Relationship between the amount of the fee and portion of the needed facilities to be funded
Program Overview
CFF revenue must be used only to address the impacts of growth, and not to address existing space deficiencies or enhancements in service levels. CFF revenue is collected along with other fees at the time building permits are issued, either by the respective City Planning Department in which the project is to be located or by the County Community Development Department for development in unincorporated areas. If the project is located within City boundaries, only the regional CFF amount is collected to support facilities needed for growth in countywide services; however, if the project is located in an unincorporated area, an unincorporated area “surcharge” is also collected.
This surcharge is intended to address facility costs for growth in services that are provided specifically to unincorporated residents and businesses (e.g., Community Development, Public Works, and Sheriff -Animal Services), and is therefore not applied to projects located within incorporated areas.
In addition to location criteria, the CFF is also divided into categories based on the type of development (e.g., Residential -Single Family and Multi -Family; and Non-Residential- Retail/Commercial, Office, and Industrial/Other). The CFF is adjusted annually based on the California Construction Cost Index. As of July 1, 2017, CFF amounts are:
CFF Categories (as of July 1, 2017)
Regional
(incorporated)
Unincorporated
Surcharge Unincorporated
Residential
Single Family (per unit) $2,049 + $527 = $2,576
Multi Family (per unit) $1,756 + $454 = $2,210
Non-Residential
Retail/Commercial (per square foot) $0.47 + $0.12 = $0.59 Office (per square foot) $0.41 + $0.10 = $0.51
Industrial/Other (per square foot) $0.23 + $0.06 = $0.29
CFF Fund
Consistent with California Government Code Section 66006, CFF funds are held in a separate, interest -bearing fund (#21094) and the Board annually approves a report describing fee amounts, revenues, expenditures, and anti cipated future uses. In December 2017, the Board received the CFF annual report for 2016 -2017 (B-17-733) which indicated that as of June 30, 2017, a total of $37,952,657 in CFF revenue and interest has been collected since implementation, of which $13,803, 240 has been used to offset a portion of debt service payments on the County Administration Building (29.85% based on the amount of growth space provided when the project was constructed). To date, CFF funds have not been used to reimburse the County Gener al Fund for any of the administration or consultant costs, although those costs are also allowable CFF expenditures.
On June 30, 2017, the County was in the process of refinancing the outstanding debt on the Administration Building. Based on market condit ions at the time, the estimated Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and
Conduct Public Hearing
remaining debt service totaled $116,015,875, of which $34,630,739 (29.85%) represented the growth -related portion to be funded by CFF revenue. When the actual refinancing transaction was completed on August 3, 2017, improved market conditions allowed a reduction in the remaining growth -related debt amount from $34,630,739 to $31,244,683, a reduction of $3,386,056.
As of December 31, 2017, the CFF fund balance was $27,735,055. Remaining County Administration Building debt ser vice payments through 2032 total $103,831,700, including the growth -related portion of $30,993,762. Since the available fund balance amount of $27,735,055 is less than the committed outstanding growth -related obligation of $30,993,762, the remaining balanc e will be provided from CFF revenue yet to be collected. Future CFF revenue will also provide a funding source for the growth -related portion of other County capital facilities projects in the years to come. A countywide master planning project was initiat ed in 2017 -2018 and will provide further details on future capital facilities projects and the proportionate share of costs related to growth that are eligible to be funded by future CFF revenue.
Nexus Study Update
Although CFF amounts are adjusted annual ly for inflation based on the California Construction Cost Index, the nexus study has not been updated since the fees were adopted in 2005. Consequently, the base amount of the fees as related to future growth-related facility costs has not been adjusted s ince inception. Over the past several years, County staff initiated the process of revising the nexus study to reflect updated population and employee projections, anticipated capital facility needs, and cost/revenue estimates. The study update was delayed due to: economic changes that impacted both the overall economy and County capital programming; significant changes in demand for space, especially at the Jail, Juvenile Hall, and Hospital; and staffing turnover within the County Administrator’s Office. T o assist with the update, the County enlisted the services of Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), the consulting firm that prepared the initial CFF nexus study. After several discussions between staff and the consultants regarding study methodology, a vailable facility data, and practices in other jurisdictions with development fees, the nexus study update was completed in October 2017.
Methodology
Essentially, the process for analyzing the CFF consisted of:
a) Projecting how much growth will occur through 2035;
b) Estimating how much additional space will be needed to accommodate the growth in “a”;
c) Calculating the cost of providing the additional growth -related space reflected in “b”;
d) Deducting the value of currently vacant space that could accommodate some of the growth in “c”; and
e) Determining how much revenue per unit (i.e., fee amount) over the study period is needed to offset the net cost of “c” and “d.”
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and
Conduct Public Hearing
The EPS study calculated the ratio of current County space needed per resident in order to establish a baseline existing service level, and then applied population growth projections to estimate future facility space needs. Cost estimates were applied to space projections to determine future costs, which were partially offset by currently vacant space. Re sulting net costs were then apportioned into regional and unincorporated shares, and combined with household census and employee space standard data in order to calculate maximum allowable fee amounts for each of the CFF categories. Methodology highlights include:
Growth in County population and total number of employees over the 18 -year period from 2017 to 2035 is estimated at 200,321 (+26.8%) and 56,595 (+23.3%), respectively.
2017 2035 Change % Growth
Population 747,514 947,835 200,321 +26.8%
Employees 243,323 299,918 56,595 +23.3%
A preliminary space inventory totaling 6,160,975 square feet (sf) of current County-owned and leased space was compiled using multiple data sources, from which staff identified 1,482,372 sf that would likely be impacted by growth.
Impacted space was categorized into facilities that provide either “Regional” services (i.e., countywide) or “Unincorporated Only.”
Impacted
Space
%
Regional (countywide) 1,407,848 sf 94.97%
Unincorporated Only 74,524 sf 5.03%
TOTAL 1,482,372 sf 100.0%
An additional 10,348 sf was identified as “Unallocated” and assumed to be available for future growth, thus reducing overall costs (see * below).
Some of the facilities not placed on the growth-impacted list include:
Airport hangars and industrial park Parking garage and lots Records storage building Courthouses
Community centers Children’s shelter
Grape Festival facilities Park buildings
Water well and lift station buildings Ferry houses and landfill buildings In addition, Hospital space and c ustodial facilities such as Juvenile Hall and the Jail were excluded from the impacted list for purposes of the current study due to both specialized space requirements/costs and wide fluctuations in demand.
These facilities, as well as County library space, parking facilities, and health and mental health space needs will be reevaluated for possible inclusion in the next nexus study update.
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and
Conduct Public Hearing
Using current facility space and population totals, a ratio of 1,983 sf per 1,000 population was calculated. For pro jection purposes, the ratio was reduced** to 1,905 sf per 1,000 population to account for space types that would not necessarily increase with growth (e.g., department heads, file/equipment rooms, etc.) and also in anticipation of increased efficiencies th rough use of technology.
Using the reduced ratio and projected population growth from 2017 to 2035, an estimated 323,186 sf of additional space will be needed over the next 18 years.
2017 2035 Change
Space (sf) 1,482,372 1,805,558 323,186
Population 747,514 947,835 200,321
Space Per 1,000 Population 1,983 1,905** (78)
** Ratio reduced to account for space types that will not necessarily increase with growth and increased efficiencies due to use of technology.
Cost to construct the 323,186 sf of growt h-related space over the next 18 years is estimated at $158,361,140, based on a recent consultant cost estimate of $490/sf for general government facilities. As noted above, some of the future space need could be offset by currently vacant* space, reducing the net cost to $153,290,620. As of June 30, 2017, remaining debt service for the Administration Building totaled $116,015,875, of which $34,630,739 (29.85%) represented the growth-related portion to be funded with CFF revenue. (Note: the nexus study update was performed during 2017 while the refinancing effort was occurring, so debt service amounts reflected in the consultant’s report are based on estimates as of June 30, 2017.) The CFF fund balance of $24,149,416 only partially offsets the $34,630,739 ob ligation, leaving a balance of $10,481,323. In total, $163,771,943 ($10,481,323 + $153,290,620) in CFF revenue will need to be generated over the next 18 years to address growth-related space needs.
Cost
Growth-related Space Needs (323,186 sf @ $490/sf) $158,361,140 Less: Vacant Space Available (10,348 sf @ $490/sf) * (5,070,520) Net Space Needs $153,290,620
Admin. Building Debt Service (growth-related portion only, 06/30/17) 34,630,739 Costs to be Funded by CFF $187,921,359
Less: CFF Fund Balance (as of 06/30/17) (24,149,416)
Net Costs to be Funded by CFF (2017-2035) $163,771,943
Based on the current proportions of space allocated for regional services (94.97%) and unincorporated only services (5.03%), the $163,771,943 in CFF to be collected is as signed to the regional portion and the unincorporated surcharge.
Allocated Cost
Regional Portion (94.97%) $155,538,557
Unincorporated Surcharge (5.03%) 8,233,386
Total CFF Generated $163,771,943
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and
Conduct Public Hearing
User equivalents are calculated for both the regional f acilities portion and the unincorporated surcharge based on the estimated growth in population (200,321) and employees (56,595). The allocation methodology assumes: 1 Resident = 1 User; 1 Employee = 0.25 User (based on a work schedule of 5 out of 7 days a week, 8.5 hours out of 24 hours a day). The unincorporated surcharge methodology uses the proportionate share of population and employee growth projected in the unincorporated area, respectively 10.536% and 13.990%.
Regional Facilities Equivalent Users
New Residents (population growth) 200,321
New Employees (employee growth x 0.25) 14,149
Total Equivalent Regional Facilities Users 214,470
Unincorporated Facilities Equivalent Users
New Residents (pop. growth x 10.536% unincorp. growth %) 21,106 New Empl. (empl. growth x 0.25 x 13.990% unincorp. growth %) 1,980 Total Equivalent Unincorporated Facilities Users 23,086
Dividing the regional portion and unincorporated surcharge costs by user equivalents results in allocated costs per user of $725 and $357, respectively.
Allocated Cost Per User
Regional Facilities Portion ($155,538,557 / 214,470) $725 Unincorporated Surcharge ($8,233,386 / 23,086) $357
Maximum allowable CFF amounts for the regional portion and unincorporated surcharge for the various fee categories were calculated using residential census data for persons per unit (PPU) and non -residential industry standards for employees per 1,000 sf of building space (EE/1Ksf) to calculate the allocated cost per user, plus a nominal 0.5% for administrative costs.
Regional Portion
CFF Categories
PPU or
EE/1Ksf
Alloc. Cost
per User
Alloc.
Cost
Admin.
Cost
Max.
Amount
Residential
Single-Family 3.34 x $725 = $2,422 + $12 = $2,434
Multi-Family 2.48 x $725 = $1,798 + $9 = $1,807
Non-Residential
Retail/Commercial 2.22 x $181 = $402 + $2 = $0.40
Office 3.33 x $181 = $603 + $3 = $0.61
Industrial/Other 0.63 x $181 = $113 + $1 = $0.11
Uninc. Surcharge
CFF Categories
PPU or
EE/1Ksf
Alloc. Cost
per User
Alloc.
Cost
Admin.
Cost
Max.
Amount
Residential
Single-Family 3.34 x $357 = $1,192 + $6 = $1,198
Multi-Family 2.48 x $357 = $885 + $4 = $890
Non-Residential
Retail/Commercial 2.22 x $89 = $198 + $1 = $0.20
Office 3.33 x $89 = $298 + $1 = $0.30
Industrial/Other 0.63 x $89 = $56 + $0 = $0.06
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and
Conduct Public Hearing
Max. Allowable Amount
CFF Categories
Regional
(incorporated)
Unincorporated
Surcharge Unincorporated
Residential
Single-Family (per unit) $2,434 + $1,198 = $3,632
Multi-Family (per unit) $1,807 + $890 = $2,697
Non-Residential
Retail/Commercial (per sf) $0.40 + $0.20 = $0.60
Office (per sf) $0.61 + $0.30 = $0.91
Industrial/Other (per sf) $0.11 + $0.06 = $0.17
Cost Burden Feasibility Analysis
The study includes an analysis of a theoretical residenti al single-family scenario in each of the cities within the County and the unincorporated area reflecting the burden from development fees and incremental CFF impact. Using a general overall infrastructure burden benchmark of 15 -20% of average sales price a s a measure of feasibility, only one of the scenarios was categorized as possibly not financially feasible due to a large existing bond debt for that particular development. Regarding the CFF, even at the maximum allowable amount, the change in the fee amo unt would represent an increase in the overall infrastructure fee burden of less than 0.3% (except for the City of Lodi where the percentage increase is higher because they ceased collecting CFF entirely in 2012). Overall, the maximum CFF represents approx imately 0.5 -0.7% of the average sales price in each of the scenarios.
Comparison of CFF with Other Counties
EPS researched several other California counties in an effort to compare their countywide facility fees with San Joaquin County’s CFF. Four countie s were found to have both a similar fee and a nexus study available for review (Butte, Fresno, Solano, and Stanislaus), but one (Fresno) has suspended fee collection since 2010. For the three remaining counties, the consultants compared both residential an d non-residential scenarios to the study’s maximum allowable CFF amount (incorporated and unincorporated scenarios) and found the San Joaquin County maximum amounts to be well within range of the comparative scenarios in the other counties as shown below.
San Joaquin Butte Stanislaus Solano
Incorp. Uninc. Uninc. Area 1 Uninc. Area 2 Area 3 Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Residential
Single-Family $2,434 $3,632 $4,966 $4,286 $9,429 $7,559 $7,631 $8,962 $9,316 $7,349 Multifamily $1,807 $2,697 $3,804 $3,272 $6,203 $4,898 $4,949 $6,726 $7,424 $5,471 Non-residential
Retail $400 $600 $2,130 $1,930 $3,663 $3,358 $3,358 $859 $983 $859 Office $610 $910 $2,530 $2,260 $4,598 $4,236 $4,236 $1,430 $1,637 $519 Industrial $110 $170 $1,270 $1,180 $2,132 $2,086 $2,086 $181 $208 $181
Outreach Process
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and
Conduct Public Hearing
Following completion of the nexus study update, County staff conducted an informational meeting in December 2017 with various stakeholders such as City and County permit agencies and building industry repres entatives to review the report methodology and findings, and receive comments for consideration in developing staff recommendations. Questions/comments from meeting attendees and responses are attached to this staff report. Stakeholders received a copy of the staff report and recommendations, and were advised of the scheduled presentation to the Board. Public notices of the fee hearing were published by the Clerk of the Board as required.
Summary
The nexus study update was prepared using the best available information regarding County facilities, occupants, estimated growth, and costs. The methodology summarized above indicates the process by which the consultants and staff analyzed the CFF and developed maximum allowable amounts for each CFF category. Most of the maximum amounts represent an increase from the current CFF, but some amounts decrease. Some of the factors relating to the calculated differences include changes from the previous nexus study for Persons per Unit and Employees per 1,000 square feet, and lower projected new growth in residents/employees.
By comparison, the CFF represents a very small portion of the overall amount of development fees charged to projects and even at the maximum allowable amount is comparable to or lower than similar fees in other counties. Furthermore, CFF revenue is an integral component to addressing growth -related facility costs that would otherwise need to be funded with County General Purpose Revenues or other sources.
The following tables compare the current CFF amounts to the maximum allowable amounts:
Regional CFF
CFF Categories
Current Amount
(July 1, 2017)
Max. Amount
(proposed)
Increase/
(Decrease) %
Residential
Single-Family (per unit) $2,049 $2,434 $385 19%
Multi-Family (per unit) $1,756 $1,807 $51 3%
Non-Residential
Retail/Commercial (per square foot) $0.47 $0.40 ($0.07) -15% Office (per square foot) $0.41 $0.61 $0.20 49%
Industrial/Other (per square foot) $0.23 $0.11 ($0.12) -52%
Unincorporated Surcharge
CFF Categories
Current Amount
(July 1, 2017)
Max. Amount
(proposed)
Increase/
(Decrease) %
Residential
Single-Family (per unit) $527 $1,198 $671 127%
Multi-Family (per unit) $454 $890 $436 96%
Non-Residential
Retail/Commercial (per square foot) $0.12 $0.20 $0.08 67% Office (per square foot) $0.10 $0.30 $0.20 200%
Industrial/Other (per square foot) $0.06 $0.06 $0.00 0%
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and
Conduct Public Hearing
Unincorporated CFF
CFF Categories
Current Amount
(July 1, 2017)
Max. Amount
(proposed)
Increase/
(Decrease) %
Residential
Single-Family (per unit) $2,576 $3,632 $1,056 41%
Multi-Family (per unit) $2,210 $2,697 $487 22%
Non-Residential
Retail/Commercial (per square foot) $0.59 $0.60 $0.01 2% Office (per square foot) $0.51 $0.91 $0.40 78%
Industrial/Other (per square foot) $0.29 $0.17 ($0.12) -41%
Therefore, staff’s recommendation is to accept the nexus study update and conduct a fee hearing to consider implementing the CFF schedule as presented, both increases and decreases, effective April 2, 2018. Cost index adjustments would continue to be implemented annually on July 1. In addition, following completion of the countywide facility inventory and master plan project currently being performed, staff will update the nexus study to include revised information, such as current space data, occupant information, future facility projects/costs, and growth -related proportions, with further CFF adjustments proposed as appropriate.
Alternatively, if the Board approves the proposed CFF adjustments, but wishes to provide a transition period for implementati on, it may direct that fee increases be “phased-in” over a multi -year period (e.g., three years). The consultants indicate this practice is not uncommon and is intended to reduce the immediate impact of fee changes on pending development projects. In this particular case, incremental increases could allow time for completion of the master plan project to potentially coincide with the next nexus study update, tentatively scheduled for 2022. If a phased approach is preferred by the Board, staff would recommen d that only proposed increases be phased-in, but that fee decreases become effective April 2, 201 8 to avoid collecting fees in excess of the calculated maximum allowable amount.
Fiscal Impact
Based on the nexus study calculations, CFF revenue to be gener ated over the next 18 years (2017 -2035) is projected at $163,771,943, which would be used to offset remaining growth-related debt service for the County Administration Building and future growth-related facility needs.
Action To Be Taken Following Approval
The County Administrator’s Office (CAO) will distribute the revised fee schedule to City/County permit agencies with direction to implement beginning April 2, 2018. Fees will continue to be adjusted annually per the California Construction Cost Index. C AO staff will update the nexus study following completion of the countywide facility inventory and master plan project, and propose CFF adjustments as appropriate.
Board of Supervisors March 6, 2018
CAO - Approve CCFF Nexus Study Update and
Conduct Public Hearing
Sincerely,
Monica Nino
County Administrator
MN:RK
Attachments – County CFF Nexus Study Update (10/12/17), Stakeholder Comments
c: County Counsel
Community Development Department
City Building Departments (Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, Tracy)
Building Industry Association of the Greater Valley
San Joaquin Partnership
Builders’ Exchange of Stockton
Board Clerk for Agenda 03/20/18
BL03-01
Reviewed by County Counsel’s Office:
Before the Board of Supervisors
County of San Joaquin, State of California
B-18-179
MOTION: Miller/Patti 5-0
Approve County Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Update and Conduct Public Hearing to Implement Revised Fee Schedule Effective April 2, 2018
THIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOES HEREBY approve the County Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Update.
FURTHER, authorizes implementation of a revised fee schedule, effective April 2, 2018.
CFF Categories
Regional
(incorporated)
Unincorporated
Surcharge Unincorporated
Residential
Single Family (per unit) $2,434 + $1,198 = $3,632
Multi Family (per unit) $1,807 + $890 = $2,697
Non-Residential
Retail/Commercial (per square foot) $0.40 + $0.20 = $0.60 Office (per square foot) $0.61 + $0.30 = $0.91
Industrial/Other (per square foot) $0.11 + $0.06 = $0.17
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above order was passed and adopted on 03/20/2018 by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors, to wit:
AYES: Villapudua, Miller, Patti, Winn, Elliott
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
__________________
MIMI DUZENSKI
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of San Joaquin
State of California
Pub
Sa
Ca
Prepa
Coun
Prepa
Econ
Octo
EPS
blic Rev
n Joaq
pital F
ared for:
nty of San Jo
ared by:
omic & Plan
ber 12, 2017
#162056
view Dra
quin Co
acilitie
oaquin
ning System
7 aft Repo
ounty C
s Fee N
ms, Inc.
ort
County
Nexus
wide
Study
ATTACHMENT 1
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................... 1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of Report ..................................................................................................... 1 Authority ................................................................................................................. 1 Nexus Study Review .................................................................................................. 2 Principles for Establishing the CFF ............................................................................... 6 Basis for Determining Facilities Required for New Growth ............................................... 6 Countywide Facilities and Unincorporated Facilities Development Impact Fee ................... 7 Nexus Methodology ................................................................................................... 7 Summary ................................................................................................................. 8 Structure of the Report ............................................................................................ 10
2. OVERVIEW: COUNTY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ............................................... 11 Population and Employment Growth Estimates ........................................................... 13
3. REGIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND COST ESTIMATES .............................................. 15 Countywide Regional Facilities Service Standards ........................................................ 15
4. REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES FACILITY NEXUS ...................................................... 20 Summary of Methodology ........................................................................................ 20 Allocation of Countywide Regional Facilities Development Costs .................................... 20 Findings for Countywide Regional Facilities Fee ........................................................... 21 Fee Calculation ....................................................................................................... 23
5. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................... 27 Adjustments to the CFF ........................................................................................... 27 Fee Reimbursements and Fee Credits ........................................................................ 27 Local Implementation .............................................................................................. 27 Ongoing Administration of the CFF Program ............................................................... 27
6. UNINCORPORATED FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT SURCHARGE ................................................ 28 Unincorporated Facilities Development and Cost Estimates ........................................... 28 Allocation to Residential and Nonresidential Development ............................................ 28 Fee Calculation ....................................................................................................... 28
7. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF CFF ................................................................................ 32 Summary of Infrastructure Cost Burden Feasibility Test ............................................... 32
Appendices:
Appendix A: County Growth Detail
Appendix B: Single-Family Residential Development Infrastructure Burden Cost Detail
List of Tables and Map
Table 1 County Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) Program Survey—Comparison Counties ......... 3 Table 2 Summary of Maximum Justifiable Countywide Capital Facility Fees ..................... 9 Table 3 Projected New Develo pment Through 2035 ................................................... 14 Table 4 Summary of Countywide Regional Fa cilities Service-Level Standards to Serve New Development Through 2035 ........................................................ 16 Table 5 Estimate of Eligible Countywide Regional Facilities to Serve New Development Through 2035 ........................................................................ 17 Table 6 Estimate of Regional Deve lopment Costs by Category .................................... 18 Table 7 Population per Ho usehold Estimate .............................................................. 22 Table 8 Countywide Facilities Deve lopment Cost per Facility User ................................ 24 Table 9 CFF Development Impact Fee by Land Use .................................................... 25 Table 10 Unincorporated Facilities Development Cost per Facility User ........................... 29 Table 11 Unincorporated CFF Su rcharge by Land Use .................................................. 30 Table 12 Feasibility Summary by Jurisdiction .............................................................. 34 Table 13 Countywide CFF Comparison—FY 2017–2018 (2 pages) .................................. 37
Map 1 San Joaqui n County ................................................................................... 12
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx
1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The County of San Joaquin (County) approved its first Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) in 2005. This CFF Nexus Study (Nexus Study Update or Nexus Report Update) updates the 2003 Nexus Study to reflect changes to the CFF Program resulting from updated facility space requirements and associated costs for included space needs.
This Nexus Report provides the County with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of the updated CFF Program, which will apply to future development within the County. This report calculates the maximum justifiable impact fees that may be levied for each land use based on the proportionate share of the total facility use that each land use represents.
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this Nexus Report is to document the nexus between new development in the County and the need for county regional and unincorporated area improvements and facilities.
The CFF contributes to the development of critical countywide facilities related to growth in cities and the unincorporated county. The Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge contributes a proportionate share of costs related to serving the needs of the unincorporated area.
The current fees were established in the 2003 Nexus Study. The County has requested that a Nexus Study be completed for the purpose of updating the CFF program that will adequately fund the required county regional and unincorporated area capital facilities in the County through 2035.
After establishing the nexus, this report calculates the CFF, including the Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge, to be levied for each land use, based on the estimated proportionate share of the total facility use for each land use. Annual reports will be prepared on the status of the CFF program, as has been done in previous years. It is anticipated that periodic reviews of the assumptions in the Nexus Report and updates of the Nexus Report will be conducted as needed, or approximately every 5 years.
Authority
The CFF, including the Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge, has been developed in accordance with the procedural guidelines established in Assembly Bill (AB) 1600, which is codified in the California Government Code.
Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 1, Section 66000 et. seq. provides that a CFF may be enacted and imposed on development projects. This code section sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. These procedures require that “a reasonable relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.” Specifically, each local agency imposing a fee must:
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx Identify the purpose of the fee.
Identify how the fee is to be used.
Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
CFF findings and recommendations for this Nexus Report are presented in Chapter 4 and Chapter 6.
Nexus Study Review
EPS reviewed capital or public facility fee nexus studies prepared by or for other counties in California. The key takeaways for producing a nexus study report were summarized in a Technical Memorandum prepared in September of 2016. The Technical Memorandum describes the allowable uses for a CFF, and an overview of nexus methodologies and assumptions. EPS initially reviewed 17 counties to identify if a countywide CFF is charged. The counties originally researched by EPS are listed below.
Alameda Merced Sonoma
Butte Monterey Stanislaus
Contra Costa Placer Tulare
El Dorado Sacramento Ventura
Fresno Santa Clara Yolo
Kern Solano
Of the 17 counties listed above, only 6 counties charge a countywide CFF, and of those 6 counties, only 4 counties had a nexus study available for review. These 4 counties are Butte County, Fresno County, Solano County, and Stanislaus County. Table 1 provides a summary of the counties with an existing CFF, counties which have a supporting nexus study for the fee program, and a matrix that provides the CFF program components.
Allowable Uses for the CFF
In general, the CFF may be collected to fund the construction of facilities required to serve new development with a useful life of at least 5 years. “Public facilities” is loosely defined and can be broadly interpreted. In nexus studies prepared by EPS, it states there is a “reasonable” nexus between the identified public facilities and the need to charge a CFF to new development.
Depending on the type of public facility, the nexus for reasonableness may be clearer for public facilities such as administration buildings, libraries, fire station, sheriff’s facilities, and animal services.
DRAFT
Table 1
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study County Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) Program Survey - Comparison Counties Available Countywide Other Health & Sheriff
Nexus Public Animal Behavioral Criminal Emergency General County Human Patrol & Countywide County Item Yes No Study Protection Services Health Justice Detention Services Fire Government Facilities Library Transportation Services Investigation IT Parks [2] Admin.
County
Alameda X
Butte X X X X X X X X X X
Contra Costa X
El Dorado X
Fresno [3] X X X X X X X X X
Kern X
Merced X
Monterey X
Placer X X X X X X X
Sacramento X
Santa Clara X
Solano X X X X X X X X
Sonoma X
Stanislaus X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Tulare X
Ventura X
Yolo X X X X X X X X X X
"county_survey"
Source: Various county departments; EPS.
[1] In most cases, many fee categories are not charged to development in incorporated cities within each county, as cities provide such services. [2] Stanislaus County: Includes neighborhood and regional parks. [3] Fresno County Board of Supervisors imposed successive temporary suspensions of collecting County facilities impact fees (November 10, 2010 through November 9, 2012; then November 10, 2012 through November 9, 2015; and then November 10, 2015 through November 9, 2017).
CFF Program Survey -
Comparison Counties
Countywide CFF Components [1]
Existing CFF
Prepared by EPS 10/11/2017 F:\Active Projects\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 10-11-2017 3 San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx Overview of Nexus Methodologies and Key Assumptions
The results of a CFF analysis are based on a variety of assumptions regarding population and employment growth in a municipality, service standards and facility demand, and corresponding costs. These are key issues that may warrant consideration in conjunction with a CFF nexus study or update:
Socio-Economic Data and Projections. Impact fee calculations should be based on projections related to population and employment in the municipality through a mid-term forecast (e.g., 20 years), often in connection with a general plan forecast. These growth assumptions should be developed with input from the client municipality based on a range of available data sources. Common sources for baseline population and growth projections are based on average growth rate estimates from various sources, such as growth rate estimates from a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), CalTrans, the California Department of Finance (DOF), and other research firms or organizations that may provide unique insight in the socio-economic data and projections.
Using a combination of sources may be useful in better identifying 20-year trends in a geographical region.
Identify Capital Facility Needs. It is necessary to estimate the type and amount of new or expanded capital facilities and infrastructure to be provided by the municipality (correlated to population and employment growth mentioned above) that will be needed either in part or in whole to accommodate new development. This information shall be provided by client staff through analysis of existing levels of service and articulated service standards relative to future growth projections. Service standards relate capital facility or infrastructure requirements to the development categories that represent the primary source of demand for the capital facility or infrastructure improvement in question. Alterations in these service standard assumptions can affect the fee calculation and the allocation of costs between land use categories.
Trends in the development of public facilities required to serve new development is a consideration of how technology may reduce space required to house a future county employee population. Will technology allow employees to be more productive without increasing the workforce?
New trends in building designs also may make it possible to reduce work space requirements per employee. Such trends as collaborative work space and flextime scheduling may make it possible for employees to share less space in future buildings. Cost Allocation between New and Existing Development. This analysis allocates the cost of future capital improvements and facilities between new and existing development, as required by AB 1600, based on a variety of methodologies (discussed further below).
In cases where new or expanded facilities or infrastructure improvements are determined to be needed entirely to accommodate new growth (e.g., there are no existing deficiencies), 100 percent of the costs are attributed to future development. In cases where new or expanded facilities are determined to serve or benefit both existing and new residents or employees in a relatively proportional manner, the costs are allocated as such. Finally, in cases where municipal staff or approved planning documents articulate specific service standards or ratios, such standards are used to allocate costs to new development.
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx The County Administration Building was built with space to serve future growth. With the Great Recession, the County had to reduce the workforce. There will need to be a careful evaluation of the available work space in the building during the CFF update to determine the reasonable amount of available work space required to service new growth. Cost Allocation to Land Use Categories. The cost allocations to various land use categories (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) are based on the relative demand or “fair-share” contribution of each land use category to the need for the facilities included.
For example, in many cases, nexus study reports rely on a factor that assumes one employee has an impact on capital facilities equal to about 25 percent of one resident. For many fee categories, the facility costs are allocated to residential land uses only, based on the determination that these facilities primarily are designed to serve residents (i.e., the usage by nonresident employees is determined to be negligible or incidental).
Nexus Methodologies
Several approaches are used to identify needs and costs to serve new development. The first step is to identify total facility needs, and then to allocate new development its fair share of those needs. This section provides common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facility costs:
Existing Facility Level of Service. This method allocates future costs for services based on a jurisdiction’s current Level of Service (LOS) for that service. Under this method, new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. This method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. The Existing Facility LOS method often is used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available.
Plan-Based Fee Method. This method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development. This method is appropriate when specific planned facilities can be identified that only benefit new development, such as new roadways, interchanges, or an extended sewer trunk line that serves new development. Under this method, new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used in a master facility plan.
System Plan Method. This method considers the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities in relation to existing and new development. This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. 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 LOS funded by the impact fee.
This Nexus Study Update identifies new County facility needs and allocates the fair share of associated costs to new residential and nonresidential development based on the Existing Facility Level of Service methodology.
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx Principles for Establishing the CFF
The CFF was first implemented in 2005 for the purpose of providing a funding source for the construction of new County facilities needed to serve residents and employees coming from new development, in both the cities and unincorporated areas of the County. As part of the implementation process, County staff met with representatives of the incorporated cities in the County to explain the fee program and to get feedback from each city. County staff also met with representatives from the building industry to get feedback before implementing the fee program.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared the 2003 Nexus Study, which justified the amount of the development impact fee to be charged to new residential and nonresidential development. The fee implemented in 2005 has been increased each fiscal year since by the California Construction Cost Index. In 2012, the County initiated an update of the Facilities Master Plan and felt it was the appropriate time to review the original principles for establishing the CFF, to review facility cost assumptions, and update growth projections.
The following principles were used to guide the development of the CFF in 2003, and remain the principles used to guide the CFF for this Nexus Report Update:
1. Reasonable Amount of Regional Facilities Constructed. The CFF will fund the initial construction of core regional county facilities to serve new development. An effort was made to target only major countywide facilities that are central to the health and well-being of all County residents. Eligible countywide regional facilities are determined by deducting the existing space deficiencies and increases to the service levels.
2. Required Regional Facilities Benefit Residents and Employees Living and Working in the County. Residential and nonresidential development should therefore contribute funding based on relative benefit received.
3. Regional Facilities Funded is Comparable to Those Funded in Other Jurisdictions.
Fee funding of regional county improvements is consistent with the level of development funded by other jurisdictions, such as Stanislaus County.
4. Maintain Development Feasibility in the County. The level of the CFF has been considered in the context of all applicable fees in the County to ensure that overall fee levels do not impinge on development feasibility.
This update was conducted adhering to the same principles to maintain consistency with the original study.
Basis for Determining Facilities Required for New
Growth
The 2003 Nexus Study used a then-recently completed Capital Facility Master Plan (2003) as the basis of establishing capital facilities needed to serve new growth through 2035. For this Nexus Study, current facility capacities were used to determine facility needs per 1,000 population for General Government facilities. Custodial facilities such as the County Jail and Juvenile Hall, as well as the County Hospital, have not been included in this Nexus Study due to their specialized space requirements and recent fluctuation in demand, largely due to legislative changes.
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx Facility needs per 1,000 populations were projected through 2035, using population projections prepared by University of the Pacific Eberhardt School of Business’ Center for Business and Policy Research (Eberhardt), to determine space needed to serve new growth through 2035.
Countywide Facilities and Unincorporated Facilities
Development Impact Fee
The costs of major facilities, discussed further in Chapter 3 are allocated to new development in the County.
Fees are payable at the time of building permit. No fee is to be collected from existing development unless the existing development was subject to prior agreements requiring fee funding for future improvements.
The County and developers may agree to have certain developers build certain facilities contained in the fee program or to fund County facilities through financing districts. In the case of an agreement to construct facilities, the County will require and must approve a specific cost estimate based on the approved design standards for the facilities proposed to be constructed by the developer. The developer may receive a fee credit or reimbursement based on the portion of their fee obligation that is met through the direct construction of facilities or through financing districts. Developers may or may not receive fee credits or reimbursements for constructing improvements that are beyond the required standards. The CFF, including the Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge, is based on the best available cost estimates and residential and nonresidential growth data available at this time. If costs change significantly, or if other funding to construct the facilities identified in the study becomes available, the fees would be adjusted accordingly. The County periodically will conduct a review of facility costs and building trends in the County. Based on these reviews, the County will make necessary adjustments to its fee programs.
The section below describes the nexus methodology and how EPS calculated each land uses’ allocable share of facility costs for the CFF.
Nexus Methodology
EPS calculated the CFF for each land use based on five key steps, as described below.
1. Estimate New Development. New development, residential and nonresidential, to occur in the County in the next 18 years is estimated based on data provided by Eberhardt. New development projections are presented in Chapter 2 of this Nexus Study.
2. Determine the Recommended Levels of Service for Facilities Development. The recommended levels of service are based on the historical service standards expressed as the total square footage of countywide regional facilities per 1,000 population in 2017. Eligible countywide regional facilities are determined by deducting the existing space deficiencies and increases to the service levels. Levels of service for the countywide regional facilities in the County are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.
3. Estimate Facilities Development Costs. Facilities included and costs of development are based on the information provided by the County and research conducted by EPS.
Development costs for regional facilities are presented in Chapter 3 of this report.
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx Development costs for facilities that benefit the unincorporated County region are presented in Chapter 6 of this Nexus Study.
4. Allocate Facilities Development Cost to New Development. Capital facilities development costs are allocated to both residential and nonresidential development based on benefit received from new facilities. The costs are allocated on a per-facility-user basis (residents and employees). Costs for facilities are allocated to residential users and to employees based on the estimated amount of facility benefit received by an employee relative to a resident. Cost allocations for regional facilities are presented in Chapter 4, and cost allocations for facilities benefiting residents and employees in the unincorporated County region are presented in Chapter 6.
5. Determine Facilities Fee per Land Use. The cost per facility user for residents and employees is multiplied by “common use factors” to determine the CFF. For residents, the common use factor is “persons per household” (PPH). For employees, the common use factor is the number of employees per 1,000 building square feet by nonresidential use. The CFF for each residential and nonresidential land use for regional facilities and the Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge are presented in Chapter 4 and Chapter 6, respectively. The resulting maximum allowable CFF by land use for new residential and nonresidential development in the County is provided below. In addition, Table 2 provides a summary of the maximum allowable CFF by land use and a comparison of the maximum allowable CFF to the existing Fiscal Year 2017-2018 CFF.
Land Use
CFF (Charged to All
County
Development)
Unincorporated
Facilities Surcharge
(Charged to
Unincorporated
Development Only)
Total CFF for
Unincorporated
County
Development
Single-Family Residential per Unit $2,434 $1,198 $3,632 Multifamily Residential per Unit $1,807 $890 $2,697
Retail/Commercial per Bldg. Sq. Ft. $0.40 $0.20 $0.60
Office per Bldg. Sq. Ft. $0.61 $0.30 $0.91
Industrial/Other per Bldg. Sq. Ft. $0.11 $0.06 $0.17
Summary
As new development continues to occur in the County, additional public facilities will be required to serve future residents and employees. The capital facility costs allocated to new development reflect public facility improvements that are needed to accommodate future development. This Nexus Study computes future development’s share of future public facility improvement costs based on level-of-service standards as determined by the County. The CFF will not fund the construction of capital facility improvements required to cure existing level of service deficiencies.
DRAFT
Table 2
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Summary of Maximum Justifiable Countywide Capital Facility Fees Maximum
Justifiable
Maximum
Justifiable
Maximum
Justifiable
Item [1] Current Amount Percentage [2] Current Amount Percentage [3] Current Amount Percentage Fee per Unit
FY 2017-18
Single-Family Residential $2,434 $2,049 $385 19% $1,198 $527 $671 127% $3,632 $2,576 $1,056 41% Multifamily Residential $1,807 $1,756 $51 3% $890 $454 $436 96% $2,697 $2,210 $487 22% Fee per Bldg. Sq. Ft.
FY 2017-18
Retail/Commercial $0.40 $0.47 ($0.07) -15% $0.20 $0.12 $0.08 67% $0.60 $0.59 $0.01 2% Office $0.61 $0.41 $0.20 49% $0.30 $0.10 $0.20 200% $0.91 $0.51 $0.40 78% Industrial/Other $0.11 $0.23 ($0.12) -52% $0.06 $0.06 $0.00 0% $0.17 $0.29 ($0.12) -41% "fee_summ"
[1] See Table 9.
[2] See Table 11.
[3] New development in the Unincorporated County is charged the Countywide Capital Facilities Fee and the Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge.
Difference
Total CFF for Unincorporated
County Development(Charged to Unincorporated Development Only) Difference
Countywide Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge Difference
(Charged to All County Development)
Prepared by EPS 10/12/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 10-11-2017.xlsx 9 San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx Structure of the Report
The Nexus Study has been prepared by EPS in conjunction with the staff from the County Administrator’s Office. The report is divided into seven chapters, including this introduction as Chapter 1:
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the countywide facilities development program, as well as the estimated new population to be served by future facilities development. Chapter 3 discusses the countywide regional facilities needed to serve new development and provides a cost estimate for those facilities.
Chapter 4 shows the methodology used in calculating the CFF; presents the required AB 1600 findings, specifically (1) the purpose of the fee, (2) the use of the fee, (3) the relationship between the use of the fee and type of development, (4) the relationship between the need for the facility and the type of project, and (5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost portion attributed to new development; and shows the fee calculation.
Chapter 5 discusses how the fee will be implemented, including how the fee should be annually adjusted, how fee credits and reimbursements will be administered, and how other administration activities should be implemented.
Chapter 6 discusses the facilities needed to serve new development that will occur in the unincorporated area of the County and the resulting development impact fee surcharge. Chapter 7 discusses the impacts the maximum justifiable CFF has on the overall infrastructure cost burden, and how those impacts may affect the development feasibility of various land uses. In addition, this section compares the maximum justifiable CFF to other countywide facility fees in nearby counties that may be in competition for residential and nonresidential development projects.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx
2. OVERVIEW: COUNTY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The County has been providing countywide regional services to its citizens since 1850. The County covers an area of more than 1,400 square miles and is the 15th most populous county in California, with a 2017 population estimate of 747,514 residents, according to information produced by Eberhardt. The County is governed by a 5-member Board that sets policy, enacts ordinances and regulations, and oversees activities of County departments. The role of county government, as a political subdivision of the state, is to deliver the services mandated by the State and federal governments. San Joaquin County government consists of about 21 departments or major divisions, from the Agricultural Commissioner to the Treasurer-Tax Collector, and approximately 7,000 full-time equivalent employees.
The County is organized into seven incorporated cities and the unincorporated region, as shown in Map 1. Substantial population and employment growth will occur throughout the incorporated cities and the unincorporated County over the 18-year period from 2017 to 2035.
Population growth is forecasted by Eberhardt to grow from 747,514 to approximately 947,835, representing an increase of approximately 27 percent. Eberhardt estimates countywide employment will grow from approximately 243,323 in 2017 to approximately 299,918 in 2035, representing an increase of 23 percent.
1 The County provides the following primary regional governmental services equally to all residents and employees of the County, regardless of whether they are located either in the seven incorporated cities or in the unincorporated County region:
Countywide Governance Health Services
Elections Human Services
Property Tax Administration District Attorney
Water Resources/Flood Protection Public Defender
Parks and Recreation Adult and Juvenile Detention
Regional Planning Adult and Juvenile Probation
Sheriff-Coroner-Public Administrator
The County also provides the following primary governmental services to all residents and employees of the unincorporated County region:
Community Development and Code Enforcement
Road Construction/Maintenance and Utility Services
Animal Control
Given the level of expected population and employment growth over the next 18 years, the CFF must be established to enable the County to develop the required regional and unincorporated facilities to serve new development.
1 San Joaquin County Forecast Summary. University of the Pacific Eberhardt School of Business, Center for Business and Policy Research. July 7, 2016.
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
AÞ
?ö%&n(
%&f(
AÒ
?Ã
?Ã
?Ã
?×
?×
?×
AÒ
AÒ
?Ã
?Ã
?×
?×
?î
?î
?¸
?Û ?¸
?Û
?¸
?Û
?Û?Û
%&f(
?×
%&n(
AÞ
N
E
U
G
E
B
A
U
E
R
WING
LEVEE
CORREIA
BONETTI
STATENISLAND
HENRY
BORBA
CORD
WILLOW
GLEN
ATKINS
WILHOIT
MANCUSO
OLIVE
BEECHER
LAMB
SEIDNER
LOCUST TREE
KO ON TZ
MURRAY
TRETHEWAY
CONFER
HOWLAND
MOORE
DUE
C
O
H
E
N
HOLT
BURNSCUTOFF
NORTHCHEROKEE
BECKMAN
KINCAID
SUTTENFIELD
WELLS
COX
LINN
VON GLAHN
RANCHERO
VANALLEN
RIOBLANCO
HIGHLAND
BLOSSOM
STARK
LORENZEN
WAVERLY
TRACY
BEVIS
CHERRY
FREDERICK
REEVE
PRESCOTT
KOSTER
Q A NTA
S
P
O
TATO
DROGE
GOLFVIEW
DISCH
H
AY S
HOERL
TECKLENBURG
HARROLD
CLEMENTS
CCTRR
T
W
O
R
IV
E
R
S
GILMORE
UPRR
CARROL TON
WAGNER
BRUMBY
HENRY
MCINTIRE
MC
BRIDE
R O
N
D
SAN JOSE
STANLEY
GRAHAM
T R A C Y
ESCALON-BELLOTA
HILLSIDE
LU
C
A
S
HAYES
RAY
AIRPORT
BIRD
ONETO
NAVY
HEWITT
MACARTHUR
WOLFE
THORNTON
IN
L
A
N
D
A L P I N E
B
U
R
W
OOD
CAMPBELL
LAMMERS
PROUTY
PLATTI
V AN EXEL
CCTRR
SHELLEY
JACOBBRACK
WELTY
THORNTON
NAGLEE
CORRALHOLLOW
PILLSBURY
HOMESTEAD
B
R
A
N
D
T
ALPINE
UNION
P
E
L
T
I
E
R
BRUELLA
PEARL
UNION
KENNEFICK
CARROLTON
SOWLES
OLEANDER
TULLY
DUSTIN
BUCKMAN
ESCALON-BELLOT A
DEVRIES
WIMER
FOX
TINNIN
FERGUSON
DAHLIN
NAVONE
MACKVILLE
BOZZANO
A R A T A
T
H
O
R
N
T
O
N
GUILD
RINDGE
M ANDEVILLE
LEVEE
Z
U
C
K
E
R
M
A
N
W
O
O
D
B
R
ID
G
E
L
O
W
E
R
JO
N E S
CALPACK
UPRR
H
O
W
A
R
D
B
U
E
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
C
O
P
P
E
R
O
P
O
L
I
S
MOBLEY
E
I
G
H
T
M
I
L
E
A
V
E
N
A
UPRR
L
E
M
O
N
JOHNSON
K A S S O N
C
A
R
L
I
N
WALNUT
B
A
C
O
N
IS
L
A
N
D
MAYBECK
D
E
L
I
M
A
GUARD
CROCKER
T
O
K
A
Y
C
O
L
O
N
Y
M
A
T
H
E
W
S
LOCKE
F
I
N
K
B
O
H
N
E
R
BN&SFRR
O
T
T
UPRR
C
O
R
R
A
L
H
O
L
L
O
W
BN&SFRR
UPRR
BN&SFRR
M
C
M
ULLIN
VILLA
G
E
SEXTON
A
C
A
M
P
O
LA
UFFER
D
O
S
R
E
I
S
W
R
IG
H
T
C
O
T
T
A
A
H
E
R
N
S
O
N
O
R
A
FRAZIER
F
L
O
O
D
LAWRENCE
B
U
R
N
H
A
M
BOWMAN
BRENNAN
B
A
R
B
E
R
UPRR
W
A
L
N
U
T
G
R
O
V
E
COLLI
ER
NILE
S
A
N
TA
F E
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
PEATLAND
M
A
R
IP
O
S
A
TOM
PAINE
C
O
P
P
E
R
O
P
O
L
IS
UPRR
F
O
R
E
S
T
L
A
K
E
B
R
I
G
G
S
BERRY
F
A
IR
C
H
IL
D
DRAIS
S
T
A
M
P
E
D
E
SCHULTE
F
U
N
C
K
CEDAR
SANTOS
M
A
G
N
O
L
I
A
DESMOINES
WATKINSON
Z
U
M
W
A
L
T
A
Y
E
R
S
FO
P
P
IA
N
O
VINTAGE
L
O
U
I
S
E
C
A
R
T
E
R
G
R
A
N
T
LIN
E
TULLY
BROVELLI
WOODS
C
R
IT
C
H
E
T
T
D
O
D
D
S
J
O
N
E
S
D
O
V
E
ELLIOTT
RAY
UPRR
B
L
A
C
K
M
O
R
E
G
R
A
V
E
S
HANSEN
F
R
E
W
E
R
T
W
O
O
D
B
R
ID
G
E
MELTON
DAVIS
G
R
O
O
M
S
P
E
L
T
IE
R
W
INDMILL
COVE
B
R
A
D
Y
TEMPLECREEK
J
A
H
A
N
T
D
U
R
H
A
M
F
E
R
R
Y
L
E
R
O
Y
STEFANI
M
A
N
I
L
A
BIEDERMAN
M
A
H
O
N
B A L D W I N
T
U
R
N
E
R
SARGENT
L
I
B
E
R
T
Y
L
IB
E
R
T
Y
C
L
IF
T
O
N
C
O
U
R
T
K
E
N
N
E
R
F
I
N
C
K
T
O
B
A
C
C
O
K
E
T
T
L
E
M
A
N
RATT
O
K
A
S
S
O
N
BENDER
MANTHEY
PEZZI
A
R
TH
U R
MC DONALD
SMITH
V
O
N
S
O
S
T
E
N
PA LM
MOHLER
B
U
E
R
E
R
BRO
O
K
S
ID
E
G
R
IM
E
S
WILDWOOD
COYOTE CRE
EK
HAM
UPRR
A S H L E Y
C
A
R
P
E
N
TE
R
MORSE
GLAS S C O C K
C
O
R
A
P
O
S
T
L
O
N
E
T
R
E
E
H
A
R
N
E
Y
S
O
U
TH
LA
N
D
LOUISE
W
H
IT
E
H
A
L
L
M
A
R
I
P
O
S
A
BEELER
LINN
C
O
M
S
T
O
C
K
C
O
M
B
S
H
U
TC
H
IN
SO
N
CURRY
B
L
E
W
E
T
T
MANTECA
H
A
N
D
E
L
JACKTONE
NORTHLAND
B
E
T
H
A
N
Y
UPRR
W I L M A R T H
BANTA
DUTRA
D
E
L
T
A
C
A
LIFO
RN
IA
GARDEN
VA I L
L
E
E
D
A
V
IN
I
TULLY
CLARK
M
O
R
TEN
S
EN
M
I
L
T
O
N
LITTLE
JO
HN
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
HOMESTEAD
VIGNOLO
M
A
I
N
MACARTHUR
J
A
H
A
N
T
MCKINLEY
F
R
E
N
C
H
C
A
MP
Y
E
T
T
N
E
R
S
O
L
A
D
AR
C
Y
COUNTRY
B U R G E
A
R
B
O
R
HAZELHURST
UPRR
WALL
JACOBS
VICTORY
ZEPHYR
ENTERPRISE
TRACY
R
E
A
L
T
Y
COM
ETA
ELDORADO
FUHRMAN
UPRR
SCO
TTSDALE
WAGNER
V
A
L
P
IC
O
ELEVENTH
NEELEY
A
T
K
IN
S
O
N
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
K
IN
G
D
O
N
LAUREL
V
I
N
E
FRENCH
CAMP
STEINEGUL
S
T
E
W
A
R
T
WOLFINGER
N E W T O N
S
T
&
E
R
R
M
E
T
R
O
JACKTONE
HASKELL
HART
WILD
HARE
U
N
D
I
N
E
M
AD
R
UGA
STEPHENS
VA N A LLE N
L
I
V
E
O
A
K
MCALLEN
OHM
LO
N
E
O
A
K
S
P
IE
S
S
NATALI
E
I
G
H
T
M
I
L
E
SNYDER
V
E
R
N
A
LIS
PRIEST
U
P
R
R
M
ARLETTE
OVERHISER
PEARSON
CHRISMAN
CEDAR
MELLO
WILSON
KAISER
ELEVENTH
H
A
L
L
A
C
A
M
P
O
MARFARGOA
UPRR
MCHENRY
BRICHETTO
M
ESSICK
VIA
NICOLO
BN&SFRR
S
H
E
L
T
O
N
H
IL
D
RETH
C
O
L
L
IE
R
M
ARTIN
L
KING
GOGNA
MAY
K
LEIN
JACK TONE
PERFORMANCE
YOSEM
ITE
CALIM
YRNA
W
O
O
D
S
O
N
UPRR
GROVE
TREE
U
PR
R
VERNALIS
CURTIS
LEO
NARDINI
CALLA
MICKE GROVE
HARLAN
SUTLIFF
LY
N
C
H
MOSSDALE
H
A
R
N
E
Y
K
IL
E
LIB
E
R
TY
LO
U
IS
E
MURPHY
GARNERO
ROBERTS
CHEROKEE
H
A
IG
H
T
G
A
W
N
E
WESTLANE
MCKINLEY
AUSTIN
T
R
A
H
E
R
N
SCHULTE
VAN WY K
NICHOLS
BENND
ORF
M
E
T
T
L
E
R
MARINERS
EAGLE BAY
LOWERSACRAMENTO
P ARTRIDGE
S
K
I
F
F
CASTLE
V
E
R
IT
A
S
A
L
L
E
N
DAVIS
EASTERN
HEIGHTS
BIRD
COTTAGE
LINNE
NORTH RIPON
CORRALHOLLOW
SEDAN
HOUSE
PRUNE
UNDERWOOD
LOWERSACRAMENTO
WEST RIPON
BN&SFRR
R
O
SSIER
J
A
H
A
N
T
A
R
C
H
ALICE
RIVER
DIETRICH
FINE
WOODSBRO
O
R
A
N
G
E
B
A
K
E
R
MANOR
LEHMAN
MUNDY
M
I
L
T
O
N
PRAHSER
MURPHY
B E Y E R
SECURITY
ALMONDWOOD
CLINTON SOUTH
C
O
LO
N
Y
S
A
R
G
E
N
T
H
A
R
N
E
Y
K
E
L
LY
BYRON
CCTRR
FURRY
S
U
N
R
O
D
E
C
O
L
L
I
E
R
ALDER
S
U
G
A
R
A
R
M
S
T
R
O
N
G
T
R
E
D
W
A
Y
L
O
V
E
L
A
C
E
A
C
A
M
P
O
R
O
T
H
PEACH
LATHROP
S
U
N
N
Y
M
U
L
L
E
R
PORT OF STOCKTON
LARSON
U
P
R
R
RIVER
GROVES
W
O
O
D
B
R
ID
G
E
MANTHEY
SMALL
AUSTIN
PARADISE
AIRPORT
G
R
E
E
N
L
E
A
F
JACKTONE
E
IG
H
T
M
IL
E
H
O
W
A
R
D
MONCURE
L
O
N
E
T
R
E
E
G
R
A
N
T
L
I
N
E
CLOVER
P
E
L
T
IE
R
W
O
O
D
W
A
R
D
MOUNTAINHOUSE
CLEMENTS
BUCK
DUNCAN
AV EN UE D
KETT LEMAN
BISHOPCUT
M I D D L E
R I V E R
T
R
A
P
P
E
R
S
L
O
U
G
H
OLDRIVER
P
IX
L
E
Y
SLO
U
G
H
ROCK
C
R
E
E
K
S
O
U
T
H
F
O
R
K
M
O
K
E
L
U
M
N
E
R
IV
E
R
D
R
E
D
G
E
C
U
T
INDIAN
CR
E
E
K
H E L L S I N G E R C R E E K
S
U
L
P
H
E
R
S
P
R
IN
G
S
G
U
L
C
H
C
R
E
E
K
W
A
L
K
E
R
S
L
OU
G
H
M O K E L
U
M
N
E
R
I V
E
R
OLDRIVER
PATTER
SO
N
RU
N
MORMON
S L
OUGH
PODESTO LAKE
POTATO
S
L
O
U
G
H
BEAV
E
R SLOUGH
C
A
M
A
N
C
H
E
R
E
S
E
R
V
O
I
R
CALAVERAS
RIVER
M
I
D
D
L
E
R
I
V
E
R
P
E
G
L
E
G
C
R
E
E
K
M
O
K
EL U M NE
R
IV
ER
T
E
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
C
U
T
HAYPRESS REACH
D
E
L
T
A
M
E
N
D
O
T
A
C
A
N
A
L
SAN
JOA QUIN
RIVER
N
ORTHFORKMOKELUM
N
E
R
IV
E
R
MURPHY
CREEK
L
O
N
E
T
R
E
E
C
R
E
E
K
C
O
R
R
A
L
H
O
L
L
O
W
C
R
E
E
K
LO
N
E
TR
E
E
CR
EE
K
S
T
O
C
K
T
O
N
D
IV
E
R
T
IN
G
C
A
N
A
L
SOUTHFORK
M
O
KE
LU
M
NE
R
IVER
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
LO
U
G
H
MOSHER
CREEK
B
E
A
R
C
R
E
E
K
C
A
LAV
ER
AS
RIVER
D
R
Y
C
R
E
E
K
EMPIRE CUT
S
A
N
J O A Q
U
I N
R
I V
E
R
C
O
R
R
A
L
H
O
L
L
O
W
C
R
E
E
K
FIVE
M
ILE
SLO
UG
H
NORTH VICTORIA CANAL
D
R
Y
C
R
E
E
K
LIT
T
LE
JO
H
NS
C
REEK
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
IO
N
S
L
O
U
G
H
P
O
TTER
C
REEK
MOKELUMNE
RIVER
G
ILL
C
R
E
E
K
N
O
R
T
H
F
O
R
K
L
O
N
E
T
R
E
E
C
R
E
E
K
M
O
SHER
SLO
UG
H
M
ID
D
L
E
F
O
R
K
L
O
N
E
T
R
E
E
C
R
E
E
K
SO
U
T
H
PA
D
D
Y
CREEK
M
O
R
M
O
NS
L
O
UGH
DREDGER CUT
VICTORIA CANAL
C
O
L
U
M
B
IA
C
U
T
H
O
G
S
L
O
U
G
H
D
U
C
K
C
R
E
E
K
SANJOAQUINRIVER
LITTLEPOTATO
SLO
U
G
H
TENMILESLOUGH
M
A
N
D
E
V
ILLE
C
U
T
TOM
PAINE
SLOUGH
VENICE
RE
AC
H
D I S A P P O I N T M ENT
S
LO
U
G
H
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
Q
U
E
D
U
C
T
FRENCH
CAMP
SLOUG
H
O
LD
R
IVER
M
AND EV I L LE
RE A CH
HONKERCUT
SM
ITHS
C
ANAL
STOCKTON CHANNEL
WALTHALLSLOUGH
O
L
D
R
IV
ER
MOK
E
L
U
M
N
E
R
I
V
E
R
M
OSHER
CREEK
VEN
ICE
C
UT
B
U
R
N
S
R
E
A
C
H
S A N
J OA
QUI
N
R
I VE R
DELTA
M
ENDO
TA
CANAL
LITTLECONNECTIONSLOUG
H
SUGARCUT
C A LI FORNIA
AQUEDUC
T
M
O
R
M
O
N
SLO
U
G
H
T
U
R
N
E
R
C
U
T
TOM
PAIN
E
SLOUGH
BEAR
CREEK
BEAR
CREEK
O
L
D
R I V E R
S
O
.
F
O
R
K
,
S
.LIT
T
LE
J
O
H
N
S
C
R
EE
K
S
T
A
N
IS
LAU
S
R
IV
E
R
SALMO N
SLOUG H
M
O
K
E
LU
M
N
E
R
IV
ER
PO
T
T
E
R
C
R
E
E
K
PIXLEY
SLOUGH
PADDY
CREEK
L
O
N
E
T
R
E
E
C
R
E
E
K
C
A
LA
V
E
RAS
R
IVER
G IL
L
C
R
E
E
K
SOUTH
LITTLEJO
H
N
S
C
R
EEK
CO
YO
TE
C
R
EEK
FA
IR
B
AN
K
S
LATE
R
A
L
D
R
Y
C
R
E
E
K
DUCKCREEK
NORTH
LITTLEJO
HNS
CREEK
LONE
TREE
CREEK
D
R
Y
C
R
E
E
K
HOSPITALCREEK
BEARCREEK
E M P I R E T R A C T
B A C O N I S L AN D
AIRPORT
KOSTER
AT HE RTON
CHRISMAN
ZUCKERMAN
UPRR
CCTRR
PERRIN
SOLARI RANCH
HIBBARD
P
A
T
T
E
R
S
O
N
PASS
SO
UTH
ORCHARD
UPRR
BUCK
JACK TONE
FIG
M
ID
D
LE
O
L
D
R
IVER
MID
DLE
PADDY
CREEK
M I D D L E
R I V E R
LATHAM
S
LO
UGH
S
T
A
N
IS
L
A
U
S
R
I V
E R
R
ED
BRIDGE
D
U
C
K
C
R
E
E
K
M
I
D
D
L
E
R
I
V
E
R
F
O
U
RTEENM
ILE
S
LO
U
G
H
J A H
A
N
T
SLO
U
G
H
W
H
ISKE Y S L O UG
H
P
A
R
A
D
I
S
E
C
U
T
S T AN
I S
LA
U
S
R
IV
ER
D
IS
A
P
P
O
INTMENT
SLOUG
H
THREE RIVER REACH
SANJOAQUIN
RIVER
DUCK
CREEK
W
HIS
K
E
Y
SLOUGH
S
A
N J O A Q U I N R I V
E
R
TW
ENTYONE
MILE
CU
T
M
O
KE
L
U
M
N
E
R
IVE
R
NO
R
TH
F
O
R
K
D
U
C
K
C
R
E
E
K
N
O
.
F
O
R
K
,
S
.
LIT
T
L
EJO
H
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
BEAR
C
REEK
GOOSECREEK
G
O
O
S
E
CR
EE
K
ATKINS
MANTECA
DIVISION
IN
L
A
N
D
I N L A N D
L
IB
E
R
T
Y
ROBERTS
C
OYO
TE
CREEK
M
OKELUMNE
RIVER
BEAR
CREEK
WHITE
SLOUGH
RAY
DEVRIES
DAVIS
UPRR
U
L
L
R
E
Y
LAMMERS
D
U
R
H
A
M
F
E
R
R
Y
LEHMAN
K
A
S
S
O
N
UPRR
ELEVENTH
MACARTHUR
CENTRAL
SYCAMORE
LINCOLN
LOW
ELL
UPRR
PESCADERO
LARCH
HOLLY
UPRR
B
Y
R
O
N
BE
TH
A
N
Y
LA
M
M
E
R
S
M C K E E
B
R
O
N
Z
A
N
YOSEMITE
FOURTH
RUESS
MOHLER
WILMA
M
ILG
E
O
MANLEY
LY
O
N
S
W
E
S
T
R
IP
O
N
W
O
O
D
W
A
R
D
JACK TONE
R
IV
E
R
C
R
A
IG
CLO
UG
H
JONES
STJOHN
V
IN
E
FIRST
HENRY
R
IV
E
R
ESCALON-BELLOTA
BN&SFRR
VANALLEN
F
R
E
N
C
H
C
A
M
P
MURPHY
W
A
W
O
N
A
MAIN
UNION
AIRPORT
FIFTH
CAMBRIDGE
UPRR
WING
LEVEE
TRACY
M
A
T
H
E
W
S
H
O
W
A
R
D
W
ILLIAM
M
O
S
S
S
P
E
R
R
Y
A I R P O R T
UPRR
NEWCASTLE
AUSTIN
STOW
NELSON
D
O
D
D
S
A
D
A
PAT R I C K
G I L L I S
W H I T E
P O C K
M
ARIPO
SA
M
AR
IPO
SA
M
A
IN
FREM
ONT
WILSON
C ALI FOR NIA
CENTER
W
EBER
FRESNO EIG
H
THH
AR
D
IN
G
C
O
U
NTRY
CLUB
THORNTON
ALEXANDRA
M
A
R
C
H
PERSHING
SW
AIN
H
AM
M
E
R
PAC IF IC
UPRR
E L DO RA DO
ALPINE
CHEROKEE
W
ATERLOO
CHERRYLAND
FOPPIANO
HILDRETH
ASHLEY
FRONT
S
T&
ER
R
F
LO
O
D
F
LO
O
D
TULLY
E
I
G
H
T
M
I
L
E
E
IG
H
T
M
IL
E
QUASHNICK
M
O
RA
DA
CORREIA
THORNTON
FREE
UPRR
T
U
R
N
E
R
DE VRIES
DAVIS
M
O
R
SE
WESTLANE
H
O
G
AN
CCTRR
ANGIER
SCHM
IEDT
STOCKTON
C
ENTUR
Y
KE
TTLEM
AN
HAM
MILLS
LO
D
I
HUTCHINS
VINE
ELM
TURNER
TADDEI
NOLAN
A
C
A
M
P
O
KENNEFICK
W
O
O
D
BR
ID
G
E
DUSTIN
TRETHEWAY
E L L I O
TT
BRUELLA
C
O
L
L
IE
R
DRY CREEK
NICHOLS
P
E
L
T
IE
R
GUAR
D
BN&SFRR
CHURCH
Ve r n ali s
New
Jerusalem
San
Joaquin
City
Carbona
Banta
Stoneridge
TracyTracy
Lammersville
MountainMountain
HouseHouse
Holt
Terminous
ThorntonThornton
Collierville
Coopers
Corner
Acampo
WoodbridgeWoodbridge
LodiLodi
Henderson
Village
LockefordLockeford
Victor
Dog
Town
Clements
MoradaMorada Waterloo
Glenwood
Noble Acres
LindenLinden
Peters
Farmington
Collegeville
Five
Corners
Sims
Station
EscalonEscalon
RiponRipon
LathropLathrop
MantecaManteca
Mossdale
Turner
FrenchFrench
CampCamp
StocktonStockton
Chrisman
East to
Modesto
South to
Los Angeles
South to
Santa Nella
West to
Fairfield
West to
Discovery Bay
and Antioch
West to
Bay Area
North to
Sacramento
North to
Sacramento
East to
Jackson
East to
San Andreas
East to
San Andreas
East to
Angels Camp
East to
Oakdale
South to
Modesto
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
STANISLAUS COUNTY
STANISLAUS COUNTY
CALAVERAS COUNTY
AMADOR COUNTY
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ALAMEDA COUNTY
NEW HOPE
TRACT
CANAL
RANCH
TRACT
BRACK
TRACT
TERMINOUS
TRACT
BOULDIN
ISLAND
VENICE
ISLAND
EMPIRE
TRACT
KING
ISLAND
MANDEVILLE
TIP
LITTLE
VENICE
WARDS
ISLAND
FERN
ISLAND
RINDGE
TRACT
MCDONALD
TRACT
HENNING
TRACT
MILDRED
ISLAND
LOWER
ROBERTS
ISLAND
ACKER
ISLAND
SPUD
ISLAND
HOG
ISLAND
LOWER
JONES
TRACT
SHIMA
TRACT
WRIGHT
TRACT
SHIN KEE
TRACT
RIO
BLANCO
TRACT
BISHOP
TRACT
UPPER
ROBERTS
ISLAND
HEAD-
REACH
ISLAND
MEDFORD
ISLAND
MANDEVILLE
ISLAND
STATEN
ISLAND
AT LAS
TRACT
ELMWOOD
TRACT
MIDDLE
ROBERTS
ISLAND
FA BIAN
ISLAND
ROUGH AND
READY ISLAND
BACON
ISLAND
WOODWARD
ISLAND
UPPER
JONES
TRACT
VICTORIA
ISLAND
UNION
ISLAND
PESCADERO
STEWART
TRACT
TOKAY
CHEROKEE
HOLMAN
WEST
FISK
SNEED
KLO
M
U
S
T
A
N
G
AR
N
AU
D
O
M
A
IN CENTRAL
GREATVALLEY
BROWN
MAIN
TRACY
LAKES
CALAVERAS
RIVE
R
N
O
RTH
FORKDUCK
CR
E
EK
NO
R
TH
LITTLEJO
HN
S
CREEK
GRANT LINE CANAL
FABIAN AND BELL CANAL
N
O
R
TH
G
ATE
M
O
FFAT
DOAK
C
E
N
TER
W
O
O
DB
R
ID
G
E
LOWERSACRAMENTO
M
A
IN
121°0'0"W
121°0'0"W
121°7'30"W
121°7'30"W
121°15'0"W
121°15'0"W
121°22'30"W
121°22'30"W
121°30'0"W
121°30'0"W
38°15'0"N
38°15'0"N
38°7'30"N
38°7'30"N
38°0'0"N
38°0'0"N
37°52'30"N
37°52'30"N
37°45'0"N
37°45'0"N
37°37'30"N
37°37'30"N
37°30'0"N
37°30'0"N
San Joaquin County Base Map
San Joaquin County Geographic Information Systems
1810 East Hazelton Avenue, Stockton, CA 95205
The information on this map is based on the most current information available to San Joaquin County Geographic Information Sys tems.
The County of San Joaquin does not warrant its accuracy or suitability for any particular purpose.
The information on this map is not intended to replace engineering, financial or primary records research. 012340.5
Miles
1:120,000
1 inch = 10,000 feet
O
Printed: 08/29/2016 DB
Legend:
County Limit
City Limit
Street
Water
8 Map 1
San Joaquin County
12 San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx The nexus findings for the CFF, including the Unincorporated Facilities Surcharge, are based on the direct benefit new development receives from the new countywide regional facilities and the unincorporated area facilities during the 18-year period from 2017 to 2035.
Based on the population projections prepared by Eberhardt, the County is expected to grow by approximately 200,321 persons during the 18-year period from 2017 to 2035. The increase in population will require development of new regional government service facilities and improvements to service the demand stemming from new growth.
Based on the projected growth, future County facilities will need to provide for the construction of approximately 323,000 square feet of building space. The estimated cost of $490 per net square foot is derived by reviewing the Solano County Master Plan construction costs estimates for administrative buildings, prepared in April 2016.
Population and Employment Growth Estimates
Table 3 identifies the projected population increase, as well as new employees projected for the County by 2035. According to data produced by Eberhardt, the County’s 2017 population is estimated to be 747,514. This population is estimated by Eberhardt to increase by 200,321 persons by 2035, to realize an estimated total population of 947,835.
As one of the San Joaquin Valley’s important regional centers for employment, employees are significant users of the County’s regional facilities, so the Nexus Study allocates a portion of the costs of future development to new employees projected over the next 18 years. Based on data provided by Eberhardt, EPS estimates that 243,323 persons are employed in the County in 2017.
2 This number is projected to reach 299,918 by 2035, representing an increase of approximately 56,595 employees.
The 2003 study used a projection of new residential units and an assumed “persons per household” (PPH) to estimate the projected population. This Nexus Study uses data provided by the US Census Bureau for population by housing unit type, and the number of households by unit type to estimate the PPH, as shown in Chapter 4.
The 2003 study made similar assumptions regarding increases in nonresidential growth, on an employee “per-square-foot” basis, to project new employees. This Nexus Study will not translate estimated increases in nonresidential uses to project new employees through 2035, but rather, will use the 56,595 projected new employees to determine facility requirements to serve new employees through 2035.
2 Ibid.
DRAFT
Table 3
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Projected New Development Through 2035
Land Use 2015 2017 [1] 2020 2025 2030 2035 Amount Percentage Residential Development (New Residents)
County Population 728,644 747,514 775,819 829,426 883,484 947,835 200,321 26.8% Nonresidential Development (New Employees)
Employees 234,859 243,323 256,019 270,185 285,072 299,918 56,595 23.3% "growth"
Source: "San Joaquin County Forecast Summary," University of the Pacific Eberhardt School of Business - Center for Business and Policy Research, July 7, 2016. [1] Eberhardt provides population and employee data in 5-year increments. The population and employee estimate for 2017 is calculated by adding the annual average growth between 2015 and 2020 to establish a 2017 baseline figure.
Population: 2015-2020 Annual Average Growth - 9,435
Employment: 2015-2020 Annual Average Growth - 4,232
Total Est. Growth
Population/Employees (2017-2035)
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xlsx 14 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx
3. REGIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND COST ESTIMATES
This chapter discusses the need for additional regional facilities to meet the needs of new population and employee growth in the County. It also discusses the estimated costs associated with the County’s development of these regional facilities through 2035.
Countywide Regional Fac ilities Service Standards
Service standards are expressed as the total square footage per 1,000 population, based on current population estimates and existing facilities.
Based on the projected population and employment growth covered in Chapter 2 of this Nexus Study, and historical service standards per 1,000 population, expansion requirements for regional facilities needed by 2035 are calculated in Table 4.
The ratio of square feet per 1,000 population was determined by using 2017 population assumptions and current space used for major General Government facilities to develop an assumed 1,983 square foot per 1,000 population for major General Government facilities. This ratio is reduced slowly through 2035 to account for facilities that may be constructed. A factor of
0.99 is used to approximate the impacts of new technologies and service delivery efficiencies that are anticipated to occur over the study period, reducing future staffing projection levels and associated space that would be needed.
Table 5 shows eligible countywide regional facilities to be funded through the CFF. Total new space for General Government services required to serve new development is 323,186 square feet. County staff has identified 10,348 square feet of existing space surplus that can be used to house employees required to serve new development. Using an assumed per square foot cost for new building space, General Government facilities costs are approximately $158.4 million.
The associated cost of the existing space is used to reduce required facilities costs. These are facilities that would be otherwise constructed if surplus space were not available for housing new employees. This reduces General Government facilities costs by $5.1 million. The net costs of constructing new General Government facilities are reduced to $153.3 million.
The County issued Certificates of Participation (COPs) to build the County Administration Building. The total remaining debt service payments for the COPs is approximately $116.0 million. County staff has determined that approximately 29.85 percent of the debt service is attributable to new development, with the remainder of the debt service benefiting existing development. Therefore, approximately $34.6 million of the remaining debt service is assigned to new development. The total new facility construction costs and existing debt service for the Administration Building attributable to new development is approximately $187.9 million (see Table 5 for details).
Table 6 shows the costs developed in Table 5. There is an existing fund balance as of June 30, 2017, in the CFF Fund of approximately $24.1 million. These fees have been collected to construct facilities required to serve new development, but have not been expended to date.
They should be used to reduce the total costs of providing new facilities required to serve new development. This reduces the costs to be funded by the CFF to approximately $163.8 million.
DRAFT
Table 4
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Item 2017 2020 2025 2030 2035
County Population Estimates [1] 747,514 775,819 829,426 883,484 947,835 Major General Government Facilities
Required Net Square Footage [2] 1,482,372 1,523,118 1,612,077 1,699,973 1,805,558 Ratio of Sq. Ft. per 1,000 Population [3] 1,983 1,963 1,944 1,924 1,905 "nexus_facilities"
[1] Source: "San Joaquin County Forecast Summary", Eberhardt School of Business - Center for Business and Policy Research, July 7, 2016.
[2] 2017 total existing square footage for major general government facilities likely impacted by new growth. [3] Current square footage to per 1,000 population ratio. This is assumed to be the required new general government facility space per 1,000 population. The ratio is reduced over the study period to account for space types within the existing facility inventory that will not necessarily increase with growth (e.g., department head, file/equipment rooms, etc.) and increased use of technology that could alleviate the need for additional staff.
The proposed ratio is 0.99 over the study period.
Summary of Countywide Regional Facilities Service Level Standards to Serve New Develo
pment Through 2035
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xls x 16 DRAFT
Table 5
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Estimate of Eligible Countywide Regional Facilities to Serve New Development Through 2035 (2017$) Space
Total Needed To
Space Total Existing Service
Requirements Existing New Space New
Facilities Space Component 2035 Sp ace Space Surplus Development [1] [1] [2]
Major General Government Facilities (Square Feet) 1,805,558 1,482,372 323,186 (10,348) 312,838 Total Estimated
Facility Cost Components (2016$) Unit Cost [3] Cost--New Space Major General Government Facilities (Square Feet) $490 $158,361,140 ($5,070,520) $153,290,620 Administration Building Debt Service [4] n/a $116,015,875 ($81,385,136) $34,630,739 Estimated New Facility Construction Costs/Existing Debt Service $274,377,015 ($86,455,656) $187,921,359 "CCF_costs"
[1] See Table 4.
[2] Existing space surplus provided by County staff, as of August 2017. [3] Major general government facilities costs based on the Solano County Master Plan construction cost estimates for administrative buildings, prepared April 22, 2016.
[4] Administration Building debt service allocable to new development provided by County staff.
Estimated Construction Cost
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xls x 17 DRAFT
Table 6
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Estimate of Regional Development Costs by Category (2017$) Total
Estimated Existing Service
Cost--New Space New
Regional Facility Cost Components Space Deficiency Development [1]
Major General Government Facilities $158,361,140 ($5,070,520) $153,290,620 Administration Building Debt Service $116,015,875 ($81,385,136) $34,630,739 Total Estimated New Facility Construction Costs/Existing Debt Service $274,377,015 ($86,455,656) $187,921,359 Less Current CFF Fund Balance [2] ($24,149,416)
Total Net Costs Funded by CFF $163,771,943
CFF Cost Allocation to Regional Fees [3] 94.97% $155,538,557 CFF Cost Allocation to Unincorporated Fees 5.03% $8,233,386 Estimated Funding Sources
CFF Current Fund Balance [2] $24,149,416 $0 $24,149,416 County General Purpose Revenues $86,455,656 $86,455,656 -- Development Impact Fees $163,771,943 $0 $163,771,943
Total Funding Sources $274,377,015 $86,455,656 $187,921,359 "nexus_costs"
[1] See Table 5.
[2]
Reflects the current CFF fund balance as of June 30, 2017. [3] Percentages apply to the current county facility space occupied by staff that provide primarily regional and unincorporated- related services (rounded).
Allocated Construction Cost
Prepared by EPS 10/11/2017 162056 CCFF Model6 10-11-2017 18 San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx The $163.8 million new facility costs (and debt service on the Administration Building) will construct facilities for departments providing countywide services and departments that provide services almost exclusively to the unincorporated areas of the County. The County identified the existing space housing functions providing countywide and unincorporated services.
Approximately 95 percent of the space provides countywide services and 5 percent provides unincorporated services. The $163.8 million is allocated to regional fees and unincorporated fees based upon these percentages. The total costs assigned to regional fees are approximately $155.5 million and to unincorporated fees are approximately $8.2 million (see Table 6 for details).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx
4. REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES FACILITY NEXUS
This chapter describes nexus methodologies and findings required to establish the CFF and calculate the fee by land use, building on the previous regional facilities development discussion.
Summary of Methodology
The methodology used to determine the recommended CFF is as follows:
Estimate New Development. New development, residential and nonresidential, to occur in the County in the next 18 years is estimated based on data provided by the County and Eberhardt. New development projections were presented in Chapter 2 of this Nexus Study. Determine the Recommended Levels of Service for Regional Facilities Development.
The recommended levels of service are based on the historical service standards expressed as the total square footage of countywide regional facilities per 1,000 population in 2017.
Eligible countywide regional facilities are determined by deducting the existing space surpluses discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.
Estimate Regional Facilities Development Costs. Facilities included are based on the information provided by the County. Development costs were presented in Chapter 3 of this report.
Allocate Regional Facilities Development Cost to New Development. Countywide regional facilities development costs are allocated to both residential and nonresidential development based on benefit received from new facilities. The costs are allocated on a per- regional-facility-user basis (residents and employees). Costs for regional facilities are allocated to residential users and to employees based on the estimated amount of facility benefit received by an employee relative to a resident, as presented in this chapter. Determine Regional Facilities Fee. The cost per regional facility user for residents and employees is multiplied by “common use factors” to determine the CFF. For residents, the common use factor is PPH. For employees, the common use factor is the number of employees per 1,000 building square feet by nonresidential land use. Nonresidential employees per 1,000 square feet were provided by EPS based on internal data and professional judgment.
Allocation of Countywid e Regional Facilities
Development Costs
Residential vs. Nonresidential Allocations
Countywide facility development costs are allocated to land uses based on their projected use of the facilities. While residents are the primary beneficiaries of countywide regional facilities, businesses also benefit from the use of these regional facilities. For example, employees in the County benefit from access to regional facilities.
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx Because detailed service records associated with regional facilities were not available to guide the cost allocations among new residential and nonresidential uses, the relative time an employee is present at the work site is applied as a proxy to estimate benefits received by businesses. Specifically, this methodology is based on an assumed typical employee work week:
5 days out of 7 and 8.5 hours
3 out of 24: (5/7)*(8.5/24) = 0.25. Using this logic, each worker receives approximately 25 percent of the benefit received by a resident. This weighting factor of 25 percent is applied to the total new employment projection of 56,595 through 2035 to produce a pro-rata allocation of benefits to 14,149 employees during the period. Total countywide equivalent facility users represent the sum of new population growth through 2035, plus 25 percent of projected new employees through the same period.
Allocation in Land Uses
Once the countywide regional facilities development cost per user is determined, it is applied to the appropriate common use factor to determine the CFF by land use. For residential land uses, the common use factor is the PPH for each single-family and multifamily unit (including duplexes and mobile homes). The estimated PPH per unit is based on the data from US Census Bureau.
Based on the data provided in Table 7, EPS applied PPH factors of 3.34 for single-family uses and 2.48 for multifamily uses.
The density of employees in each nonresidential land use is used to determine the relative level of benefits among businesses from countywide facilities. For nonresidential development, the common use factor is based on the estimated average building square feet per employee. These factors are used by EPS based on employee density analyses prepared by the Energy Information Administration, Institute of Transportation Engineers, the San Diego Association of Governments, and the US Department of Energy. The assumptions by land use are shown below:
Retail/Commercial: 450 square feet per employee
Office: 300 square feet per employee
Industrial: 1,600 square feet per employee
Findings for Countywide Regional Facilities Fee
This section of the Nexus Study presents the findings necessary to establish the CFF in accordance with AB 1600. The findings state (1) the purpose of the fee, (2) the use of the fee, (3) the relationship between the use of the fee and type of development, (4) the relationship between the need for the facility and the type of project, and (5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost portion attributed to new development.
The Nexus Study provides a basis for CFF funding of both regional facilities and program administration costs, including the expenses associated with Nexus Study preparation. Specific findings are as follows:
3 The estimated employee hours at the work site includes a factor for break-time or lunch.
DRAFT
Table 7
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Population per Household Estimate
Persons
pe
r
Owner Renter Owner Renter Household
Unit Type [1] Occupied Occupied Total Occupied Occupied Total [2] Single Unit (Attached or Detached) 372,083 206,711 578,794 117,901 55,636 173,537 3.34 Multi-Unit
2 to 4 Units 1,511 34,338 35,849 688 12,090 12,778 2.81 5+ Units 1,599 56,485 58,084 722 24,357 25,079 2.32
Subtotal Multi-Unit 3,110 90,823 93,933 1,410 36,447 37,857 2.48 Total 375,193 297,534 672,727 119,311 92,083 211,394 3.18 "pph"
Source: US Census - Total Population in Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and Units in Structure, ACS 2011-2015. [1] Analysis excludes Mobile Homes, Boats, RVs, and Cars as residential units. [2] Rounded to the nearest hundredth.
Population Number of Units
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xlsx 22 San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx Purpose of Fee: Develop countywide regional facilities to meet the needs of the new residential and employee population in the County.
Use of Fee: The fee will be used to construct various eligible countywide regional facilities as shown in Table 6. The fee also will fund the studies and administration to support the development of countywide regional facilities.
Relationship between Use of Fee and Type of Development: The development of new residential and nonresidential land uses in the County will generate additional need for countywide regional facilities. The fees will be used to develop the user capacity for countywide regional facilities to serve new residential and nonresidential development. Relationship between Need for Facility and Type of Project: Each new residential and nonresidential development project will generate additional demand for countywide regional facilities. Under the County’s historical countywide regional facilities construction program, a service standard expressed as the total square footage per 1,000 population has been set. Relationship between Amount of Fee and Cost of Portion of Facility Attributed to New Development: This criterion requires that the fee amount to be charged to new development be proportional to the cost of facilities needed to maintain service standards and avoid adverse impacts. Fees cannot be used to improve existing service standards or meet current service deficiencies.
Fee Calculation
Table 8 summarizes the countywide regional facilities development cost per regional facility user. The total new facility construction costs of approximately $155.5 million, calculated in Table 6, are divided by the sum of projected new residents through 2035 (200,321) and 25 percent of new employees (14,149) to derive the cost for new facilities needed to serve new development per regional facilities user. This cost per facilities user is $725 (rounded to the nearest dollar).
Table 9 calculates the CFF per land use. The CFF for a single-family residential unit is $2,434 per unit and $1,807 for a multifamily unit (rounded to the nearest dollar). The CFF is calculated by multiplying the equivalent facility use factor for residential uses (3.34 PPH for single family and 2.48 PPH for multifamily) discussed previously by the cost per facilities user ($725 per user).
The nonresidential CFF land use categories are based on the County Zoning Code for retail/commercial, office, and industrial land uses. As shown in Table 9, the CFF is $0.40 per building square foot for retail/commercial, $0.61 per building square foot for office, and $0.11 per building square foot for industrial/other development (rounded to the nearest cent). If a building has more than one land use, such as retail/commercial and office, the CFF will be pro- rated based on the building square footage of each land use.
DRAFT
Table 8
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Countywide Facilities Development Cost per Facility User (2017$) Item
Amount
Estimated Total Eligible Regional Facilities Development Costs [1] a $155,538,557 Estimated Total New Regional Facilities Users
New Residents [2] b 200,321
Total New Employees [2] c 56,595
25% of Employees [3] d = c * 25% 14,149
Total Equivalent Countywide Regional Facilities Users e = b + d 214,470 Development Cost per Equivalent Facility User (Rounded) [4] f = a / e $725 "nexus_user_fee"
[1] See Table 6.
[2] See Table 3.
[3] New employees may have opportunities for potential County facility usage during regular work hours.
This study estimates that time opportunity for facility usage is 25% of the regular work week. [4] Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xlsx 24 DRAFT
Table 9
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study CFF Development Impact Fee by Land Use (2017$)
Persons Cost per Facilities
Admin. Cost CFF Impact
per Unit or Equivalent Cost per Unit or per Unit or Fee per Unit or Land Use Category 1,000 SF Facility Use r 1,000 SF 1,000 SF per SF [1] [2] [3] [4]
Residential Development a b c = a * b d = c * 0.5% e = c + d Single-Family Residential 3.34 $725 $2,422 $12 $2,434
Multifamily Residential 2.48 $725 $1,798 $9 $1,807
Nonresidential Development f g = b * 25% h = f * g i = h * 0.5% j = (h + i)/1,000 Retail/Commercial 2.22 $181 $402 $2 $0.40
Office 3.33 $181 $603 $3 $0.61
Industrial/Other 0.63 $181 $113 $1 $0.11
"nexus_fee"
[1] See Table 7 for persons per unit assumptions.
[2] See Table 8.
[3] 0.5 percent of the facilities cost per unit/building sq. ft. is the cost of administering the fee program. [4] Residential
: Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
Nonresidential: Rounded to the nearest whole cent.
[5] Based on EPS analyses and supported by standards used by sources such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers, US Department of Energy, and the San Diego Association of Governments.
Analysis assumes the following building square footage per employee.
Retail
: 450
Office: 300
Industrial: 1,600
[5]
per unit
per bldg. sq. ft.
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xlsx 25 San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx The CFF program includes the cost of preparing the Nexus Study, periodic updates, and funding of the administrative costs such as the costs of accounting and audits, investing, and planning.
The administrative component of the CFF is calculated at 0.5 percent of eligible CFF facility costs.
The fees are payable at the time of building permit issuance for new development. No fees are to be collected from existing development unless the existing development was subject to prior agreements requiring fee funding for future improvements.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx
5. IMPLEMENTATION
Adjustments to the CFF
The CFF is based on the best development cost estimate and land use information available at this time. If costs change significantly, or if other funding becomes available, the fees should be adjusted periodically.
The cost estimates presented in this report are in 2017 dollars. Each year the County applies an appropriate inflation adjustment factor to the CFF (California Construction Cost Index prepared by the California Department of General Services) to reflect changes in construction costs.
Fee Reimbursements and Fee Credits
The County and developers may agree to have certain developers build certain facilities contained in the fee program or to fund County facilities through financing districts (e.g., Mello- Roos Community Facilities Districts). In the case of an agreement to construct facilities, the County will require, and must approve, a specific cost estimate based on the approved design standards for the facilities proposed to be constructed by the developer. Based on negotiated agreements, the developer may receive a fee credit or reimbursement based on the portion of their fee obligation that is met through the direct construction of facilities or through financing districts. Developers may or may not receive fee credits or reimbursements for constructing improvements that are beyond the required standards.
Local Implementation
The CFF is implemented through adoption of ordinances by the individual city councils and the Board of Supervisors.
Ongoing Administration of the CFF Program
The County is responsible for ongoing administration of the CFF program, including annual appropriation of fees, maintaining the countywide regional facilities model, preparing annual reviews, and providing periodic updates. An administrative charge is included in the fee amount to fund this ongoing administrative activity.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx
6. UNINCORPORATED FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT SURCHARGE
There may be several required County facilities that are needed solely to service unincorporated growth in the County. To assist in funding these facilities, a surcharge will continue to be administered to new development that occurs in the unincorporated areas of the County. This chapter provides an overview of the facilities in this category, nexus findings, and the resulting surcharge to the CFF to be paid by unincorporated development. Unless otherwise specified, the principles and methodologies applied in this section are the same as those described in the preceding sections.
Unincorporated Facilities Development and Cost
Estimates
Table 10 shows the estimated eligible County unincorporated facilities costs from Table 6. The total cost of $8.2 million, is calculated in Table 6. These costs are to be applied only to new development in the unincorporated areas of the County.
Allocation to Residential and Nonresidential
Development
The cost of constructing new public facilities required to serve new residents and employees living or working in the unincorporated areas of the County will be divided by the total facility users to be added between 2017 and 2035. Table 10 shows that 21,106 new residents will live in the unincorporated area of the County by 2035. In addition to the new residents, there will be 1,980 employee facility users by 2035. The total cost of new public facilities needed to serve unincorporated facility users is divided by the sum of new resident and employee facility users to determine the development cost per equivalent unincorporated facility user in Table 10. Total costs are $8.2 million. Total unincorporated facility users are 23,086. The development cost per equivalent unincorporated facility user is $357, rounded to the nearest dollar.
Fee Calculation
Based on the findings, costs, and calculations discussed in this study, the unincorporated CFF Development Impact Fee surcharge for each land use in the County has been calculated using the methodology described at the beginning of this chapter.
Table 10 summarizes the County unincorporated facilities development cost per equivalent facility user, and Table 11 calculates the unincorporated CFF Development Impact Fee surcharge per land use. The unincorporated CFF Development Impact Fee surcharge for a single-family residential unit is $1,198 per unit and $890 for a multifamily unit (rounded to the nearest dollar). The fees shown include a 0.5 percent allowance for the cost of administering the fee program.
DRAFT
Table 10
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Unincorporated Facilities Development Cost per Facility User (2017$) Item
Amount
Estimated Total Eligible Unincorporated Facilities Development Costs [1] a $8,233,386 Estimated Total New Unincorporated Facilities Users
Total New Residents in County [2] b 200,321
New Residents Residing in Unincorporated Areas [3] [4] [5] c = b * 10.536% 21,106 Total New Employees in County [2] d 56,595
New Employees Working in Unincorporated Areas [3] [4] [5] e = d * 13.990% 7,918 25% of New Employees Working in Unincorporated Areas [4] f = e * 25.00% 1,980 Total Equivalent Unincorporated Facilities Users g = c + f 23,086 Development Cost per Equivalent Unincorporated Facility User [4] h = a / g $357 "unincorp_nexus_user_fee"
[1] See Table 6.
[2] See Table 3.
[4] Rounded to the nearest whole number.
[5] Allocation factors not rounded.
[3] Based on the percentage of total growth in the unincorporated areas of County from 2015 to 2035.
See Table A-1 for details.
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xlsx 29 DRAFT
Table 11
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Unincorporated CFF Surcharge by Land Use (2017$)
Persons Cost per Facilities
Admin. Cost CFF Impact
per Unit or Equivalent Cost per Unit or per Unit or Fee per Unit or Land Use Category 1,000 SF Facility Use r 1,000 SF 1,000 SF per SF [1] [2] [3] [4]
Residential Development a b c = a * b d = c * 0.5% e = c + d Single-Family Residential 3.34 $357 $1,192 $6 $1,198
Multifamily Residential 2.48 $357 $885 $4 $890
Nonresidential Development f g = b * 25% h = f * g i = h * 0.5% j = (h + i)/1,000 Retail/Commercial 2.22 $89 $198 $1 $0.20
Office 3.33 $89 $298 $1 $0.30
Industrial/Other 0.63 $89 $56 $0 $0.06
"unincorp_nexus_fee"
[1] See Table 7 for persons per unit assumptions.
[2] See Table 10.
[3] 0.5 percent of the facilities cost per unit/building sq. ft. is the cost of administering the fee program. [4] Residential
: Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
Nonresidential: Rounded to the nearest whole cent.
[5] Based on EPS analyses and supported by standards used by sources such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers, US Department of Energy, and the San Diego Association of Governments.
Analysis assumes the following building square footage per employee.
Retail
: 450
Office: 300
Industrial: 1,600
per bldg. sq. ft.
per unit
[5]
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xlsx 30 San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx As shown in Table 11, the unincorporated CFF Development Impact Fee surcharge is $0.20 per building square foot for retail/commercial, $0.30 per building square foot for office development and $0.06 per building square foot for industrial/other development (rounded to the nearest cent).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx
7. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF CFF
The CFF has a direct impact on the feasibility of new residential and nonresidential development.
The CFF, along with development fees imposed by each incorporated city and other public agencies such as school districts, typically range from 10 percent to 20 percent of the total development costs of a project.
New development in incorporated cities and unincorporated County communities, such as Mountain House, is competitive with other development projects in the Central Valley. Impact fees in the County must remain competitive and not create a financial burden that causes projects to be infeasible. This section analyzes the financial feasibility of a range of new development project prototypes, given the current development impact fees in incorporated cities and unincorporated communities in the County.
The financial feasibility of a development project to home builders and nonresidential commercial builders can be assessed by examining the total infrastructure burden for each developable land use. The Infrastructure Cost Burden Feasibility Tests are tools to determine the maximum financial burden a development can carry and potentially maintain profitability.
Summary of Infrastructure Cost Burden Feasibility
Test
EPS has developed an infrastructure cost burden test for single-family residential projects.
Similar types of feasibility tests could be developed for commercial and industrial product types; however, developing feasibility models for such a broad spectrum of projects is difficult, considering the sensitivity of fees exacted on a development at plan detail. While this analysis highly scrutinizes the Infrastructure Cost Burden Feasibility of single-family residential development, this analysis also illustrates how the maximum justifiable CFF compares to countywide facilities fees charged by competitive jurisdictions for retail, office, and industrial development prototypes.
Single-Family Residential Infrastructure Cost Burden Test The infrastructure cost burden to a project developer/builder can be used to assess the financial feasibility for development of the finished products of a project. The total infrastructure cost burden consists of all backbone infrastructure and public facilities costs allocated to the development plus applicable fees, including building permit processing fees, County and regional fees, and school district fees.
EPS uses the Infrastructure Cost Burden Feasibility Test as a performance indicator of project feasibility for single-family residential development. In general, for each residential land use, if the total cost burden per dwelling unit is less than 15 percent of the finished home price, then a project is considered to be financially feasible:
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx Residential units with a cost burden percentage below 15 percent clearly are financially feasible.
Residential units with a cost burden percentage between 15 and 20 percent may be financially feasible.
Residential units with a cost burden percentage above 20 percent may not be financially feasible.
These feasibility benchmarks are based on EPS’s experience in conducting financial feasibility analyses for numerous projects throughout the Central Valley and Sacramento Region over the last 2 decades. The 15 to 20 percent test is merely a tool that can be used—along with other tools—as a general measure of financial feasibility.
This measure should not be taken to mean that if the threshold is exceeded, the project definitely is infeasible. There are ways in which a development project can mitigate against a high cost burden, such as reallocating some of the cost burden to other land uses. In addition, the infrastructure costs will be fine-tuned and possibly reduced as engineering studies are completed closer to actual construction. Also, future development projects could be required to contribute to funding off-site costs currently assigned to a project, thus reducing that project’s obligation.
The analytical framework used to evaluate feasibility is based on the assumption a homebuilder is able to generate a 10 percent return on total development costs, which EPS considers the minimum threshold for feasibility. If the infrastructure burden is greater than 20 percent, it is unlikely the builder will generate the required 10 percent to make the project feasible, unless major cost reductions can be made in the land acquisition price or the cost of unit construction.
Similar feasibility tests can be performed for commercial and industrial product types, although developing feasibility models for the many different types of commercial and industrial projects is difficult. For these types of projects, EPS compares the maximum justifiable CFF to countywide facility fees for nearby counties.
Single-Family Residential Infrastructure Burden Test Results Table 12 demonstrates the impacts of the maximum justifiable CFF on new single-family residential development in the County. This analysis is based on the infrastructure burden costs to develop a 2,000-square-foot, 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom home with a 450-square-foot garage in new development areas in the County.
4 4 This analysis compares the feasibility of the net impacts of the maximum justifiable CFF. All development areas in the County included in this analysis, except the City of Lodi, collect the current CFF. This analysis is based on the assumption the maximum justifiable CFF will be collected on development projects in all areas of the County.
DRAFT
Table 12
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Single-Family Residential Infrastructure Cost Burden Comparison 2,000 Sq. Ft. Home, 450 Sq. Ft. Garage, 3 Bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms, 8.0 Units per Net Acre Feasibility Summary by Jurisdiction
Escalon Lathrop Lodi Manteca Ripon Stockton Tracy Unincorporated Stanford Westside Mountain
Item Citywide Crossing Citywide Citywide Citywide Project A Plan C House Infrastructure Fee Burden [1]
City/County/Agency Fees per Unit $54,162 $26,542 $16,119 $36,660 $63,624 $51,518 $54,060 $35,479 School District Mitigation per Unit $6,720 $23,479 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $15,724 $5,954 Estimated Bond Debt Infrastructure per Unit [2] - $57,168 - - - - - - Total Existing Infrastructure Burden Costs per Unit $60,882 $107,189 $22,839 $43,380 $70,344 $58,238 $69,784 $41,433 Net San Joaquin County CFF Increase per Unit $385 $385 $2,434 $385 $385 $385 $385 $1,056 Potential Total Infrastructure Burden per Unit $61,267 $107,574 $25,273 $43,765 $70,729 $58,623 $70,169 $42,489 Average New Home Sales Price [3] $350,000 $405,000 $397,500 $387,500 $420,000 $337,500 $455,000 $515,000 Fee Burden as a % of Home Price (Existing) 17.4% 26.5% 5.7% 11.2% 16.7% 17.3% 15.3% 8.0% Fee Burden as a % of Home Price (Max. Justified CFF) 17.5% 26.6% 6.4% 11.3% 16.8% 17.4% 15.4% 8.3% Key: Feasible May Be Feasible May Not Be Feasible "sfr_sum"
[1] This analysis evaluated potential Plan Area Development Impact Fees that may be applicable to the development areas shown above. Research concluded that none of the development areas included in this analysis are subject to Plan Area Fees. [2] Stanford Crossing: Estimated bond debt for infrastructure includes costs that overlap with City fees that lower the net bond debt per unit, but cannot be reconciled at this time. [3] Data compiled from new home sales information attained from home builders sites, Gregory Group, and Zillow for homes built since 2015, and between 1,800 to 2,200 square feet in size.
San Joaquin County
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
22.0%
24.0%
26.0%
28.0%
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Citywide Stanford
Crossing
Citywide Citywide Citywide Westside
Project A
Citywide Mountain
House
Escalon Lathrop Lodi Manteca Ripon Stockton Tracy Unincorporated Fee per Unit
City/County/Agency Fees per Unit School District Mitigation per Unit Estimated Bond Debt Infrastructure per Unit Max. Justfiable San Joaquin CFF Net Increase Fees as a % of Sales Price (Max. Justified CFF)
Prepared by EPS 12/7/2017 F:\Active Projects\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 10-11-2017 34 San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 35 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx Detailed calculations of the information presented in Table 12 can be found in Appendix B of this Nexus Study.
As shown in Table 12, the maximum justifiable CFF does not significantly impact the feasibility of new residential development in the County. Depending on jurisdiction, the maximum justifiable CFF has the potential to increase overall development impact fee burdens up to approximately 0.6 percentage points. In addition, this analysis shows that the increase in infrastructure burden caused by the maximum justifiable CFF is unlikely to make new single- family residential development infeasible. These results are highly influenced by factors that are described below:
Proximity to Tri-Valley Area Valuation: In general, this analysis shows a correlation between the proximity and access to the Tri-Valley area and Silicon Valley with higher home sales prices. Development areas closer to the Interstate 580 corridor, with greater access to job centers such as Livermore and the East Bay Area, demand a higher home sales price, as shown in Tracy and Mountain House.
New Home Pricing: This analysis is based on new home sales for homes constructed and sold since 2015 for each analyzed development area.5 Home sales prices in the analyzed communities and throughout California have consistently been on the rise in the past 3 years. The results of the Infrastructure Cost Burden Feasibility test are reliant on new home sales prices. These outcomes are sensitive to market forces that may reduce or increase home sales prices.
Countywide Facility Fee Comparison
EPS compared the current and maximum justifiable CFF for single-family residential, multifamily residential, retail, office, and industrial development in the County to countywide facility fees charged by other counties in California. EPS’s initial research included the counties listed below. Alameda Sacramento
Butte Santa Clara
Contra Costa Solano
El Dorado Sonoma
Fresno Stanislaus
Kern Tulare
Merced Ventura
Monterey Yolo
Placer
5 New home sales information was retrieved in December 2016 from The Gregory Group—a real estate research company that specializes in new home sales in California and other western US states—residential real estate Web sites such as Zillow and Redfin, and new home community sales Web sites.
San Joaquin County Countywide Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Public Review Draft Report October 12, 2017
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Reports\162056 06 10-12-17.docx EPS only compared the existing and maximum justified CFF to other county capital/public facility fees for those counties that had a similar fee that is justified by a nexus study. Of all the counties shown above, only Butte, Stanislaus, and Solano Counties collect a countywide impact fee for public or capital facilities that is based on a supportable nexus study. 6 Table 13 compares the existing and maximum justified CFF to development areas in Butte, Stanislaus and Solano counties. As shown in Table 13, the maximum justifiable CFF is well within range of competitive locations for residential, retail, office, and industrial development.
Compared to the areas included in this analysis, the impacts of the maximum justifiable CFF may not significantly impact development siting in the County.
6 Fresno County temporarily suspended the collection of its Countywide Public Facilities Impact Fee for a three-year period from November 2012 to November 2015. Fresno County has passed year-to-year resolutions that have continued to suspend the collection of such fees, and therefore has been excluded from this comparison.
DRAFT
Table 13
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Countywide CFF Comparison - FY 2017-2018
Fee Area 1 Fee Area 2 Fee Area 3 Fee Area 1 Fee Area 2 Fee Area 3 Fee per Unit Current
Maximum
Justified Current
Maximum
Justified [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Single-Family Residential $2,049 $2,434 $2,576 $3,632 $4,966 $4,286 $9,429 $7,559 $7,631 $8,962 $9,316 $7,349 Multifamily Residential $1,756 $1,807 $2,210 $2,697 $3,804 $3,272 $6,203 $4,898 $4,949 $6,726 $7,424 $5,471 Footnotes on Page 2.
San Joaquin County Stanislaus County Solano County
Incorporated Cities Unincorporated Area
Butte County
El Medio Fire
District [2]
Unincorp.
County [1]
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
Incorp. Cities -
Current
Incorp. Cities -
Max. Justified
Unincorp. Area -
Current
Unincorp. Area -
Max. Justified
Unincorp.
County [1]
El Medio Fire
District [2]
Fee Area 1
[3]
Fee Area 2
[4]
Fee Area 3
[5]
Fee Area 1
[6]
Fee Area 2
[7]
Fee Area 3
[8]
San Joaquin
County
San Joaquin
County
San Joaquin
County
San Joaquin
County
Butte County Butte County Stanislaus
County
Stanislaus
County
Stanislaus
County
Solano
County
Solano
County
Solano
County
Fee per Unit
Single-Family Residential Multifamily Residential
Prepared by EPS 9/6/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xls x 37 DRAFT
Table 13
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Countywide CFF Comparison - FY 2017-2018
Fee Area 1 Fee Area 2 Fee Area 3 Fee Area 1 Fee Area 2 Fee Area 3 Fee per 1,000 Bldg. Sq. Ft. Current
Maximum
Justified Current
Maximum
Justified [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Retail [9] $470 $400 $590 $600 $2,130 $1,930 $3,663 $3,358 $3,358 $859 $983 $859 Office $410 $610 $510 $910 $2,530 $2,260 $4,598 $4,236 $4,236 $1,430 $1,637 $519 Industrial [10] $230 $110 $290 $170 $1,270 $1,180 $2,132 $2,086 $2,086 $181 $208 $181 Source: San Joaquin County; Butte County; Stanislaus County; Solano County; EPS. "cff_comp"
[1] Butte County does not collect fees for countywide facilities from development within the five incorporated cities in the County. [2] Unincorporated Butte County development in El Medio Fire District does not pay fees for Butte County Fire Department facilities, which is reflected by a lower PFF for this area. [3] Includes unincorporated area of Stanislaus County. [4] Includes cities of Turlock, Oakdale, Newman, and Riverbank. [5] Includes cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Patterson and Waterford. [6] Includes incorporated and unincorporated areas of Solano, excluding the City of Benicia and areas within the Dixon Public Library District, which includes City of Dixon. [7] Includes the unincorporated area of Solano County within Dixon Public Library District and City of Dixon. [8] Includes the City of Benicia.
[9] Stanislaus Count
y: Commercial Shopping Center rate.
[10] Stanislaus County: Industrial Distribution rate.
Solano County: Industrial Warehouse/Distribution rate.
Incorporated Cities
San Joaquin County
Unincorporated Area
Stanislaus County Solano CountyButte County
Unincorp.
County [1]
El Medio Fire
District [2]
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
Incorp. Cities -
Current
Incorp. Cities -
Max. Justified
Unincorp. Area -
Current
Unincorp. Area -
Max. Justified
Unincorp.
County [1]
El Medio Fire
District [2]
Fee Area 1
[3]
Fee Area 2
[4]
Fee Area 3
[5]
Fee Area 1
[6]
Fee Area 2
[7]
Fee Area 3
[8]
San Joaquin
County
San Joaquin
County
San Joaquin
County
San Joaquin
County
Butte County Butte County Stanislaus
County
Stanislaus
County
Stanislaus
County
Solano
County
Solano
County
Solano
County
Fee per 1,000 Bldg. Sq. Ft.
Retail Office Industrial
Prepared by EPS 9/6/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xls x 38 Append
Append
A
dix A:
dix B:
APPENDIC
County
Single-F
Develop
Burden
CES:
Growth
Family Re
pment In
Cost Det
Detail
esidentia
frastruct
tail
al
ture
Table A-1
A
Count
County
APPENDIX
ty Growt
Growth by C
X A:
th Detail
Community
...................................
........ A-1
DRAFT
Table A-1
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study County Growth by Community
Percentage
Item 2015 2035 Amount of Total
Population
Incorporated Cities
Escalon 7,369 8,501 1,132 0.5%
Lathrop 23,107 50,007 26,900 12.3%
Lodi 65,543 82,626 17,083 7.8%
Manteca 71,831 95,930 24,099 11.0%
Ripon 15,359 20,777 5,418 2.5%
Stockton 309,919 401,961 92,042 42.0%
Tracy 88,707 118,130 29,423 13.4%
Subtotal Incorporated Cities 581,835 777,932 196,097 89.5% Unincorporated Communities 146,809 169,903 23,094 10.5% Total 728,644 947,835 219,191 100.0%
Employment
Incorporated Cities
Escalon 1,838 2,255 417 0.6%
Lathrop 5,984 10,756 4,772 7.3%
Lodi 23,605 29,858 6,253 9.6%
Manteca 16,231 20,968 4,737 7.3%
Ripon 3,653 4,802 1,149 1.8%
Stockton 112,225 144,228 32,003 49.2%
Tracy 21,702 28,328 6,626 10.2%
Subtotal Incorporated Cities 185,238 241,195 55,957 86.0% Unincorporated Communities 49,621 58,723 9,102 14.0%
Total 234,859 299,918 65,059 100.0%
"unincorp_growth"
Source: Eberhardt.
Growth
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xlsx A-1
Single
Infr
Table B-1
Table B-2
Table B-3
A
-Family
rastructu
City/Co
School
Special
APPENDIX
Resident
ure Burde
ounty/Agency
Impact Fees
Taxes and A
X B:
tial Deve
en Cost
y Developme
s ...............
Assessments
elopment
Detail
ent Impact F
.................
s per Unit ....
t
Fees (2 page
..................
..................
es) .... B-1
........ B-3
........ B-4
DRAFT
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Single-Family Residential Infrastructure Cost Burden Comparison 2,000 Sq. Ft. Home, 450 Sq. Ft. Garage, 3 Bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms, 8.0 Units per Net Acre City/County/Agency Development Impact Fees [1]
City/County/Agency Development Impact Fees
Escalon Lathrop Lodi Manteca Ripon Stockton Tracy Unincorporated per Unit: These are fees charged by the City, County, or Stanford Westside Mountain Other Agency and do not include fees for a special plan area. Citywide Crossing Citywide Citywide Citywide Project A Plan C House Current as of Sep-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 CITY/COUNTY/AGENCY FEES PER UNIT [2]
Processing Fees per Unit
Building Permit [3] $2,046 $1,652 $2,821 $1,084 $1,602 $2,050 $2,289 $2,824 Plan Check [3] $1,178 $1,156 $1,693 $171 $1,041 $861 $1,488 $1,836 Energy Plan Check $160 $413 $282 - - - - $424
Technology Surcharge - - - $158 $154 - $169
Seismic/Strong Motion $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 $36 $32
California Building Standards Commission Fee $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $11 $10 Fire Review Fee [3] $762 $1,695 $1,128 $518 - $528 $370 $1,836 Disabled Access Plan Check - $248 $282 - - - - -
Other Building Permit or Processing Fees - - - $963 - $1,222 - $603 Total Processing Fees per Unit $4,188 $5,205 $6,248 $2,777 $2,843 $4,855 $4,194 $7,733 Development Impact Fees per Unit
Sewer [4] $5,998 - $1,152 $7,370 $4,127 $5,486 $9,132 - Water $9,391 $6,854 $1,563 $7,600 $9,957 $11,759 $11,998 $796 Traffic $6,170 $3,597 $289 $2,723 $7,088 $13,803 $5,186 $8,678 Regional Traffic $3,223 $3,223 $3,223 $3,223 $3,223 $3,336 $3,223 $3,223 Transit - - - - - - - -
Drainage [5] $3,804 - - $942 $2,638 - $4,469 -
Parks - Neighborhood - - - - - - - -
Parks - Citywide $11,569 $5,805 $1,584 $2,447 $14,174 $2,896 $7,557 $6,360 Library $525 - - - $471 $934 - $825
Fire - $620 $157 $540 $2,942 $808 - -
Police $2,011 - $307 - $540 $612 $1,349 $1,979
In-Lieu Flood Protection - - - - - - - -
Habitat/Greenbelt Preservation [6] $976 - $976 $976 $976 $1,950 $1,950 $1,950 Agricultural Land Mitigation - $485 - $330 - $1,857 - $1,084 Affordable Housing - - - - - - - -
Public Facilities/Capital Facilities $1,697 $3,236 $251 $4,433 $2,660 $981 $2,953 - Other General Fees/One-Time Taxes $2,562 - $369 $1,250 $9,935 $194 - $275 Countywide Fees [7] $2,049 $2,049 - $2,049 $2,049 $2,049 $2,049 $2,576 City of Lathrop CFF Creditable Costs [8] - ($4,532) - - - - - - Total Development Impact Fees per Unit $49,975 $21,337 $9,871 $33,883 $60,781 $46,662 $49,866 $27,746 TOTAL CITY/COUNTY/AGENCY FEES PER UNIT $54,162 $26,542 $16,119 $36,660 $63,624 $51,518 $54,060 $35,479 San Joaquin County
Prepared by EPS 12/7/2017 F:\Active Projects\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 10-11-2017 B-1
DRAFT
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Single-Family Residential Infrastructure Cost Burden Comparison 2,000 Sq. Ft. Home, 450 Sq. Ft. Garage, 3 Bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms, 8.0 Units per Net Acre City/County/Agency Development Impact Fees [1]
City/County/Agency Development Impact Fees
Escalon Lathrop Lodi Manteca Ripon Stockton Tracy Unincorporated per Unit: These are fees charged by the City, County, or Stanford Westside Mountain Other Agency and do not include fees for a special plan area. Citywide Crossing Citywide Citywide Citywide Project A Plan C House San Joaquin County
Plan Area Fees per Unit - - - - - - - -
School District Fees per Unit $6,720 $23,479 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $15,724 $5,954 Estimated Bond Debt (Infrastructure) per Unit - $57,168 - - - - - - Total Infrastructure Burden (City, County, Schools and
Plan Area Fees, and Estimated Bond Debt) per Unit $60,882 $107,189 $22,839 $43,380 $70,344 $58,238 $69,784 $41,433 "sfr_impact"
[1] Amounts shown in this table are not rounded, therefore, totals may not sum as a result. [2] Processing fees exclude mechanical, electrical, plumbing and other similar review fees. [3] Escalon: Building permit, plan check, and fire review fees could not be obtained from City staff. This analysis assumes these fees to be the average of all other comparison areas. [4] Manteca: Assumes Sewer Zone 24.
Mountain House: Capital reimbursement to developer may be required based upon size of site acquired.
Tracy: Assumes east conveyance.
[5] Escalon: Assumes Drainage Area 11-Future.
Manteca: Assumes Storm Drainage Zone 36.
Lodi: Drainage facilities in new growth area are to be funded by the developer. No fee is established in new growth areas.
Mountain House: Capital reimbursement to developer may be required based upon size of site acquired.
Tracy: Assumes South MacArthur Sub-Basin.
[6] Lathrop: San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) Mitigation Fee has been paid.
Escalon, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon: SJMSCP collected at Multi-Purpose Open Space rate ($7,807 per acre).
Stockton, Tracy and Mountain House: SJMSCP collected at Agricultural rate ($15,596 per acre).
All San Joaquin County Projects: Assumes "Natural" habitat type for San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan Development Fee. [7] The Countywide Fee is for FY 2017-18. All other fees in this table are for FY 2016-17. Lodi : The City of Lodi does not collect the County of San Joaquin CFF. [8] Reflects the allocation of City of Lathrop CFF creditable costs for facility improvements by land use, per the Central Lathrop Specific Plan (Stanford Crossing development area) Development Agreement, dated December 6, 2016.
Prepared by EPS 12/7/2017 F:\Active Projects\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 10-11-2017 B-2
DRAFT
Table B-2
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Single-Family Residential Infrastructure Cost Burden Comparison 2,000 Sq. Ft. Home, 450 Sq. Ft. Garage, 3 Bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms, 8.0 Units per Net Acre School Impact Fees
Escalon Lathrop Lodi Manteca Ripon Stockton Tracy Unincorporated Stanford Westside Mountain
Estimated School Mitigation per Unit Citywide Crossing Citywide Citywide Citywide Project A Plan C House Current as of Sep-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 Sep-16 School District Escalon Manteca Lodi Manteca Ripon Lodi Tracy Lammersville
USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD
A. Annual School Mello-Roos CFD Taxes - $1,638 - - - - - - B. Present Value of School CFD Tax - $16,759 ----- -
C. School Fee per Sq. Ft.:
Level 1 Fees - - - - - - - -
Level 2 (or 3) SB50 Fee $3.36 $3.36 $3.36 $3.36 $3.36 $3.36 - - Mitigation Agreement - - - - - - - -
D. Total School Fee
Stirling Fee - - - - - - - -
Level 2 (or 3) SB50 Fee $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 - - Mitigation Agreement - - - - - - $15,724 $5,954
E. Total School Mitigation (B+D) $6,720 $23,479 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 $15,724 $5,954 "sfr_school"
San Joaquin County
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xlsx B-3
DRAFT
Table B-3
San Joaquin County Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Single-Family Residential Infrastructure Cost Burden Comparison 2,000 Sq. Ft. Home, 450 Sq. Ft. Garage, 3 Bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms, 8.0 Units per Net Acre Special Taxes and Assessments per Unit
Escalon Lathrop Lodi Manteca Ripon Stockton Tracy Unincorporated Special Taxes and Assessments per Unit Stanford Westside Mountain for Infrastructure [1] Citywide Crossing Citywide Citywide Citywide Project A Plan C House Current as of
Annual Special Taxes and Assessments per Unit
Infrastructure CFD - $4,876 - - - - - -
Infrastructure Assessment District - - - - - - - - Total Annual Taxes and Assessments - $4,876 ----- -
Estimated Bond Debt of Special Taxes
and Assessments
Infrastructure CFD - $57,168 - - - - - -
Infrastructure Assessment District - - - - - - - - Total Estimated Bond Debt - $57,168 ----- -
"sfr_tax"
San Joaquin County
Prepared by EPS 8/23/2017 P:\162000\162056 San Joaquin County Tech Support FY 2016-17\Task 1 - Prepare CCFF Update\Models\162056 CCFF Model6 07-18-17.xlsx B-4
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment A
Attachment B
Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
Stockton, CA
Dear Board Members:
9:00 a.m. – Public Hearing to Consider Adjustment of the County Facilities Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and Accept Report for Fiscal Year 2021-2022
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Conduct a p ublic hearing to consider the annual adjustment of the County Facilities Fee (CFF) schedule for fiscal year 2022-2023; and
2. Accept and file the CFF Program Annual Report for fiscal year 2021-2022.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
On June 14, 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted the CFF Program (Ordinance No. 4252 and Resolution No. R -05-314) in conforma nce with Government Code S ection 66000 et seq. The primary purpose of the CFF is to “finance regi on-serving capital facilities located throughout the County that are used by the residents and businesses within each city as well as the unincorporated area and to assure that new development pays its proportional share for these improvements.” In additio n, in the unincorporated County, a fee surcharge is collected that will “contribute to the development of vital County facilities serving the needs of the unincorporated area only.” Fees collected from the CFF Program can be used to offset only the growth- related portion of the cost of County regional and unincorporated area public facilities. Some of the examples of capital facilities that could fall into the broad categories include:
1) Regional Projects – Expansion of Jail Facilities, Probation/Juvenil e Hall Expansion, Law and Justice Facilities, General Government Facilities (Administration Building); and 2) Unincorporated Projects – Sheriff’s Office expansion, including Animal Services, Public Works expansion, and Community Development Department expansion.
CFF Program fees are collected in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit by the County and those cities with c urrent Master Annexation Agreements listed in the following table along with the corresponding agreement expiration date. The City of Lodi ceased collection of the fees in June 2012, with the expiration of the Master Annexation Agreement.
Master Annexation Agreements
(City/Expiration Date)
Escalon July 2026 Ripon October 2036
Lathrop July 2029 Stockton July 2025
Manteca December 2028 Tracy July 2026
CFF Schedule - Annual Adjustment
The Countywide collection of CFF Program fees began on August 15, 2005. On March 20, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved the CFF Nexus Study Update documenting the relationship between new development and the need for additional or larger County facilities and authorized implementation of a revised fee schedule, effective April 2, 2018 (B -18-179). Although CFF amounts automatically adjust for inflation annually based on the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI), the N exus Study had not been updated since the fees were originally adopted in 2005.
Annual inflationary adjustments are to ensure CFF fees collected are adequate to offset the costs of future growth-related facility needs. The building cost index produced by Engineering News Record provides the basis for the CCCI and reflects cost trends for construction trade labor and materials in the California market . Over the prior year, the CCCI changed from 7712 to 8604, an 11.57% increase. This is a significant increase, especially when compared to the average annual increase for the preceding five- year period of 4.38% and is reflective of costs impacted by the increase in demand for construction services and supply chain disruptions related to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
The recommended adjustments to the fiscal year 2022-2023 CFF schedule are shown in the following table.
Regional and Unincorporated Fees
County
CFF - Regional CFF - Unincorporated County Total
Current Adjusted Current Adjusted Current Adjusted
Residential Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit
Single Family $2,911 $3,249 $1,431 $1,597 $4,342 $4,846 Multi Family $2,158 $2,408 $1,063 $1,186 $3,221 $3,594
Non- Residential Per SqFt Per SqFt Per SqFt
Retail Commercial $0.48 $0.54 $0.22 $0.24 $0.70 $0.78
Commercial Office $0.72 $0.80 $0.36 $0.40 $1.08 $1.20
Industrial $0.13 $0.15 $0.07 $0.08 $0.20 $0.23
CFF Program - Annual Report
A specific requirement of the enabling legislation is the publication and review of an annual report. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, the CFF Program Annual Report for 2021-2022 was filed with the Clerk of the Board for public review on October 3, 2022, at least 15 days prior to today’s Board meeting, as required (attached).
Revenues and interest posted to the CFF Program fund during the current reporting period July 1, 202 1 through June 30, 20 22 totaled $9,313,085.18 and $191,822, respectively. In 2021-2022, there w as an inter-fund transfer totaling $1,017,466 for the portion of debt service payments related to growth for the County Administration Building project allocated to the CFF Program that will continue through 2032 . The net increase in fund balance for the current reporting period was $8,487,441.
The table below displays total revenues and total expenses for the CFF Program from 2005-2006 through 2021-2022.
Fiscal
Ye ar
Fee
Collection Inter est
Total
Revenues
Expenses/
Transfe rs
Revenues Over
Expenses
2005-06 $3,939,717 $31,218 $3,970,935 $0 $3,970,935
2006-07 4,912,044 261,952 5,173,996 0 5,173,996
2007-08 3,883,512 503,117 4,386,629 (1,322,675) 3,063,954 2008-09 2,247,743 312,228 2,559,971 (1,413,099) 1,146,872 2009-10 1,468,720 104,839 1,573,559 (1,362,156) 211,403 2010-11 1,678,134 81,589 1,759,723 (1,413,099) 346,624
2011-12 1,669,505 51,058 1,720,563 (1,434,805) 285,758
2012-13 2,812,770 36,993 2,849,763 (1,413,099) 1,436,664 2013-14 2,017,391 40,488 2,057,879 (1,413,099) 644,780
2014-15 2,947,019 46,888 2,993,907 (1,216,324) 1,777,583 2015-16 3,827,723 92,213 3,919,936 (1,412,577) 2,507,359 2016-17 4,822,748 163,048 4,985,796 (1,402,307) 3,583,488 2017-18 7,931,465 330,754 8,262,219 (1,467,695) 6,794,524 2018-19 8,183,659 632,654 8,816,313 (1,411,383) 7,404,930 2019-20 8,132,776 806,500 8,939,276 (1,715,043) 7,224,233 2020-21 10,529,768 360,376 10,890,144 (1,624,869) 9,265,275 2021-22 9,313,085 191,822 9,504,907 (1,017,466) 8,487,441 Total $80,317,779 $4,047,737 $84,365,516 ($21,039,696) $63,325,820 County Facilities Fee Program Revenues and Expenses
The fund balance as of June 30, 20 22 was $63,325,820. The Annual Report includes a priority project list as of fiscal year 2022-2023.
FISCAL IMPACT
Annual inflationary adjustments to the CFF fee schedule ensure CFF revenues collected are sufficient to offset the growth -related facility needs of the County.
The acceptance of the 2021-2022 Annual Report has no fiscal impact beyond staff time for preparation of this report.
Since the inception of the Program in 2005- 2006, revenues, interest, and expenditures/transfers through 2021- 2022, totaling $ 84,365,516, $ 4,047,737, and $21,039,696, respectively, have been posted to the CFF fund.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING APPROVAL
In accordance with Government Code Section 66019, the fee increase shall be effective no earlier than 60 days following the final action of the Board of Supervisors. The County Administrator’s Offic e will forward copies of t he fiscal year 2021 -2022 CFF Annual Report and the adjusted fiscal year 202 2-2023 CFF fee schedule, to become effective January 1, 2023 , to each of the cities in San Joaquin County and the Building Industry Association (BIA) of the Greater Valley.
Very truly yours,
Jerome C. Wilverding
County Administrator
JW:AB
Attachment: County Facilities Fee Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2021-2022
c: Auditor-Controller
Community Development
County Counsel
General Services
City Managers
BIA of the Greater Valley
Board Clerk for Agenda 10/18/22
BL10-03
Resolution Template 12/2020
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
R E S O L U T I O N
R-22-186
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY
FACILITIES FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted the County Facilities Fee (CFF) Program (Ordinance No. 4252 and Resolution No. R-05-314) in conformance with Government Code Section 66000 et seq;
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the CFF is to “finance region-serving capital facilities located throughout the County that are used by the residents and businesses within each city as well as the unincorporated area and to assure that new development pays its proportional share for these improvements.” In addition, in the unincorporated County, a fee surcharge is collected that will “contribute to the development of vital County facilities serving the needs of the unincorporated area only;”
WHEREAS, fees collected from the CFF Program can be used to offset only the growth- related portion of the cost of County regional and unincorporated area public facilities;
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved the CFF Nexus Study Update documenting the relationship between new development and the need for additional or larger County facilities and authorized implementation of a revised fee schedule, effective April 2, 2018 (B-18-179);
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Ordinance, the CFF fee schedule is to be automatically adjusted for inflation annually, based upon changes to the California Construction Cost Index;
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66018 requires local agencies to hold a public hearing, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting prior to approving an increase in an existing fee, and to publish notice of the time and place of the meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2022, the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing to consider the annual adjustment of the CFF fee schedule, effective January 1, 2023;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Joaquin hereby authorizes implementation of a revised CFF fee schedule, effective January 1, 2023, as follows:
Resolution Template 12/2020
CFF Categories Regional
(incorporated) Unincorporated
Surcharge Unincorporated
Residential
Single Family (per unit) $3,249 + $1,597 = $4,846
Multi-Family (per unit) $2,408 + $1,186 = $3,594
Non-Residential
Retail/Commercial (per square foot) $0.54 + $0.24 = $0.78 Office (per square foot) $0.80 + $0.40 = $1.20
Industrial/Other (per square foot) $0.15 + $0.08 = $0.23
PASSED AND ADOPTED October 18, 2022 , by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors, to wit:
AYES: Villapudua, Miller, Patti, Rickman, Winn
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CHARLES WINN
ATTEST: RACHÉL DeBORD Chairman, Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of San Joaquin County of San Joaquin State of California
State of California
By ___________________
Deputy Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING
THE COLLECTION OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY FACILITIES FEES
========================================================================
WHEREAS, in 2005, the City Council of the City of Lodi adopted Chapter 15.66 of the Lodi Municipal Code (“LMC”), which established the authority for collection of County Facilities Fees for new development pursuant to the San Joaquin County (“County”) Facilities Fee (“CFF”) Schedule within the City of Lodi; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2005, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors adopted the CFF Program in conformance with Government Code Section 66000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the CFF Program is to “finance region- serving capi tal facilities located throughout the County that are used by the residents and businesses within each city as well as the unincorporated area and to assure that new development pays its proportional share for these improvements;” and
WHEREAS, fees collected from the CFF Program can be used to offset only the growth- related portion of the cost of County regional and unincorporated area public facilities; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors approved the CFF Nexus Study Update documenting the relationship between new development and the need for additional or larger County facilities and authorized implementation of a revised fee schedule, effective April 2, 2018; and
WHEREAS, on October 18 , 2022, the County Board of Supervisors reviewed and approved the County’s 2021- 2022 CFF Annual Report and adjusted the 2022- 2023 CFF fee schedule, to become effective January 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City’s authority to collect the CFF granted in LMC Chapter 15.66 was repealed when the prior Master Annexation Agreement between the City and the County expired in June 2012; and
WHEREAS, because of the recent update to the City’s Municipal Service Review (“MSR”) and Sphere of Influence ( “SOI”), the City has renegotiated an agreement with the County regarding annexations which was approved on January 4, 2023 , and these actions led the City to adopt an o rdinance on January 18, 2023, reenacting LMC Chapter 15.66 to reestablish the collection of CFF fees; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the reenacted LMC Chapter 15.66, the City will adopt the County’s CFF Program and the corresponding fee schedule, which is to be automatically adjusted for inflation annually, based upon changes to the California Construction Cost Index; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66018 requires local agencies to hold a public hearing, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly -scheduled meeting prior to approving an increase in an existing fee, and to publish notice of the ti me and place of the meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2023, the City Council of the City of Lodi conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption and implementation of the County CFF Nexus Study and the corresponding 2022-2023 CFF fee schedule, with an effective date of January 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the CFF Program fees listed in the 2022-2023 fee schedule are divided into residential and non-residential categories, as shown in the table below:
CFF Categories Incorporated
Areas
Residential
Single Family (per unit) $3,249
Multi-Family (per unit) $2,408
Non-Residential
Retail/Commercial (per square foot) $0.54
Office (per square foot) $0.80
Industrial/Other (per square foot) $0.15
WHEREAS, the CFF Program and the proposed 2022-2023 fee schedule were available for public inspection and review in the office of the City Clerk for more than ten days prior to the date of this Public Hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the City Council of the City of Lodi as follows:
1. The City has the authority to collect a capital facility fee pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq. in accordance with City ordinance adoption of the reenacted Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 15.66, once it becomes effective.
2. The City provided the statutory notice, held a public hearing, and maintained documentation of the proposed CFF Program and the 2022-2023 fee schedule for public inspection and review in the office of the City Clerk for more than ten days prior to the date of this Public Hearing.
3. The City Council hereby declares that the purposes and uses of the CFF Program fees, and the determination that there is reasonable relationship between the fees’ uses and the type of region-serving capital facilities in which the fees are imposed, are all established in the San Joaquin County CFF Nexus Study , the corresponding annual review, and the 2022 -2023 CFF fee schedule update effective January 1, 2023 , and remain valid, and the City Council therefore finds and adopts such determinations.
4. The Lodi City Council hereby approves and adopts the proposed San Joaquin County Facilities 2022-2023 Fee Schedule.
5. This Resolution and the findings and Fee s adopted herein shall take effect concurr ently with the effective date of the reenacted Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 15.66, which shall occur thirty (30) days after adoption of Ordinance 2014.
Dated: January 18, 2023
========================================================================
I her eby certify that Resolution No. 202 3-____ was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held January 18, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS –
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS –
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS –
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS –
OLIVIA NASHED
City Clerk
2023-_____
AGENDA ITEM H-02
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
APPROVED: ________________________________
Stephen Schwabauer, City Manager
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to Receive Annual Report of Available Growth Allocations and Consider Adopting a Resolution Revising the Growth Management Program Procedures to Allow Issuing Growth Allocations for Projects on Land Not Yet Annexed MEETING DATE: January 18, 2023
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Public Hearing to receive an annual report of available Growth Allocations and consider adopting a resolution revising the Growth Management procedures to allow the issuance of Growth Allocations to projects on lands not yet annexed.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: To clarify the process for future annexation of new land for residential development outside the existing city limits, Staff is proposing revisions to the existing Growth Management Program to define the advance procedures to allow projects on lands not yet annexed to apply for and receive growth allocations.
In 2022, the City Council updated and revised the Growth Management Program with the adoption of Resolution No. 2022-21. The proposed Resolution would add the following to the procedures established in Resolution No. 2022-21:
• Allow for the City Council to issue Growth Allocations early in the process for projects on lands that are not yet annexed into the City, subject to their successful annexation.
The annual process involves deducting allocations granted in the past 12 months from the number of allocations available for prior calendar year, deducting unused allocations which are more than three years old, and adding new allocations based on the maximum 2 percent annual growth rate established in the Growth Management Plan.
Staff will provide a brief report on the updated available allocations, including an accounting of allocated, expired and added allocations and the total available for the 2023 calendar year.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable.
________________________________________
John R. Della Monica, Jr.
Community Development Director
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2022-60, AND ADOPTING AMENDED PROVISIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE
CITY OF LODI GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
========================================================================
WHEREAS, the Lodi City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1521 on September 20, 1991, thereby establishing the City’s Growth Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1521 establishes that the City Council will adopt guidance for the implementation of the Growth Management Plan, including procedures and requirements for the approval of Growth Allocations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council then adopted Resolutions No. 91- 170 and No. 91- 171, establishing submittal requirements and procedures for the review of applications for Growth Allocations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on January 20, 2021, made changes to the Growth Allocation process, rescinding Resolutions No. 91- 170 and 91- 171 and adopting Resolution No. 2021-21 in their place; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on March 2, 2022, made further changes to the Growth Allocation process, rescinding Resolution No. 2021- 21 and adopting Resolution No. 2022-60 in its place; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has prepared additional clarifications to the Growth Allocation process to expressly state how Growth Allocations for annexations can be approved and how to track the allocations and still provide the Council with the ability to comment on proposed developments at an early stage; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has n ow reviewed Resolution No. 2023 -____ and has determined it would be beneficial to amend procedures and requirements to achieve these improvements; and
WHEREAS, the goals and intent of Ordinance No. 1521 would remain in effect as adopted, without any amendments to the Ordinance or to the rate at which development within the City of Lodi may occur; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Growth Management Plan was established through Ordinance No. 1521 and no changes to Ordinance No. 1521 are proposed in this action. The proposed amendments would be limited to the procedures for the review of Growth Allocation requests, which would not alter the rate, location, form or intensity of development in the City. As such, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendments would not cause a significant effect on the environment and adoption of the proposed amendments is exempt from review under CEQA subject to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Lodi City Council as follows:
A. The Recitals as stated above are true and incorporated herein by this reference.
B. Earlier Resolution Rescinded
The City Council hereby repeals and replaces Resolution No. 2022-60 in its entirety. 2 C. Growth Allocations Required
1. Consistent with the provisions of Ordinance No. 1521, the following actions require approval of Growth Allocations prior to residential projects or the residential component(s) of a mixed-use project receiving approval:
a. Approval of an Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Specific P lan, Planned Unit Development, Master Plan, tentative subdivision map, or similar land use entitlement.
b. Approval of a multifamily residential project on a parcel that has not received a Growth Allocation.
c. Issuance of building permits.
2. The following are exempt from requirements for Growth Allocations:
a. Commercial and industrial projects.
b. Senior citizen housing.
c. Construction of a new or replacement of a single-family home. d. Reconstruction of any residential unit that was originally constructed with a Growth Allocation.
e. Residential project of four (4) units or less, including attached and detached units.
f. Accessory Dwelling Units.
g. Emergency Housing.
D. Development Plan
Applications for Growth Allocations shall include a Development Plan that includes the following, as appropriate for the project, at sufficient detail to provide the City Council with the developer’s intent in terms of the type and quality of development:
1. A map showing the following:
a. Proposed street system and/or lotting design proposed within the development. b. Areas proposed to be dedicated or reserved for parks, open- space conservation, playgrounds, school sites, public buildings, churches and other such uses. c. Compliance with this requirement shall not be construed to relieve the applicant from compliance with City and State Subdivision regulations or any other applicable local or State laws.
2. A map showing the location of all trees over nine (9) inches in diameter with an indication of whether they will be removed or retained as part of the project.
3. A l and-use plan for the proposed development indicating the proposed land uses, as well as a description of and development standards for each land use designation (including, if desired, reference(s) to the Lodi Zoning Code for development standards, permitted land uses, etc.).
4. A map showing existing uses (including agriculture) inside and within 500 feet of the proposed development.
5. Typical plot plan(s) for residential dwellings for each typical proposed residential lot type.
The plot plan(s) shall identify development standards, including setbacks from lot lines for front, side, and rear yards.
6. A circulation diagram and standards defining the proposed system of public and private streets within the development, and all other features (on- and off -street bik eways, 3 pedestrian sidewalks and trails, etc.) related to the movement of vehicles, goods, pedestrians, and bicyclists within the development and to and from adjacent public thoroughfares. The circulation diagram shall also document proposed off-street parking.
7. Elevations and perspective drawings of the front elevations of all proposed structures, including single-family residences and their accessory buildings. Elevations of all sides of proposed non- residential and/or neighborhood serving structures shall be provided.
Such drawings need not be the result of final architectural decisions, but shall be reviewed for consistency in the formal design review process. The purpose of such drawings is to indicate height of proposed buildings, the proposed character and level of finish, and the general appearance of the proposed structures to ensure that the entire development will meet the City’s expectations for quality design and construction, will have architectural unity, and will be in harmony with the surrounding developments.
8. Engineering data as described in the City of Lodi Public Improvement Design Standards.
E. Development Schedule
1. An application shall be accompanied by a development schedule indicating to the best of the applicant’s knowledge the approximate date when construction of the project can be expected to begin, the anticipated rate of development, and the completion date.
2. If a Tentative Subdivision Map is not filed one year after Growth Allocations are approved, the City Council may rescind the appr oved Growth Allocations following a public hearing at which the applicant shall be provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard. This would allow the applicant to explain why the project has been delayed and request an extension of the deadline to file a tentative map.
3. If the City Council determines that a proposed residential development will require multiple years to complete, allocations may be approved for a stated number and type of residential unit for each year of the development schedule.
4. For projects seeking a multi -year allocation, the City may require initial submittal of individual tentative maps for each year's phasing of multi-year allocations.
F. Processing of Application for Growth Allocations
1. Application for growth allocations must be ac companied by a Development Plan and an initial submittal of any application(s) which will be required for the proposed development of housing, including: Annexation, General Plan Amendments, Change of Zone, or Tentative Subdivision Map. An application for any required approval shall not be submitted prior to approval of a Growth Allocation.
2. For annexation applications that require the issuance of Growth Allocations, the applicant shall submit all materials described above for review prior to consideration of prezoning of the subject parcel. When the City Council considers such Growth Allocation for a future annexation, any approval shall be conditioned upon completion of the annexation of the project to City within such period of time as shall be specified by the City, and such Growth Allocation approval shall not be effective until annexation of such property to the C ity has been completed. If annexation is not completed within the time specified or any approved extension thereof, then the approval of such Growth Allocations by the City Council shall be null and void. The total balance of available Growth Allocations will not be affected by the Growth Allocation approval until such time as the subject property is annexed to the city.
3. The City Council shall c onduct a public hearing to consider the application for Growth Allocation and shall either approve or deny the request for Growth Allocation. The Council may also provide initial feedback on the Development Plan. 4 4. A Growth Allocation of units equal to or greater than the number of units proposed in the Final Map must be approved and in place prior to recording of a Final Map.
5. Should the City Council approve a Growth Allocation for less units than the number of units requested by the applicant, the applicant shall amend any subsequent applications to conform with the number of units approved by the City Council.
6. All Subsequent required approvals, including General Plan amendments, changes of zone, Planned Developments, tentative subdivision maps, and development review, shall be reviewed and approved as provided in the Lodi Zoning Code after the approval of Growth Allocations.
G. C arry Over of Growth Allocations
1. Annual Accrual of New Growth Allocations. On January 1 of each year , new Growth Allocations will be cre ated in an amount that will accommodate a 2% increase over the City’s previous year population. The number of new Growth Allocations shall be the number of dwellings required to accommodate the increased population based on the average number of persons per household as determined by the State Department of Finance.
2. Unused Growth Allocations. Growth Allocation available in any given year that are not assigned to a development project shall be deemed to be Unused Growth Allocations and shall be available to assign in subsequent years.
3. Allocations Associated with an Annexation. For purposes of calculating Unused Growth Allocations, any Allocations assigned to a property seeking annexation shall be deemed as Unused until such time as the associated annexation is complete and the subject property joins the City, then the Growth Allocation issuance becomes effective.
4. Carry Over Allocations. An Unused Allocation becomes a Carry Over Allocation on January 1 of the year following its original creation.
5. Available Gr owth Allocations. Available Growth Allocations shall be calculated on January 1 of each year as the sum of newly created Growth Allocations plus any Carry Over Growth Allocations from previous years.
6. Oldest Allocations Assigned First. In each year, the first allocations assigned to development projects shall be the oldest Carry Over Growth Allocations. Once all Carry Over Growth Allocations have been assigned, the Growth Allocations created in the current year shall be assigned.
7. Automatic Retirement of Carry Over Growth Allocations. Growth Allocations may only be carried over for two subsequent years. If a Carry Over Growth Allocation has not been assigned to a development project within three years of its original creation, then such Growth Allocation shall be automatically retired.
8. Annual Accounting of Growth Allocations. By January 15 of each year, the Community Development Department shall document newly -created Growth Allocations for the current year and Carry Over Growth Allocations from previous years. Any Carry Over Growth Allocations that are determined to be more than three years old are automatically retired.
H. Points System/Evaluation Criteria
Consistent with the provisions of Ordinance No. 1521, the following point system/evaluation criteria shall be applied to the review of projects when requested Growth Allocations exceed the number of available Growth Allocations.
1. Agricultural Land Conflicts Score
a. Project does not require conversion of vacant agricultural land 10
5 b. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on one side 7 c. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on two sides 5 d. Project is adjacent to agricultural land on three sides 3 e. Project is surrounded by agricultural land 0
2. On-Site Agricultural Land Buffer
a. Project needs no agricultural land mitigation 10
b. Adequate on-site buffer has been provided as a part of site layout for all adjacent agricultural land 7
c. On-site buffer provided as a part of site layout for only part of the project 5
d. No buffer between project and adjacent agricultural land 0
3. General Location
A map showing such priority shall be adopted or updated from time to time by the Council, and shall be available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk.
a. Project located within Priority Area 1 200
b. Project located within Priority Area 2 100
c. Project located within Priority Area 3 0
4. Relationship to Public Services
a. General Location
i. Project abuts existing or approved development that
has not yet been built on four sides 10
ii. Project abuts existing or approved development that has not yet been built on three sides 7
iii. Project abuts existing or approved development that has not yet been built on two sides 5
iv. Project abuts existing or approved development that has not yet been built on one side 3
v. Project is surrounded by undeveloped land 0
b. Wastewater
i. Project is located adjacent to existing Master Plan
sanitary sewers or mains designed to serve the
project 10
ii. Project will extend a Master Plan line within its
boundaries 8
iii. Project will extend a Master Plan line outside of its boundaries but within existing right-of way (0 if right- of-way is necessary) 4
iv. Project requires construction of a new lift station for which funds are available in the Sewer Impact Fee
Fund 0
6 v. Project requires construction of a new lift station for which funds are not available in the Sewer Impact Fee
Fund *
* Project cannot proceed without provision of funding
for construction of the lift station.
c. Water
i. Project is located adjacent to existing Master Plan
water mains or mains designed to serve the project 10
ii. Project will extend Master Plan lines within its
boundaries 8
iii. Project will extend Master Plan lines outside its
boundaries, but within existing right-of-way (0 if
outside right-of-way) 4
iv. Project requires construction of a new water well for which funds are available in the Water Impact Fee
Fund 0
v. Project requires construction of new water well for
which funds are not available in the Water Impact Fee
Fund *
vi. Project improves the existing system (i.e., eliminates dead-ends, loops master plan lines, provides a well
site) +1 to 3
* Project cannot proceed without provision of
funding for construction of the required well.
d. Drainage
i. Project is served by an existing drainage basin and
Master Plan line or mains designed to serve the
project 10
ii. Project will extend a Master Plan line or expand an existing basin within its boundaries 8
iii. Project will extend a Master Plan line or expand an existing basin outside of its boundaries but within
existing rights-of-way (0) points if right-of-way is
necessary 4
iv. Project requires construction of a new basin for which funds are available in the Master Drainage Impact Fee
Fund 0
v. Project requires construction of a new basin for which funds are not available in the Master Drainage Impact
Fee Fund *
* Project cannot proceed without provision of
funding for construction of the required basin.
7 5. Promotion of Open Space
Points shall be awarded on the basis of the percentage of coverage of the total loss of project area by roof area and paved areas on-site (exclusive of streets and single-family homes).
20% or less 10
30% or less 8
40% or less 6
50% 4
60% 2
70% or greater 0
Project owner shall submit an analysis of the percentage of the coverage of surface area.
6. Traffic
a. Project widens or improves an existing facility 10
b. Project will extend Master Plan streets within its boundaries 8 c. Project will extend Master Plan streets outside its boundaries, but within existing right-of-way (0 if outside right-of-way) 4 d. Project require roadway improvements for which funds are available in the Street Impact Fee Program 0
e. Project requires roadway improvements for which funds are not available in the Street Impact Fee Program *
f. Project improves circulation by providing additional access to adjacent development (including non-vehicular access) +1 to 5 * Project cannot proceed without provision of funding for construction of the required road improvement.
7. Housing
Low- and Moderate-Income Housing. A point credit will be awarded with the following schedule:
25% or more of units low and moderate 10
20%-24% 8
15%-19% 6
10%-14% 4
5%-9% 2
Less than 5% low and moderate or
low and moderate housing proposed 0
8. Site Plan and Project Design--Bonus Points for Multi-Family Projects These criteria shall only apply to multi-family projects. a. Landscaping. (Planning Commission shall evaluate and provide between 10 and 0 points) 0-10
b. Architectural Design. (SPARC Committee shall evaluate and provide between 10 and 0 points) 0-10
8 9. Schools
a. Project is within 1/4 mile of an existing (or proposed) elementary school 10
b. Project is within 1/2 mile of an existing (or proposed) elementary school 5
c. Project is more than 1/2 mile from an existing or proposed elementary school 0
d. Project is within 1/2 mile of an existing (or proposed) middle school. 10
e. Project is within 1 mile of an existing or proposed middle school 5
f. Project is more than 1 mile from an existing or proposed middle school 0
g. Project is within 1 mile of an existing or proposed high school 10 h. Project is within 2 miles of an existing or proposed high school 5
10. Fire Protection. (Proximity to fire protection services) a. Within 3-minute emergency vehicle driving time from the nearest fire station 10
b. Within 4-minute emergency vehicle driving time from the nearest fire station 5
c. Beyond 4-minute emergency vehicle driving time from the nearest fire station 0
Dated: January 18, 2023
========================================================================
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2023-____ was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held January 18, 2023 by the following votes:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS –
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS –
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS –
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS –
OLIVIA NASHED
City Clerk
2023-_____
APPR
OVED: ________________________________
Stephen Schwabauer, City Manager
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AG
ENDA TITLE: Confirm Lodi Arts Commission Recommendation to Appoint Nancy Aide Gonzalez St.
Clair as Lodi’s First Poet Laureate
M
EETING DATE: January 18, 2023
P
REPARED BY: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director RE
COMMENDED ACTION: Confirm Lodi Arts Commission recommendation to appoint Nancy Aide Gonzalez St. Clair as Lodi’s first Poet Laureate.
B
ACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Poet Laureate Program shall support Lodi literacy programs and foster appreciation for poetry and its benefits through reading poetry at civic events, developing commemorative poems that express Lodi life, and by providing workshops to the community.
T
he selected Poet Laureate will become the City’s first Poet Laureate, serving as a liaison, advocate, and leader for poetry, spoken word, and the literary arts. The Poet Laureate will leverage their artistic excellence and literary achievements to inspire Lodi’s diverse residents to have a greater appreciation of the literary arts.
The Poet Laureate is expected to create engaging and conceptually driven, original works stimulated by and in response to the local community and cultivate critical thinking, connection, and appreciation of the literary arts through public readings, in-person literary workshops, and civic events.
P
RCS issued a Call to Artist (Call) for a Poet Laureate on the city’s website, through social media posts, with emails to the Lodi Arts Commission and Lodi Arts Foundation, and with the support of faculty from the University of the Pacific throughout October. Two proposals were received and evaluated by Staff for responsiveness; one was deemed incomplete and the second was submitted by local teacher, Nancy Aide Gonzalez St. Clair (Proposer).
T
he Lodi Arts Commission (Commission) reviewed the Call from Proposer to determine whether the Proposer possesses the artistic qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. The Commission determined the proposal as satisfactory and approved the Proposer’s submission. The Commission recommends City Council appoint the Poet Laureate to Proposer, Nancy Aide Gonzalez St. Clair.
AGENDA ITEM I-01
Confirm Lodi Arts Commission Recommendation to Appoint Nancy Aide Gonzalez St. Clair as Lodi’s First Poet Laureate January 18, 2023
Funding for the Poet Laureate is provided by a $15,000 grant from the Library & Literacy Foundation for San Joaquin to be administered over a three-year period between January 2023 to December 2025; $5,000 per calendar year. The Department’s Cultural Services staff will oversee the Artist during the three-year Poet Laureate program.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding provided by the Library & Literacy Foundation for San Joaquin
FUNDING AVAILABLE: $15,000 - 20600000.56452 (rev)
$15,000 - 20673405.72338 (exp)
_______________________________________
Andrew Keys
Deputy City Manager/Internal Services Director
_______________________________________
Christina Jaromay
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
CJ/LJ:tl
cc: City Attorney