting, two finance meetings, and a city council meeting for fee adoptions. Phone conferences are not considered meetings for the purposes of this scope.

Optional: Optional stakeholder and Council meetings may be requested by the City and can be provided on a time and materials or fixed-fee basis..

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 19
City of Kingsburg, CA
City Staff Support
To complete our tasks, we will need the cooperation of City staff. We suggest that the City of Kingsburg assign a key individual to represent the City as the project manager who can function as our primary contact. We anticipate that the City’s project manager will:
1) Coordinate responses to requests for information;
2) Coordinate review of work products; and
3) Help resolve policy issues.

Willdan will endeavor to minimize the impact on City staff in the completion of this project. We will ask for responses to initial information requests in a timely manner. If there are delays on the part of the City, we will contact the City’s project manager to steer the project back on track. We will keep the City’s project manager informed of data or feedback we need to keep the project on schedule.

Project Disclaimer
Willdan is a registered municipal advisory firm with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), as such the City of Kingsburg represents, acknowledges, and agrees that Willdan is not acting as a “municipal advisor” (as defined by the SEC), to the City, in any capacity as it relates to the project proposed in this Impact Fee Study RFP. (i) The City uses, or may use, the services of one or more municipal advisors registered with the SEC to advise it in connection with municipal financial products and the issuance of municipal securities; (ii) The City is not looking to Willdan to provide, and the City shall not otherwise request or require Willdan to provide any advice or recommendations with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities (including any advice or recommendations with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues);
(iii) The provisions of this proposal and the services to be provided hereunder as outlined in the scope of services are not intended (and shall not be construed) to constitute or include any municipal advisory services within the meaning of Section 15B of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder;
(iv) For the avoidance of doubt and without limiting the foregoing, in connection with any revenue projections, cash-flow analyses, feasibility studies and/or other analyses Willdan may provide the City with respect to financial, economic or other matters relating to a prospective, new or existing issuance of municipal securities of the City , (A) any such projections, studies and analyses shall be based upon assumptions, opinions or views (including, without limitation, any assumptions related to revenue growth) established by the City, in conjunction with such of its municipal, financial, legal and other advisers as it deems appropriate; and (B) under no circumstances shall Willdan be asked to provide, nor shall it provide, any advice or recommendations or subjective assumptions, opinions or views with respect to the actual or proposed structure, terms, timing, pricing or other similar matters with respect to any municipal financial products or municipal securities issuances, including any revisions or amendments thereto; and (v) Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, the City recognizes that interpretive guidance regarding municipal advisory activities is currently quite limited and is likely to evolve and develop during the term of the potential engagement and, to that end, the City will work with Willdan throughout the term of the potential Agreement to ensure that the Agreement and the services to be provided by Willdan hereunder, is interpreted by the parties, and if necessary amended, in a manner intended to ensure that the City is not asking Willdan to provide, and Willdan is not in fact providing or required to provide, any municipal advisory services.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 20
City of Kingsburg, CA
Budget and Schedule
Based upon the scope of work identified herein, Willdan proposes a fixed fee of $87,300 for the City’s Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study. The table below provides a breakdown of the proposed fee by task and team member.

Notes
Please note the following:
▪ The Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study fee denoted above includes attendance at up to four inperson meetings with City staff, stakeholders, and City Council. o Attendance at more than four meetings and/or presentations will be billed at our current hourly rates, provided below, and actual expenses.
▪ Comprehensive written responses to resolve conflicts or preparation of more than one set of major revisions to the draft report will be classified as Additional Services and may require additional billing at hourly rates stated in the hourly rate schedule listed below. These additional fees shall only take effect once the fixed fee stated above has been exceeded.
▪ Our fixed fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project. ▪ We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed. ▪ City shall reimburse Willdan for any costs Willdan incurs, including without limitation, copying costs, digitizing costs, travel expenses, employee time and attorneys' fees, to respond to the legal process of any governmental agency relating to City or relating to the project. Reimbursement shall be at Willdan 's rates in effect at the time of such response.
▪ Optional/Additional Services beyond the listed Scope of Services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then-current hourly overhead consulting rates.
▪ The fee mentioned above may be lower, should there be fewer additional fees. ▪ Willdan will rely on the validity and accuracy of the City’s data and documentation to complete the analysis. Willdan will rely on the data as being accurate without performing an independent verification of accuracy and will not be responsible for any errors that result from inaccurate data provided by the client or a third party.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 21
City of Kingsburg, CA
Hourly Rates
Provided below is Willdan’s hourly rate table identifying current hourly rates for additional or optional services.

Willdan Financial Services
Hourly Rate Schedule
Position Team Member Hourly Rate
Vice President / Director $310
Managing Principal James Edison $300
Principal Consultant Carlos Villarreal $270
Senior Project Manager $250
Project Manager $210
Senior Project Analyst $150
Senior Analyst $135
Analyst II $120
Analyst I $110
Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 22
City of Kingsburg, CA
Project Timeline
Willdan anticipates time is of the essence for the City to begin this engagement. Typically, an impact fee study requires approximately six to seven months from notice to proceed to adoption. The proposed schedule can only be met with the cooperation of City staff. Delays in responding to our requests for data and review will result in corresponding delays to the project schedule. If that is the case, we will notify the City immediately of the possible impact on the schedule.

Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study 23
City of Kingsburg, CA
Signature Sheet
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94607
510.832.0899
www.willdan.com
2025-07-23
Revised
.

CITY OF KINGSBURG

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE AND NEXUS STUDY

SUBMISSION DEADLINE
Friday, August 22, 2025
BY 4:00 P.M.

SUBMIT TO:

Electronic Submission
[email protected]
For questions concerning this RFP contact by e-mail:

Christina Windover
Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
Kingsburg Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study RFP | 1

NOTICE REQUESTING PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE AND NEXUS STUDY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Kingsburg, California, will receive sealed proposals from qualified Consultants at the Office of the City Clerk at Kingsburg City Hall, 1401 Draper Street, Kingsburg, California 93631 until 4:00 P.M. Friday, August 22, 2025.

The services to be performed by the successful Consultant are described in this Request for Proposal under “Scope of Services”. Request for Proposal documents may be obtained from the City’s website at www.cityofkingsburg-ca.gov or by contacting City Clerk, Abigail Palsgaard, at (559) 897-5821 or [email protected].

Proposals shall be sealed, and clearly marked “RFP 2026 Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study.” All responsive proposals shall be reviewed and evaluated by the City in order to determine which Consultant best meets the City’s needs for this project by demonstrating the competence and qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the required services. The criteria by which the City shall evaluate proposals are set forth in this Request for Proposal.

The City of Kingsburg reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to delete portions of any and all proposals, to waive any informality or irregularity in any proposal received or in the RFP procedures, and to be the sole judge of the merits of the qualifications received.

Be advised that unauthorized conditions, limitations, or provisions attached to the Proposal may render it unresponsive and may cause its rejection. Oral, telegraphic, or telephonic proposals or modifications will not be considered. The award, if made, will be made to the most qualified consultant based on the criteria set forth in the RFP documents.

Submission Format:

Submit one (1) electronic copy via email to [email protected] Kingsburg Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study RFP | 2

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study
The City of Kingsburg (“City”) is requesting proposals from experienced and qualified consulting firms to assist the City in the preparation of a Development Impact Fee (DIF) Update and Nexus Study. The City assesses a variety of DIFs on new development to mitigate the infrastructure costs generated by new development activity. The City’s impact fee program must comply with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., also known as Assembly Bill 1600) and the requirements of Assembly Bill 602, effective January 1, 2022.

The Consultant shall prepare an effective, clear, and concise proposal.

GENERAL INFORMATION
Kingsburg is a unique community, with a current population of just over 13,000, located in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon National Parks, as well as the scenic Central Coast are all within a two-hour drive. More information about Kingsburg can be obtained online at www.cityofkingsburg-ca.gov.

BACKGROUND
The most recent impact fee study was conducted in 2015. The current study can be found as Exhibit A to this document.

The City of Kingsburg’s current impact fees include:
• Traffic Facilities
• Public Safety Facilities
• General Government Facilities
• Parks and Recreation Facilities
• Water Facilities
• Storm Drain Facilities
• Sewer Connection Systems
• Combined Recreation Area Acquisition and Improvement Fees • Administrative Fees

ROLE OF CONSULTANT
The Consultant will work closely with the City Team and stakeholders. The Consultant must demonstrate expertise in preparing development impact fees studies, impact fee credit programs, financial analysis, and project management. An ideal consultant will also have experience preparing development impact fees studies applicable to development of large scale public/private development sites.

Kingsburg Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study RFP | 3

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Scope of Services involves all necessary analyses and documentation to develop and support a comprehensive Development Impact Fee Program that meets the requirements of State law.

This RFP is a step in the City’s procurement process to competitively acquire the desired services and products. Firms responding to this RFP shall be prepared to deliver products and perform the work necessary to provide the services described within approximately four to five months of the project start date. The project consists of furnishing all labor, materials, equipment, tools, supervision, and travel necessary to complete the following tasks:

1. Document Review:
a. AB 1600 Reports completed annually
b. Prior Fee Study (2015)

2. Findings and Fees: Provide sufficient information, a completed Nexus Study, and the necessary findings to help the City update the DIF Program based on proposed infrastructure requirements to support the City’s General Plan growth projections and the City’s Capital Improvement needs. The Consultant will work with the City Staffto determine other supporting infrastructure (i.e., equipment, vehicles, etc.) or other operational services that could rightfully be included in the fee program to ensure the costs of such supporting infrastructure are paid by development. The Consultant shall provide
recommendations regarding changes to existing fee structures and/or newly proposed fees and fee structures. For context and comparison, the Consultant shall perform research and provide a summary of development impact fees from similar California cities and others in Fresno County.

3. The city wishes to explore options for consolidating fees to clarify for developers and for ease of administration. In addition, the consultant will examine incorporation of an impact fee for groundwater recharge, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

4. Meetings: The Consultant shall include attendance at the following meetings, as a minimum, in their proposal. Should the consultant identify a meeting they feel necessary to achieve results beyond the meetings described below, they shall describe them in their proposal.

Meetings with staff can be virtual, as needed. Consultant should budget for three on-site meetings to present to the city’s Finance Committee and City Council. Consultant shall include rates for additional meetings, should they be required.
a. Kick-off meeting between Consultant and City staff to review objectives of the study, agree to methodology, confirm project schedule and milestones, and discuss data needs.
b. Data collection and clarification meetings with City staff to Kingsburg Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study RFP | 4 obtain relevant information or clarify information required to complete the Nexus Study.
c. Review findings with City staff. Consultant to provide information supporting findings and proposed fees.
d. Two meetings of Finance Committee to present Public Review Draft Nexus Study and Fee Updates and seek input.
e. City Council meeting to present Draft Nexus Study and Fee Updates. Discuss methodology and findings, provide a formal presentation, answer questions, and collect input to prepare the final draft.
f. If needed, an additional City Council meeting to follow up on the first meeting and present the final draft.

5. Best Practices: Recommend best practices to help ensure effective and accurate assumptions for the Nexus Study, accurate DIF collections, and efficient tracking and reporting on DIF activities as required by AB 1600 and AB 602.
a. Fee Accounting: The Consultant shall evaluate the City’s current system of fee accounting and administration and recommend an improved approach, if necessary, consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and standard accounting principles.
b. Consistent with the City’s overall funding and financing policies, the study should address credits and reimbursements for oversizing and recommend a policy for future Reimbursement Agreements.
c. The Consultant should evaluate the City’s current reporting practices and recommend best practices for annual reports to City Council.
d. Fee levels may increase each year to keep pace with inflation.

The Consultant should address whether the Consumer Price Index, California Construction Cost Index (CCCI), or another index should be the preferred basis for annual increases, consistent with State law.

6. Report Deliverables: Prepare a DIF Nexus Study and recommend DIF fee updates for submittal to the City Council containing background information, methodology, findings, and recommendations. More specifically, Consultant shall fulfill the following requirements, as a minimum:
a. Administrative Draft: The Consultant will prepare and provide a comprehensive administrative draft, as well as technical reports for each fee category, including but not limited to methodology, findings, supporting justification, recommended DIF,
recommendation for the elimination/consolidation of existing fees based on creation of new fees, methodology for calculating and applying fee credits in each category, and calculations that provide the legal nexus between the fee recommendations and new development as required by law.

Kingsburg Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study RFP | 5 b. The Consultant will document all work assumptions, analysis procedures, findings, graphics, impacts, and recommendations, with technical documentation in appendices. The administrative draft will include an executive summary and conclusion. c. Generally, the administrative draft will consist of a discussion of the framework, project description, applicable statutory/legal framework, methodologies used, analysis, a list of projects to fund and their prioritization by type, and fee and fee credit methodology recommendations.
d. The administrative draft will include strategies and options for City Council consideration, including but not limited to incentives (fee deferrals or waivers) for a development impact fee that supports groundwater sustainability (see previously complete study information attached). The Consultant should anticipate working with City staff to refine the project lists and cost estimates and prioritize improvement items to balance revenue generation and economic feasibility considerations.

Consultant will include strategies and options for City Council to keep fee levels reasonable and analyze how these options would impact the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
e. The Consultant will revise the administrative draft according to one set of consolidated comments on the draft report from City staff.
f. Public Review Draft: Consultant will develop and present a Public Review Draft at up to two (2) Finance Committee
meetings and necessary City Council meetings until Final Draft.

The purpose of these meetings is to solicit community and stakeholder input. The Consultant shall develop summary information such as visual presentations and printable handouts for these meetings that summarize the findings and analysis from the Public Review Draft.
g. Final Draft: After incorporating input from the administrative and public review drafts, the Consultant shall prepare a final report draft. The Consultant will present the final study to the City Council during a public hearing and make any revisions requested by City Council. The Consultant will assist staff and participate in the presentation to Council if any additional follow-up meetings are needed to complete the adoption of the DIF study. Final work product to be owned by the City.
h. Additional Tasks: If the Consultant feels that additional deliverables are warranted, they must be identified in the proposal.

Kingsburg Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study RFP | 6

PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT
Submit one (1) electronic copy via email to [email protected]

1. Letter of Interest: Please include a letter expressing the Consultant’s interest in being considered for the project. Include a statement regarding the Consultant’s availability to dedicate time, personnel, and resources to this effort during the period of October 2025 – June 2026. The letter of interest must include a commitment to the availability of the Consultant and all key project staff during the planning period and a proposed schedule designed to meet the City’s deadline for the impact fee study which is outlined in Exhibit A (2-page maximum).

2. Project Understanding and Approach: Please include a statement demonstrating your understanding of the proposed project and of the Kingsburg community and describe your approach to completing the project successfully and within the proposed budget and schedule. In particular, describe the Consultant’s initial thoughts on a) if and/or whether the existing impact fees should be combined, and b) how to address any additional impact fees for the City (2-page maximum).

3. Relevant Experience: Please include information describing the Consultant’s experience with development impact fees, including fees and infrastructure financing established for public development sites. Please provide a minimum of 5 specific examples of the Consultant’s relevant experience on development impact fees, including specific examples of the Consultant’s experience with the development of a uniform system for developing a methodology for calculating the value and use of developer credits against payment of impact fees. Please provide references for each example including phone number and/or email address of contacts. Similar information should be provided for any sub-consultants (15-page maximum).

4. Project Manager/Key Staff: Please include information about the specific relevant experience and billing rates for the proposed Project Manager and the Principal-inCharge (if that person is different from the Project Manager) and all other applicable staff. A Project Manager must be designated and must be the principal contact for the City. Information on the experience of the Project Manager (on similar projects) and at least four references for the Project Manager and Principal-in-Charge (should that be a different person) are required (5-page maximum).

5. Proposed Scope of Services: Please provide a Proposed Scope of Services, which is based on the scope of work contained in this RFP; and discuss any ideas for modifying, clarifying, or improving the City’s proposed scope of work so that the City is able to implement a fair and effective development impact fee and credit program that is able to fund its highest priority capital improvements for the City of Kingsburg.

Kingsburg Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study RFP | 7

6. Budget and Schedule: Based on the Proposed Scope of Services, please provide a detailed budget and schedule that meets the timeframe proposed by the City. If your proposed schedule exceeds the proposed timeframe, please indicate the reasons why you believe additional time will be needed to complete the project.

SELECTION PROCESS
The selection process for the consultant will proceed as follows:

1. Based upon the submitted proposals, the City selection team may select up to three (3) Consultants to interview.

2. Upon completion of the city review and potential interviews, the city will select a preferred Consultant Team. The City intends to negotiate the contract with the selected Consultant Team in a timely manner so that the contract can be approved by the City Council and the Consultant Team can commence work in October 2025.

The final selection will be based upon the following criteria:

A. The Consultant Team’s proposed scope of work, its demonstrated understanding of the proposed project and the Kingsburg community, and its demonstrated ability to successfully complete the project in a timely manner.

B. The Consultant Team’s past experience and results with similar projects, and the feedback received from reference checks made on the Consultant.

C. The quality and experience of the Project Manager and key staff persons who will be working on the project on a regular basis.

D. The Consultant Team’s proposed fees and costs for the engagement and ability to deliver the proposed Scope of Services within their proposed schedule and budget.

E. The Consultant Team’s ability to meet the City’s standard contract and insurance requirements.

The City will not discriminate against any interested firm or individual on the grounds of race, creed, color, sex, age, disability, national origin or other protected class in the contract award. The City reserves the right to reject all proposals, to request additional information concerning any proposal for purposes of clarification, to accept or negotiate any modification to any proposal following the deadline for receipt of all proposals, and to waive any irregularities if such would serve the best interests of the City.

Kingsburg Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study RFP | 8

CONDITIONS OF REQUEST
A. General Conditions
The City reserves the right to cancel or reject all, or a portion, or portions of this Request for Proposals without notice. Further, the City makes no representations that any contract will be awarded to any organization submitting a Proposal. The City reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals submitted in response to this request or any addenda thereto.

Any changes to the Proposal requirements will be made by written addendum sent by email.

B. Liability of Costs and Responsibility
The City shall not be liable for any costs incurred in response to this request for Proposals.

All costs shall be borne by the person or organization responding to the request. The person or organization responding to the request shall hold the City harmless from any and all liability, claim or expense whatsoever incurred by or on behalf of that person or organization. All submitted material becomes the property of the City of Kingsburg.

The selected organization will be required to assume responsibility for all services offered in the Proposal whether or not they possess them within their organization. The selected organization will be the sole point of contact with regard to contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the contract.

C. Permits and Licenses
The Consultant and all the Consultant’s approved sub-consultants, at its and/or their sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of any agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License which will be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder.

D. Consultant's Representative
The person signing the Proposal must be a legal representative of the firm authorized to bind the firm to an agreement in the event of the award.

ADMINISTRATIVECONTACT
Any questions regarding contractual terms and conditions, proposal format, technical specifications, or Statement of Work requirements shall be directed in writing to:

Christina Windover
Assistant City Manager
(559) 897-5821
(559) 257-4240 fax
[email protected]
Kingsburg Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study RFP | 9

DUE DATES
All Proposals are due by 4:00 P.M. on Friday, August 22, 2025. Any Proposal received at the designated location after the required time and date specified for receipt shall be considered late and non-responsive. It is the responsibility of the Consultant to ensure that the Proposal is delivered to the place by the time specified in this RFP. Any late Proposals shall be returned unopened.

Kingsburg Development Impact Fee Update and Nexus Study RFP | 10

SIGNATURESHEET
My signature certifies that the proposal as submitted complies with allterms and conditions as set forth in this RFP.

My signature certifies that this firm has no business or personal relationships with any other companies or person that could be considered a conflict of interest, or potential conflict of interest to the City of Kingsburg, pertaining to any and all work or services to be performed as a result of this request and any resulting Contract with the City.

The Consultant hereby certifies that it has:
• Examined the local conditions and current City of Kingsburg Impact Fees. • Read each and every clause of this RFP.
• Included all costs necessary to complete the specified services in its proposed prices. • Agreed that if it is awarded the Contract, it will make no claim against the City based upon ignorance of local conditions or misunderstanding of any provision of the RFP. Should conditions turn out otherwise than anticipated, the Consultant agrees to assume all risks incident thereto.

I hereby certify that I am authorized to sign as a Representative for the Firm:

Name of Firm: _
Address: _
Fed ID No: _
Name (type/print): _
Title:

Telephone:

Email: Date:

To receive consideration for award, this signature sheet must be returned with the Proposal.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
South Kings GSA
South Kings GSA Development
Impact Fee
October 2021
Prepared for:

South Kings GSA
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Avenue, Fresno, CA 93611

South Kings GSA
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 iii Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Background ...........................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Study Outline ...........................................................................................................................1-1 2 Existing and Projected Conditions.....................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Groundwater, Surface Water, and Land Use...........................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Land Use and Water Balance.......................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Impacts to Groundwater with Changes in Land Use...................................................2-1

2.2 Population – Historic and Projected ........................................................................................2-2

2.2.1 Historic Population ......................................................................................................2-2

2.2.2 Projected Population...................................................................................................2-3

2.3 Water Demands.......................................................................................................................2-3

2.3.1 Historic Water Demands .............................................................................................2-3

2.3.2 Projected Water Demands..........................................................................................2-4

2.4 Recharge Requirements...........................................................................................................2-5

2.5 Land Use Characteristics..........................................................................................................2-5

2.5.1 Land Use Characteristics..............................................................................................2-5 3 Methodology.....................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Basin Costs...............................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Water Supply Cost....................................................................................................................3-1 4 Del Rey Community Service District..................................................................................................4-1 5 City of Fowler ....................................................................................................................................5-1 6 City of Kingsburg ...............................................................................................................................6-1 7 City of Parlier.....................................................................................................................................7-1 8 City of Sanger ....................................................................................................................................8-1 South Kings GSA
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 iv
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Agricultural to Urban Land Use Conversion Impacts to Water Balance and Groundwater ...2-2 Figure 2-2. Del Rey CSD Undeveloped Area..............................................................................................2-7 Figure 2-3. City of Fowler Undeveloped Area...........................................................................................2-8 Figure 2-4. City of Kingsburg Undeveloped Area ......................................................................................2-9 Figure 2-5. City of Parlier Undeveloped Area .........................................................................................2-10 Figure 2-6. City of Sanger Undeveloped Area.........................................................................................2-11 Figure 3-1. Methodology Steps.................................................................................................................3-1 List of Tables
Table 2-1. Historic Population (2000-2017)..............................................................................................2-2 Table 2-2. Projected Population (2020-2040, 5-Year Increments) ...........................................................2-3 Table 2-3. Historic Water Demands (2001-2017) .....................................................................................2-4 Table 2-4. Projected Water Demands (2020-2040, 5-Year Increments)...................................................2-5 Table 2-5. Summary of Developed and Undeveloped Area within SOIs...................................................2-6 Table 2-6. Summary of Land Use and Water Use Factors.......................................................................2-13 Table 3-1. Basin Cost per Community.......................................................................................................3-1 Table 4-1. Land Uses for Del Rey Undeveloped Area................................................................................4-1 Table 4-2. Water Use Factor, Basin Area, and Basin Fee for Undeveloped Area in Del Rey ....................4-1 Table 5-1. Land Uses for Fowler Undeveloped Area.................................................................................5-1 Table 5-2. Water Use Factor, Basin Area, and Basin Fee for Undeveloped Area in Fowler .....................5-2 Table 6-1. Land Uses for Undeveloped Lands in Kingsburg ......................................................................6-1 Table 6-2. Water Use Factor, Basin Area, and Basin Fee for Undeveloped Area in Kingsburg.................6-2 Table 7-1. Land Uses for Undeveloped Areas in Parlier............................................................................7-1 Table 7-2. Water Use Factor, Basin Area, and Basin Fee for Undeveloped Area in Parlier......................7-2 Table 8-1. Land Uses for Undeveloped Lands in Sanger...........................................................................8-1 Table 8-2. Water Use Factor, Basin Area, and Basin Fee for Undeveloped Area in Sanger .....................8-2 South Kings GSA
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 v
Abbreviations
ac/ac......................................................................................................................................... acres per acre afy.......................................................................................................................................acre-feet per year afy/ac ...................................................................................................................acre-feet per year per acre CID................................................................................................................. Consolidated Irrigation District CSD.....................................................................................................................Community Services District gpcd....................................................................................................................... gallons per capita per day gpd/ac ...................................................................................................................... gallons per day per acre GSA.........................................................................................................Groundwater Sustainability Agency GSP..............................................................................................................Groundwater Sustainability Plan SKGSA................................................................................. South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency SOI................................................................................................................................... Sphere of Influence sq ft ...............................................................................................................................................square feet UWMP......................................................................................................... Urban Water Management Plan WUF.....................................................................................................................................Water Use Factor Section One: Introduction
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 1-1 1 Introduction and Background
This study has been prepared to aid the South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SKGSA or GSA) in evaluating the costs, on a per acre basis, associated with groundwater recharge needs for future development in each of the five communities that comprise the GSA, including Del Rey Community Service District (CSD) and the cities of Fowler, Kingsburg, Parlier, and Sanger. Specifically, the study will provide an analytical basis for the establishment of fees to be paid by developers to mitigate the impacts of groundwater extraction for water use associated with future development. With these fees the communities then assume the primary responsibility for implementing the needed mitigation.

This study summarizes assumptions and data from the South Kings GSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) that serve as the technical basis for the groundwater related fees, except when more recent data was available, in which case the updated information is noted.

Once developed, the communities will utilize this information to develop fees to be assessed to future development.

1.1 Study Outline
Section 1: Introduction and Background – the first section provides an explanation of the purpose of the study and expands upon the remaining sections of the study.

Section 2: Existing and Projected Conditions – the second section of the study restates the information presented in the GSP pertaining to historic water demands, projected water demands, anticipated groundwater recharge requirements, and summary of acreages of undeveloped area in each community. This information will be presented in summary but divided by community for clarity of use in later sections.

Section 3: Methodology – the third section presents the methodology of developing the cost (per acre) of developing recharge basins and the associated cost of surface water to be recharged in those basins.

The cost will be presented first, on average for all acreages across the GSA and secondly, on a land use basis. The purpose of the second approach is to understand that higher density land uses have a different water demand than lower density land uses and utilizing the land use designation will account for the difference in water demands and, ultimately, be the basis for the fee development.

Sections 4 through 8: Community Sections – the final sections will utilize the information presented in Sections 2 and 3 and develop costs and fees for each of the five communities.

Section Two: Existing and Projected Conditions
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-1 2 Existing and Projected Conditions
The GSP provides a robust discussion and analysis of water demands, impacts to groundwater levels and necessary mitigations related to those items, and the overall water balance for the area; this discussion is not repeated in this study. Reference is made to the GSP for a broader understanding of how future development will impact groundwater and the understood mitigation methods.

2.1 Groundwater, Surface Water, and Land Use

2.1.1 Land Use and Water Balance
In general, typically with the conversion of agricultural land use to urban land use, the following scenarios occur:
• Evapotranspiration and Consumption of water will decrease, • Usable Precipitation also decreases because of hardened surfaces and increased storm water runoff,
• Direct Recharge decreases because of piping or lining canals and ditches, • Deep Percolation decreases because of less surface area being irrigated and less water being applied,
• Surface Water use is typically eliminated as urban/industrial areas use groundwater almost exclusively,
• Significant quantities of Wastewater are generated and often exported outside of the city proper, and
• As Pumped Groundwater becomes the primary source of water for the urban/industrial area, it may or may not show an increase in use over the previously agricultural area depending largely upon the relative volumes of Surface Water and Pumped Groundwater used in the agricultural setting.

Changes to Inflow and Outflow to a groundwater basin occur very slowly, as the rate of water movement in the subsurface is extremely slow. Changes in land use can affect the movement of water into and out of a groundwater basin, but the slow movement of groundwater dampens the effect of these changes and renders the changes difficult to quantify without a great deal of modeling and analysis.

2.1.2 Impacts to Groundwater with Changes in Land Use
As mentioned above, the overall water balance for the Study Area is fully discussed and detailed in the GSP. However, it is important to note the changes to groundwater impacts as a result of changes in land use. Figure 2-1 illustrates the changes in how water moves in an agricultural area versus an urban area.

Section Two: Existing and Projected Conditions
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-2 Figure 2-1. Agricultural to Urban Land Use Conversion Impacts to Water Balance and Groundwater

2.2 Population – Historic and Projected

2.2.1 Historic Population
Historic populations from 2000 through 2017 have been provided below for each of the five communities within the GSA. These populations were used to analyze past water demand and help predict future demand in each of the communities.

Table 2-1. Historic Population (2000-2017)
Year Del Rey CSD Fowler Kingsburg Parlier Sanger
2000 950 3,979 9,199 11,145 18,931
2001 1,019 4,138 9,417 11,480 19,465
2002 1,088 4,297 9,635 11,815 19,999
2003 1,157 4,456 9,853 12,150 20,533
2004 1,226 4,615 10,071 12,485 21,067
2005 1,295 4,774 10,289 12,820 21,601
2006 1,364 4,933 10,507 13,155 22,135
2007 1,433 5,092 10,725 13,490 22,669
2008 1,502 5,251 10,943 13,825 23,203
2009 1,571 5,410 11,161 14,160 23,737
2010 1,639 5,570 11,382 14,494 24,270
2011 1,625 5,434 11,221 14,204 23,814
2012 1,455 5,655 11,345 14,439 24,120
2013 1,298 5,785 11,507 14,599 24,393
2014 1,489 5,908 11,582 14,750 24,587
2015 1,457 6,006 11,681 14,870 24,700
2016 1,531 6,083 11,716 14,953 24,741
2017 1,486 6,200 11,794 15,051 24,883
Source:

Population data obtained from the Census and American Community Survey, 5-year estimates for the relevant years.

Section Two: Existing and Projected Conditions
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-3

2.2.2 Projected Population
Populations projections were predicted using a few different methods. Del Rey CSD and the City of Fowler’s projected populations were predicted based on a 10-year average growth rate of 0.5% and 2%, respectively. Kingsburg was predicted based on the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Sanger was based on the 2035 General Plan. Lastly, Parlier’s growth projections were estimated based on the Fresno County 2050 Growth Projection. Each community’s projected population is shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2. Projected Population (2020-2040, 5-Year Increments) Year Del Rey CSD Fowler Kingsburg Parlier Sanger
2020 1,508 6,579 13,700 15,870 27,337
2025 1,548 7,264 14,600 16,640 29,741
2030 1,588 8,019 15,400 17,350 32,357
2035 1,628 8,854 16,300 18,040 35,202
2040 1,668 9,776 17,000 18,700 38,298

2.3 Water Demands
The following subsections provide an understanding of the historic water demands of each community, projected water demands, and the related recharge requirement associated with both, based on land use characteristics. The five communities are solely reliant on groundwater for their water supply.

2.3.1 Historic Water Demands
Past water demands provided below were recorded by each of the communities. This data was used along with the predicted growth rates in the calculation of future water demands within each community. Historic water demands between the years 2001 to 2017 can be seen in Table 2-3.

Section Two: Existing and Projected Conditions
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-4 Table 2-3. Historic Water Demands (2001-2017)
Year Del Rey CSD Fowler Kingsburg Parlier Sanger
2001 - - - - 4,545
2002 254 - - - 4,771
2003 307 - 3,737 - 4,821
2004 334 - - - 5,362
2005 238 - 3,695 - 5,242
2006 168 - 4,024 - 5,469
2007 184 - - 3,645 6,095
2008 261 2,143 - 3,359 5,959
2009 327 1,931 - 3,184 5,604
2010 392 1,835 - 2,783 5,366
2011 404 1,984 5,977 2,340 5,393
2012 527 2,088 3,753 2,127 5,848
2013 587 2,227 3,938 2,132 6,275
2014 477 2,027 3,465 1,941 5,787
2015 437 1,698 2,627 1,801 5,177
2016 491 1,994 2,624 1,782 5,389
2017 464 1,869 2,621 1,944 5,188
Notes:

Units are in acre-feet per year (afy).

2.3.2 Projected Water Demands
Based on historic population growth and each community’s average per capita water demand derived from the water demands shown in Table 2-3, the following criteria were used for each community to develop projected water demands through 2040, the planning horizon of this study and the GSP. • Del Rey CSD: 0.5% population growth, 262 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) • Fowler: 2% population growth, 310 gpcd
• Kingsburg: population growth per 2015 UWMP, 259 gpcd
• Parlier: population growth per Fresno County 2050 Growth Projections, 145 gpcd • Sanger: population growth per 2035 General Plan, 176 gpcd Section Two: Existing and Projected Conditions
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-5 Table 2-4. Projected Water Demands (2020-2040, 5-Year Increments) Year Del Rey CSD Fowler Kingsburg Parlier Sanger
2020 443 2,282 3,975 2,569 5,389
2025 455 2,520 4,236 2,694 5,863
2030 466 2,782 4,468 2,809 6,379
2035 478 3,071 4,729 2,921 6,940
2040 490 3,391 4,932 3,027 7,550
Notes:

Units are in acre-feet per year.

2.4 Recharge Requirements
The GSA worked with and ultimately executed a surface water agreement with Consolidated Irrigation District (CID) that will provide surface water supplies for the GSA to use to recharge the groundwater aquifer in the future. The purpose of the groundwater recharge is to offset the groundwater extraction by each community. The agreement includes:
• provisions for the GSA to offset 42% of their groundwater extraction (i.e., if the community extracts 1000 afy, the recharge requirement would be 420 afy) • provisions up to a maximum amount of surface water supplies equal to 42% of the total 2040 projected water demands for all five communities
• a cost of the surface water supply of $395 per acre-foot through 2040 The assumed percolation rate for Sanger, Fowler, Kingsburg, and Parlier is 1.0 acre-feet per day per acre; the rate for Del Rey CSD is 0.5 acre-feet per day per acre. These were based on local knowledge in each of the communities and may need to be modified once performance data of recharge basins is further analyzed. Based on the required rate of recharge described above (42% of the groundwater extraction), the projected water demands for each community, and an assumed percolation rate for each community, recharge volumes were developed as shown in Tables 4-2, 5-2, 6-2, 7-2, and 8-2.

2.5 Land Use Characteristics

2.5.1 Land Use Characteristics
Land use characteristics were determined for each of the communities within the GSA. For purposes of this study, the term “undeveloped area” applies to all undeveloped areas within the City limits or District boundary and all areas between the City limits or District boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI). A summary of the undeveloped area can be seen in Table 2-5 below and on Figures 2-2 through 2-

6. It is important to note that areas between the city and SOI limits for the City of Kingsburg that do not have an assigned land use have not been included in the calculations presented in Sections 4 through 8; additionally, land uses designated as agriculture for Del Rey CSD, Fowler, and Sanger have also not been included in the calculations.

Section Two: Existing and Projected Conditions
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  October 2021 2-6 Table 2-5. Summary of Developed and Undeveloped Area within SOIs Community Total
Undeveloped Area
Agriculture
Designated Area
Area without Land
Use Designation
Adjusted
Undeveloped Area
Del Rey CSD 30.2 26.9 - 3.3
Fowler 3,382.1 - - 3382.1
Kingsburg 1,656.4 - 246.6 1409.8
Parlier 4,293.3 - - 4293.3
Sanger 3,696.6 522.8 - 3173.8
Totals 12,812.0 549.7 246.6 12,262.3
Notes:

Units are in acres.

Furthermore, land uses for the undeveloped areas for each community are discussed in Sections 4 through 8. These undeveloped areas were analyzed alongside water usage factors in the determination of the development impact fee for each respective community. As noted above, area without a land use designation and undeveloped agricultural land use are not included in this report since it will not be a part of the city’s ongoing demand.

E AMERICAN AVE

LINCOLN

E JEFFERSON AVE

INDIANOLA

S DEL REY AVE
0 400 800
Feet
º
Del Rey CSD
Figure 2-2
Land Use in Undeveloped Areas
General Plan Land Use
Medium Density Residential Reserve
Medium Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
Central Commercial
Central Commercial Business
Commercial
Limited Light Industrial Reserve
General Industrial Reserve
Industrial General
Industrial Limited
Agriculture
Public Park
School
Post Office
Sewer Treatment
Public Ponding Basin
Boundaries
Del Rey SOI
Undeveloped
10/5/2021 : G:\South Kings GSA - 2731\273120002 - On-Call Services\400 GIS\Map\LandUseReview\Del_ReyAcreage.mxd

DE WOLF

MANNING
CLOVIS
SOUTH
FOWLER

CLAYTON

GOLDEN STATE
WALTER

ARMSTRONG
LOCAN

SPRINGFIELD
PEACH

LINCOLN

LEONARD

JEFFERSON

KENNETH
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
º
City of Fowler
Figure 2-3
Land Use in Undeveloped Areas
Land Uses
Low Density Residential
Medium Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Parks and Open Space
Public Facilities
Boundaries
Fowler City Limits
Fowler SOI
10/5/2021 : G:\South Kings GSA - 2731\273120002 - On-Call Services\400 GIS\Map\LandUseReview\FowlerAcreages_v2.mxd

MOUNTAIN VIEW

CARUTHERS
KAMM
AMBER
BETHEL
CONEJO

CLARKSON
MADSEN

SIERRA ST
No GP Land Use Data
No GP Land Use Data
No GP Land Use Data
No GP Land Use Data
No GP Land Use Data
No GP Land Use Data
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
º
City of Kingsburg
Figure 2-4
Land Uses in Undeveloped Areas
General Plan Land Use
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Highway Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
RCO
Semi Public
Boundaries
Kingsburg City Limits
Kingsburg SOI
10/4/2021 : \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\South Kings GSA - 2731\273120002 - On-Call Services\400 GIS\Map\LandUseReview\KingsburgAcreage.mxd

ZEDIKER

NEWMARK

S MENDOCINO AVE

S ACADEMY AVE

MANNING

E SOUTH AVE
DINUBA
BETHEL

PARLIER
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 750 1,500
Feet
º
City of Parlier
Figure 2-5
Land Uses in Undeveloped Areas
General Plan Land Use
Low Density Residential
Medium Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Parks & Open Space
Public Facilities
Boundaries
Parlier City Limits
Parlier SOI
10/4/2021 : \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\South Kings GSA - 2731\273120002 - On-Call Services\400 GIS\Map\LandUseReview\ParlierAcreage.mxd CHURCH

KINGS CANYON

ANNADALE

QUALITY

INDIANOLA
BUTLER

VENTURA
MCCALL
MADSEN

DEL REY

CALIFORNIA

RIVERBEND
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
º
City of Sanger
Figure 2-6
Land Use in Undeveloped Areas
General Plan Land Use
Residential - Low Density
Residential - Medium Low Density
Residential - Medium Density
Residential - Medium High Density
Residential - High Density
Commercial - Neighborhood
Commercial - General
Mixed Use - Retail
HC
Industrial - Light
Industrial - Heavy
Park / Open Space
Agricultural
SD
School - Elementary
School - Junior High
School - High School
Public Facility
Boundaries
Sanger City Limit
Sanger SOI
10/4/2021 : \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\South Kings GSA - 2731\273120002 - On-Call Services\400 GIS\Map\LandUseReview\SangerAcreage.mxd Section Two: Existing and Projected Conditions
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-12 A description of each of the land use types can be seen below and are based off the Sanger 2035 General Plan:

Low Density Residential: Typically has between 0.8 to 4.4 units per acre and includes R-A (Rural Residential – 36,000 sq ft minimum lot size) and R-1-10 (Single Family Residential – 10,000 sq ft minimum lot size) zoning. Future developments are required to connect to city utilities. In addition, it is important to note that the R-A zone allows types of livestock as well as other agricultural activities.

Medium-Low Density Residential: Maximum density of 4.5 to 5.8 units per acre, or 16 to 21 persons per acre. Includes R-1-7.5 (Single Family Residential, 7,500 minimum lot size) and R-1-10 (Single Family Residential, 10,000 sq ft minimum lot size). Future developments are required to connect to city utilities.

Medium Density Residential: Typically, has a density of between 7.3 to 17.4 units per acre based off zoning. Zones included within this designation are R-1-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 sq ft minimum lot size), RM-2.5 (Multi-Family Residential, one unit/2,500 sq ft of lot), and T-P (Mobile Home Park). This land usually includes a mix of different units. Future developments are required to connect to city utilities.

Medium-High Density Residential: This land use has a density of between 17.4 to 29 units per acre based off zoning. Zones included within this designation are R-1-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 sq ft minimum lot size), RM-2.5 (Multi-Family Residential, one unit/2,500 sq ft of lot), and T-P (Mobile Home Park). This land usually includes a mix of different units. This land use typically is home to larger apartment complexes. Future developments are required to connect to city utilities.

High Density (Multi-Family) Residential: Typically has between 20 to 43.6 units per acre with 106 to 160 persons per acre and includes RM-1.5 (High Density Multi-Family Residential – one unit/1,500 sq ft of lot area) and RM-1.0 (High Density Multi-Family Residential – one unit/1,000 sq ft of lot area) zoning. This land is used for high density multiple family residential areas. Future developments are required to connect to city utilities.

Light Commercial: This land use is typically home to smaller developments and are built to serve residents daily needs, such as grocery stores, cafes, and other uses. Zoning C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) related to this land use. Future developments are required to connect to city utilities.

Heavy Commercial: Developments within this land use are usually large-scale shopping centers and provide commercial retail for the surrounding community. This land use utilizes C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning. Future developments are required to connect to city utilities.

Light Industrial: This land use designation is for smaller scale industrial buildings and businesses where less noise, vibrations, or hazards occur on site. M-L (Light Manufacturing) zoning is used for this land use designation. Future developments are required to connect to city utilities.

Heavy Industrial: Used for a wide variety of manufacturing or processing plants. Typically, there is a higher level of noise, odors, of vibration that are associated with these buildings. Heavy manufacturing zoning is used with this land use (M-2). Future developments are required to connect to city utilities.

Section Two: Existing and Projected Conditions
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-13 Public Facilities: Contains facilities that are operated by public agencies. This includes city hall, post office, schools, and other county offices. RSC (Resource, Schools and Conservation) zoning is used under this land use designation. Future developments are required to connect to city utilities.

Parks/Open Space: This land use will usually have little to no buildings, and is made up of parks, playing fields, and other recreational areas. Currently zoning for parks and recreational areas under this land use is RSC (Resource, Schools, and Conservation). Future developments are required to connect to city utilities.

Each land use correlates to a respective water use factor (WUF). These WUFs have been developed based on similar communities in the area and on the WUFs developed for Sanger, as a representative community for the GSA, and can be seen in Table 2-6 below. The land use types are taken from the Sanger 2035 General Plan, for consistency. It is important to note that some communities did not have the same land use names as Sanger. When this occurred, the land uses were placed under one of the Sanger land use categories most similar in use, and the corresponding WUF was selected.

Table 2-6. Summary of Land Use and Water Use Factors
Land Use
Comparison WUFs Selected Water
Use Factor Clovis Fresno Madera
Low Density Residential 2,200 3,400 2,250 2,300
Medium-Low Density Residential 2,100 3,400 2,250 2,400
Medium Density Residential 2,000 3,400 2,250 2,500
Medium-High Density Residential 2,900 3,400 2,250 2,600 High Density (Multi-Family) Residential 4,200 5,800 2,250 4,000 Light Commercial 2,600 1,800 1,000 2,200
Heavy Commercial 2,600 1,800 1,000 2,300
Light Industrial 900 1,800 1,000 2,000
Heavy Industrial 1,800 1,800 1,000 4,000
Public Facilities 1,200 1,800 1,000 1,800
Parks/ Open Space 2,700 2,700 400 2,400
Notes:

Units are in gallons per day per ac (gpd/ac)
Section Three: Methodology
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-1 3 Methodology
The process of developing a per acre cost to provide recharge water supplies to future development, based on land use characteristics, follows the following steps:

Figure 3-1. Methodology Steps
It is recommended the adopting agencies (cities or district) consider an annual fee increase of approximately three percent (3%) to stay consistent with current costs of construction for needed infrastructure.

3.1 Basin Costs
The basin cost per acre of basin varies with the communities based on several factors, including proximity to Consolidated Irrigation District (CID) facilities (i.e., further distance means more conveyance pipeline must be constructed), acreages of existing basins that can be converted to recharge basins within the community, and other factors noted in the GSP; these costs were updated in Spring 2021, based on current land acquisition costs and other construction costs. The cost is an average of the facilities identified in the GSP for each community, as shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Basin Cost per Community
Community Name Basin Cost
($/ac)
Del Rey CSD $141,375
City of Fowler $249,564
City of Kingsburg $198,947
City of Parlier $141,227
City of Sanger $182,153

3.2 Water Supply Cost
The cost for purchasing surface water from CID to deliver to recharge basins has not been included in the following fee calculations, as it is understood each community will account for that cost within their individual water rates rather than as a component of the development impact fee.

Step 1: Develop
water use demand
projections,
recharge needs
(for future
development),
and Undeveloped
Areas within each
community's SOI.

Step 2: Develop
per acre water
demand, based on
water use demand
projections and
density factors for
each land use
type.

Step 3: Develop
cost of
constructing
recharge facilities
needed for future
development,
based on land use
type.

Step 4: Develop
per-acre cost of
recharge facilities,
for future
development,
based on land use
type.

Section Four: Del Rey CSD
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 4-1 4 Del Rey Community Service District
The Del Rey CSD’s undeveloped area is shown in the table below by land use (not including agriculture designation). All the undeveloped area is planned to be industrial land use.

Table 4-1. Land Uses for Del Rey Undeveloped Area
Land Use Water Use Factor
(gpd/ac)
Water Use Factor
(afy/ac) [1]
Undeveloped Area
(acres)
General Industrial Reserve 3,000 3.36 0.61
Industrial General 3,000 3.36 0.05
Limited Light Industrial Reserve 2,000 2.24 2.64
Totals 2,200 (see below) 2.46 3.30
Notes:
[1] The Water Use Factor is converted from gpd/ac to afy/ac by dividing the gpd/ac by 325,851 gallons/af and then multiplying by 365 days per year; i.e., 3,000 / 325,851 x 365 = 3.36 afy/ac Due to the small number of acres in each land use type, all undeveloped area was collected into one land use type with a modified WUF that was calculated by weighting the assigned WUFs noted in the table above for each land use type. General Industrial Reserve and Industrial Reserve fall between Light and Heavy and have therefore been assigned a WUF of 3,000 gpd/ac. The weight average used for the three industrial land use types shown in Del Rey CSD is 2,200 gpd/ac (2.46 afy/ac).

Table 4-2. Water Use Factor, Basin Area, and Basin Fee for Undeveloped Area in Del Rey Land Use Demand
(afy) [1]
Recharge
Required [2]
(afy)
Basin Area per
Undeveloped Area
(ac/ac) [3]
Basin Fee per Acre
Undeveloped Area
($/ac) [4]
Industrial 8.1 3.4 0.013 $1,838
Notes:
[1] The Demand is calculated by multiplying the modified WUF (2,200 gpd/ac = 2.46 afy/ac) by the Undeveloped Area Acreage for that Land Use from Table 4-1 (i.e., for Low Density Residential - 2.46 afy/ac * 3.3 acres = 8.1 afy) [2] 42% of Demand per CID Agreement
[3] This value is determined by calculating the amount of recharge basin acreage needed to accomplish the recharge required, based on anticipated percolation rates discussed in Section 2.4 (Volume of Recharge Required / (frequency of water delivery * days per year * estimated percolation rate) = Basin Area Needed). Once the amount of recharge basin acreage needed is determined, it is then divided by the total undeveloped area (Table 5-1) to arrive at the Basin Area needed per Undeveloped Area. Frequency of water delivery = 4 years out of every 5; Number of days per year = 100; and Estimated percolation rate =

0.5 af/ac/day.
[4] This value is determined by multiplying the Basin Area per Undeveloped Area by the basin cost shown in Table 3-1.

Section Five: City of Fowler
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 5-1 5 City of Fowler
The City of Fowler’s undeveloped area is shown in the table below by land use. Most of the undeveloped area is planned to be residential or industrial land uses.

Table 5-1. Land Uses for Fowler Undeveloped Area
Land Use Water Use Factor
(gpd/ac)
Water Use Factor
(afy/ac) [1]
Undeveloped Area
(acres)
Demand (afy)
[2]
Low Residential 2300 2.58 535.37 1381.3
Medium Low Residential 2400 2.69 885.25 2381.3
Medium Residential 2500 2.80 393.51 1101.8
Medium High Residential 2600 2.91 112.19 326.5
High Residential 4000 4.48 43.96 197.0
Light Industrial 2000 2.24 288.27 645.7
Heavy Industrial 4000 4.48 911.45 4083.3
Neighborhood Commercial 2200 2.46 17.98 44.2
Community Commercial 2200 2.46 43.94 108.1
General Commercial 2300 2.58 65.10 168.0
Parks/Open Space 2400 2.69 30.21 81.3
Public Facilities 1800 2.02 54.88 110.9
Notes:
[1] The Water Use Factor is converted from gpd/ac to afy/ac by dividing the gpd/ac by 325,851 gallons/af and then multiplying by 365 days per year; i.e., 2,300 / 325,851 x 365 = 2.58 afy/ac [2] The Demand is calculated by multiplying the WUF by the Undeveloped Area Acreage for that Land Use from Table 5-1 The following table provides detail on how the acreages and WUFs were utilized to develop a per acre cost to construct basins to recharge the required offset of water demands.

Section Five: City of Fowler
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 5-2 Table 5-2. Water Use Factor, Basin Area, and Basin Fee for Undeveloped Area in Fowler Land Use Demand
(afy) [1]
Required
Recharge
(afy) [2]
Basin Area per
Undeveloped Area
(ac/ac) [3]
Basin Fee per Acre
Undeveloped Area
($/ac) [4]
Low Residential 1381.3 580.1 0.014 $3,494
Medium Low Residential 2381.3 1000.1 0.014 $3,494
Medium Residential 1101.8 462.8 0.015 $3,743
Medium High Residential 326.5 137.1 0.015 $3,743
High Residential 197.0 82.7 0.024 $5,990
Light Industrial 645.7 271.2 0.012 $2,995
Heavy Industrial 4083.3 1715.0 0.024 $5,990
Neighborhood Commercial 44.2 18.6 0.013 $3,244
Community Commercial 108.1 45.4 0.013 $3,244
General Commercial 168.0 70.6 0.014 $3,494
Parks/Open Space 81.3 34.1 0.014 $3,494
Public Facilities 110.9 46.6 0.011 $2,745
Notes:
[1] The Demand is calculated by multiplying the WUF by the Undeveloped Area Acreage for that Land Use from Table 6-1 [2] 42% of Demand per CID Agreement
[3] This value is determined by calculating the amount of recharge basin acreage needed to accomplish the recharge required, based on anticipated percolation rates discussed in Section 2.4 (Volume of Recharge Required / (frequency of water delivery * days per year * estimated percolation rate) = Basin Area Needed). Once the amount of recharge basin acreage needed is determined, it is then divided by the total undeveloped area (Table 5-1) to arrive at the Basin Area needed per Undeveloped Area. Frequency of water delivery = 4 years out of every 5; Number of days per year = 100; and Estimated percolation rate = 1 af/ac/day.
[4] This value is determined by multiplying the Basin Area per Undeveloped Area by the basin cost shown in Table 3-1.

Section Six: City of Kingsburg
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 6-1 6 City of Kingsburg
The City of Kingsburg’s undeveloped area is shown in the table below by land use (not including areas without a land use designation). Most of the undeveloped area has a land use of Low Density Residential.

Table 6-1. Land Uses for Undeveloped Lands in Kingsburg Land Use Water Use
Factor (gpd/ac)
Water Use Factor
(afy/ac) [1]
Undeveloped
Area (acres)
Demand (afy)
[2]
Low Density Residential 2300 2.58 538.33 1388.9
Medium Density Residential 2500 2.80 135.81 380.3
Light Industrial 2000 2.24 356.17 797.8
Heavy Industrial 4000 4.48 79.61 356.7
Highway Commercial 2300 2.58 76.62 197.7
RCO [3] 1800 2.02 186.28 376.3
Semi-Public 1800 2.02 36.98 74.7
Notes:
[1] The Water Use Factor is converted from gpd/ac to afy/ac by dividing the gpd/ac by 325,851 gallons/af and then multiplying by 365 days per year; i.e., 2,300 / 325,851 x 365 = 2.58 afy/ac [2] The Demand is calculated by multiplying the WUF by the Undeveloped Area Acreage for that Land Use [3] Resource Conservation and Open Space District; WUF for Public Facilities it utilized The following table provides detail on how the acreages and WUFs were utilized to develop a per acre cost to construct basins to recharge the required offset of water demands.

Section Six: City of Kingsburg
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 6-2 Table 6-2. Water Use Factor, Basin Area, and Basin Fee for Undeveloped Area in Kingsburg Land Use Demand (afy)
[1]
Required
Recharge
(afy) [2]
Basin Area per
Undeveloped Area
(ac/ac) [3]
Basin Fee per Acre
Undeveloped Area
($/ac) [4]
Low Density Residential 1388.9 583.3 0.014 $2,785
Medium Density Residential 380.3 159.7 0.015 $2,984
Light Industrial 797.8 335.1 0.012 $2,387
Heavy Industrial 356.7 149.8 0.024 $4,775
Highway Commercial 197.7 83.0 0.014 $2,785
RCO 376.3 158.0 0.011 $2,188
Semi-Public 74.7 31.4 0.011 $2,188
Notes:
[1] The Demand is calculated by multiplying the WUF by the Undeveloped Area Acreage for that Land Use from Table 6-1 [2] 42% of Demand per CID Agreement
[3] This value is determined by calculating the amount of recharge basin acreage needed to accomplish the recharge required, based on anticipated percolation rates discussed in Section 2.4 (Volume of Recharge Required / (frequency of water delivery * days per year * estimated percolation rate) = Basin Area Needed). Once the amount of recharge basin acreage needed is determined, it is then divided by the total undeveloped area (Table 5-1) to arrive at the Basin Area needed per Undeveloped Area. Frequency of water delivery = 4 years out of every 5; Number of days per year = 100; and Estimated percolation rate = 1 af/ac/day.
[4] This value is determined by multiplying the Basin Area per Undeveloped Area by the basin cost shown in Table 3-1.

Section Seven: City of Parlier
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 7-1 7 City of Parlier
The City of Parlier’s undeveloped area is shown in the table below by land use. A large portion of the undeveloped area is planned to be Medium Low Density Residential.

Table 7-1. Land Uses for Undeveloped Areas in Parlier
Land Use Water Use
Factor (gpd/ac)
Water Use Factor
(afy/ac) [1]
Undeveloped
Area (acres)
Demand
(afy) [2]
Low Density Residential 2300 2.58 162.56 419.4
Medium Low Density Residential 2400 2.69 2160.85 5812.7 Medium Density Residential 2500 2.80 311.40 871.9
High Density Residential 4000 4.48 95.85 429.4
Light Industrial 2000 2.24 954.77 2138.7
Heavy Industrial 4000 4.48 189.92 850.8
Neighborhood Commercial 2200 2.46 24.36 59.9
Community Commercial 2200 2.46 66.05 162.5
General Commercial 2300 2.58 157.19 405.6
Park 2400 2.69 35.66 95.9
Public Facilities 1800 2.02 134.65 272.0
Notes:
[1] The Water Use Factor is converted from gpd/ac to afy/ac by dividing the gpd/ac by 325,851 gallons/af and then multiplying by 365 days per year; i.e., 2,300 / 325,851 x 365 = 2.58 afy/ac [2] The Demand is calculated by multiplying the WUF by the Undeveloped Area Acreage for that Land Use The following table provides detail on how the acreages and WUFs were utilized to develop a per acre cost to construct basins to recharge the required offset of water demands.

Section Seven: City of Parlier
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 7-2 Table 7-2. Water Use Factor, Basin Area, and Basin Fee for Undeveloped Area in Parlier Land Use Demand (afy)
[1]
Required
Recharge (afy)
[2]
Basin Area per
Undeveloped Area
(ac/ac) [3]
Basin Fee per Acre
Undeveloped Area
($/ac) [4]
Low Density Residential 419.4 176.2 0.014 $1,977
Medium Low Density Residential 5812.7 2441.3 0.014 $1,977 Medium Density Residential 871.9 366.2 0.015 $2,118
High Density Residential 429.4 180.4 0.024 $3,389
Light Industrial 2138.7 898.2 0.012 $1,695
Heavy Industrial 850.8 357.4 0.024 $3,389
Neighborhood Commercial 59.9 25.2 0.013 $1,836
Community Commercial 162.5 68.2 0.013 $1,836
General Commercial 405.6 170.3 0.014 $1,977
Park 95.9 40.3 0.006 $847
Public Facilities 272.0 114.2 0.011 $1,553
Notes:
[1] The Demand is calculated by multiplying the WUF by the Undeveloped Area Acreage for that Land Use from Table 7-1 [2] 42% of Demand per CID Agreement
[3] This value is determined by calculating the amount of recharge basin acreage needed to accomplish the recharge required, based on anticipated percolation rates discussed in Section 2.4 (Volume of Recharge Required / (frequency of water delivery * days per year * estimated percolation rate) = Basin Area Needed). Once the amount of recharge basin acreage needed is determined, it is then divided by the total undeveloped area (Table 5-1) to arrive at the Basin Area needed per Undeveloped Area. Frequency of water delivery = 4 years out of every 5; Number of days per year = 100; and Estimated percolation rate = 1 af/ac/day.
[4] This value is determined by multiplying the Basin Area per Undeveloped Area by the basin cost shown in Table 3-1.

Section Eight: City of Sanger
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 8-1 8 City of Sanger
The City of Sanger’s undeveloped area is shown in the table below by land use (not including agriculture designations). More than half the undeveloped area in Sanger is anticipated to be residential.

Table 8-1. Land Uses for Undeveloped Lands in Sanger
Land Use Water Use Factor
(gpd/ac)
Water Use Factor
(afy/ac) [1]
Undeveloped
Area (acres)
Demand
(afy) [2]
Low Density Residential 2300 2.58 110.74 285.7
Medium Low Density Residential 2400 2.69 828.79 2229.4
Medium Density Residential 2500 2.80 770.00 2156.0
Medium High Density Residential 2600 2.91 100.52 292.5
High Density Residential 4000 4.48 89.28 400.0
General Commercial 2300 2.58 146.41 377.7
Highway Commercial 2200 2.46 111.99 275.5
Neighborhood Commercial 2200 2.46 19.73 48.5
Heavy Industrial 4000 4.48 135.14 605.4
Light Industrial 2000 2.24 165.15 369.9
Mixed Use - Retail 4000 4.48 162.15 726.4
Park / Open Space 2400 2.69 279.85 752.8
Public Facility 1800 2.02 164.30 331.9
School 1800 2.02 89.79 181.4
Notes:
[1] The Water Use Factor is converted from gpd/ac to afy/ac by dividing the gpd/ac by 325,851 gallons/af and then multiplying by 365 days per year; i.e., 2,300 / 325,851 x 365 = 2.58 afy/ac [2] The Demand is calculated by multiplying the WUF by the Undeveloped Area Acreage for that Land Use The following table provides detail on how the acreages and WUFs were utilized to develop a per acre cost to construct basins to recharge the required offset of water demands.

Section Eight: City of Sanger
Development Impact Fee Study
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 8-2 Table 8-2. Water Use Factor, Basin Area, and Basin Fee for Undeveloped Area in Sanger Land Use Demand (afy)
[1]
Required
Recharge
(afy) [2]
Basin Area per
Undeveloped Area
(ac/ac) [3]
Basin Fee per Acre
Undeveloped Area
($/ac) [4]
Low Density Residential 285.7 120.0 0.014 $2,550
Medium Low Density Residential 2229.4 936.4 0.014 $2,550 Medium Density Residential 2156.0 905.5 0.015 $2,732
Medium High Density Residential 292.5 122.9 0.015 $2,732 High Density Residential 400.0 168.0 0.024 $4,372
General Commercial 377.7 158.6 0.014 $2,550
Highway Commercial 275.5 115.7 0.013 $2,368
Neighborhood Commercial 48.5 20.4 0.013 $2,368
Heavy Industrial 605.4 254.3 0.024 $4,372
Light Industrial 369.9 155.4 0.012 $2,186
Mixed Use - Retail 726.4 305.1 0.024 $4,372
Park / Open Space 752.8 316.2 0.014 $2,550
Public Facility 331.9 139.4 0.011 $2,004
School 181.4 76.2 0.011 $2,004
Notes:
[1] The Demand is calculated by multiplying the WUF by the Undeveloped Area Acreage for that Land Use from Table 8-1 [2] 42% of Demand per CID Agreement
[3] This value is determined by calculating the amount of recharge basin acreage needed to accomplish the recharge required, based on anticipated percolation rates discussed in Section 2.4 (Volume of Recharge Required / (frequency of water delivery * days per year * estimated percolation rate) = Basin Area Needed). Once the amount of recharge basin acreage needed is determined, it is then divided by the total undeveloped area (Table 5-1) to arrive at the Basin Area needed per Undeveloped Area. Frequency of water delivery = 4 years out of every 5; Number of days per year = 100; and Estimated percolation rate = 1 af/ac/day.
[4] This value is determined by multiplying the Basin Area per Undeveloped Area by the basin cost shown in Table 3-1.

To: Mayor & City Council
From: Corina Padilla
Date : October 8, 2025
Subject: Crime Statistics Summary for July, August, and September. • Part I Crimes 30.
• Other Offenses 110.
• Traffic collisions 12.
• The number of arrests 73.
• Traffic citations issued 253.
• Truck citations issued on 18th Ave 20.
• Online Reports 20.

We continue to use Facebook, X, and Instagram, as situations warrant, to keep our citizens informed..

City of Kingsburg
Police department
1300 California Street, Kingsburg, CA 93631 (559) 897-4418 Neil G. Dadian
Chief of Police
Kingsburg Police Department
2025 Crime and Activity Report
Part 1 Crimes Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total Murder 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Rape 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
Robbery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aggravated Assaults 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 7
Burglary 4 1 0 5 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 17
Theft 6 1 11 6 5 8 5 7 5 0 0 0 54
Auto Theft 2 1 0 1 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 14
Total 14 5 11 14 9 14 13 10 7 0 0 0 97
Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Other Offenses:

Vandalism 3 7 5 8 15 6 3 1 3 0 0 0 51
Simple Assault 6 2 2 4 6 5 5 4 4 0 0 0 38
Sex Offense 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 7
Child Abuse 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Narcotic Violations 3 8 6 4 5 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 35
Other Felonies 4 7 14 4 3 4 8 0 6 0 0 0 50
Other Misdemeanors 6 15 23 15 18 26 29 17 23 0 0 0 172
Totals 24 39 51 36 50 45 47 23 40 0 0 0 355
Other Statistics:

Incident Reports 35 32 58 36 29 28 27 35 29 0 0 0 309
Online Reports 2 7 7 5 1 5 4 5 11 0 0 0 47
Traffic Collision- Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Traffic Collision- Injury 0 1 2 5 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 17
Traffic Collision- Non-Injury 4 2 7 2 6 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 31 Total 41 42 74 48 39 37 34 45 44 0 0 0 404
Calls for Service 1120 896 923 920 1060 972 944 957 972 0 0 0 8,764 Arrests
Felony Adults 9 3 9 9 13 7 7 2 6 0 0 0 65
Misdemeanor Adults 6 14 23 18 11 21 24 15 15 0 0 0 147
Felony Juveniles 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4
Misdemeanor Juveniles 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5
Total 15 18 32 28 24 31 34 17 22 0 0 0 221
Traffic Citation Total 70 61 51 57 95 76 75 90 88 0 0 0 663 Truck Citations 18th 3 1 5 5 4 3 4 6 10 0 0 0 41
Motorcycle Hours 118 120 96 88 170 170 151.5 140 147 0 0 0 1200.5 Volunteer Hours:

Public Safety Volunteer 0 8 9.5 3 28.5 16 4 30.5 23 0 0 0 122.5 Police Intern 3 121 78 0 0 153 151.5 15 127 0 0 0 648.5 Total 3 129 87.5 3 28.5 169 155.5 45.5 150 0 0 0 771
Total Facebook Likes 8,300 8,300 8,400 8,400 8,500 8,500 8,600 8,700 8,700 0 0 0 Total X Followers 236 235 235 235 237 238 237 237 237 0 0 0 Total Instagram Followers 2,295 2,306 2,328 2,342 2,361 2,385 2,460 2,487 2,487 0 0 0 Kingsburg Police Department
2025 Crime and Activity Report
Part I Crimes Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total Monthly % Change Homicide 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0%
Rape 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 0%
Robbery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Agg. Assaults 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 7 100%
Burglary 4 1 0 5 1 2 3 1 0 17 -100%
Larceny 6 1 11 6 5 8 5 7 5 54 -29%
GTA 2 1 0 1 2 3 3 2 0 14 -100%
2025 Total 14 5 11 14 9 14 13 10 7 0 0 0 97 -30%
20 0
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Homicide
Rape
Robbery
Agg. Assaults
Burglary
Larceny
GTA
Kingsburg Police Department
2025 Calls for Service
Initiated Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total % of calls Officer 683 514 463 495 521 494 369 383 356 4278 -7%
Citizen 437 382 460 425 539 478 575 574 616 4486 7%
TOTAL 1120 896 923 920 1060 972 944 957 972 8764 2%
Average Calls 36 32 30 31 34 32 30 31 32
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2025 Calls for Service
Officer Citizen
Kingsburg Police Department
2024/2025 Crime and Activity Report
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 2024/2025 2025 Total 14 5 11 14 9 14 13 10 7 97 %Change
2024 Total 22 18 16 18 22 20 12 17 11 156 -38.00%
0 5
10 15
20 25
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2024/2025 Part I Comparison
2025 Total 2024 Total

Kingsburg City CouncilOctober 15, 2025

Kingsburg City Council
October 15, 2025