Patterson City Council
October 15, 2024

CITY OF PATTERSON

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
UPDATE

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
SEPTEMBER 26, 2024
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
This page intentionally left blank.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 3 Background and Study Objectives 3
Facility Standards and Costs 3
Use of Fee Revenues 4
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 4
Other Funding Needed 5

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 6 Public Facilities Financing in California 6
Study Objectives 6
Fee Program Maintenance 7
Study Methodology 7
Types of Facility Standards 7
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 8
Organization of the Report 9

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ............................................................... 10 Land Use Types 10
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units 10
Existing and Future Development 11
Occupant Densities 11

3. CITY HALL FACILITIES................................................................ 13 Service Population 13
Facility Inventories and Standards 13
Existing Inventory 13
Cost Allocation 14
Fee Revenue Projection 14
Fee Schedule 15

4. CORPORATION YARD FACILITIES ................................................ 16 Service Population 16
Facility Inventories and Standards 16
Existing Inventory 16
Cost Allocation 17
Fee Revenue Projection 18
Fee Schedule 18

5. RECREATION FACILITIES............................................................ 20 Service Population 20
Existing Recreation and Community Center Facilities Inventory 20 Planned Recreation and Community Center Facilities 21
Cost Allocation 22
City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
ii
Existing Level of Service 22
Future Level of Service 22
Use of Fee Revenue 23
Fee Revenue Projection 23
Fee Schedule 23

6. PARK FACILITIES....................................................................... 25 Service Population 25
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory 25
Parkland and Park Facility Standards 27
Mitigation Fee Act 27
Quimby Act 27
City of Patterson Parkland and Park Facilities Standards 27 Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 28
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 28
Parks Cost per Capita 30
Use of Fee Revenue 31
Fee Schedule 31

7. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS............................................................ 32 Compliance with AB 602 32
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 32
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 32 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot 33
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 33

8. IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................... 35 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 35
Inflation Adjustment 35
Reporting Requirements 35
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 37

9. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS.................................................. 38 Purpose of Fee 38
Use of Fee Revenues 38
Benefit Relationship 38
Burden Relationship 38
Proportionality 39
3 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in The City of Patterson through buildout. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
▪ City Hall Facilities  Recreation Facilities
▪ Corporation Yard Facilities  Parks
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.

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

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

The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development’s fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non-impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development’s fair share of planned facilities. This approach is used for the recreation facility fees in this report.

The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City’s existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Impact fee funding for future facilities to serve growth is programmed through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process. This approach is to calculate the city hall, corporation yard and parks fees in this report.

The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This approach is not used in this report.

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

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

Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Table E.1: Development Impact Facilities Fee Summary
Land Use City Hall
Corporate
Yard
Recreation
Facilities
Parks -
Subdivisions1
Parks - Non
Subdivisions2
Total -
Subdivisions
Total - Non
Subdivisions
All Fees Charged per Square Foot
Residential $ 0.57 $ 1.43 $ 1.88 $ 3.22 $ 3.21 $ 7.10 $ 7.09 Nonresidential
Commercial $ 0.22 $ 0.55 $ - $ - $ - $ 0.77 $ 0.77
Office 0.34 0.85 - - - 1.19 1.19
Industrial 0.12 0.30 - - - 0.42 0.42
1 Subdivisions pay Quimby Fee in Lieu of land dedication, plus Mitigation Fee Act fee for park improvements. See Table 6.8 for more detail.

Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.5, 5.6, and 6.8.
2 Infill developments pay Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, plus Mitigation Fee Act fee for park improvements. See Table 6.8 for more detail.
1 California Government Code §66001 (a) (2).

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

They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E.2, approximately $8.4 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. The “Additional Funding Required” column shows non-impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development.

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

Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Fee Category
Net Project
Cost
Projected
Impact Fee
Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
City Hall $ 16,470,449 $ 16,470,449 $ -
Corporate Yard 21,475,950 21,475,950 -
Recreation Facilities 54,140,606 45,705,361 8,435,245
Parkland1 11,453,650 11,453,650 -
Park Improvements 66,431,170 66,431,170 -
Total $ 169,971,825 $ 161,536,580 $ 8,435,245
Sources: Tables 3.4, 4.3, 5.5, 6.5 and 6.6.
1 Project cost amount show n for Mitigation Fee Act Fees. Refer to Table 6.5 for Quimby in-lieu fee revenue estimates.
6 1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Patterson. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
• Public Facilities Financing in California;
• Study Objectives;
• Fee Program Maintenance;
• Study Methodology; and,
• Organization of the Report.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 45 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;
• Unfunded state and federal mandates; and,
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.

Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.

Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to update the City’s impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands.

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

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

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

For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 8.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
 Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
8  Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility design standards.
 Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

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

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

There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:

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

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

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

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

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

Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a longrange plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are = $/unit of demand
= $/unit of demand
City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
9 identified in the fee study. Impact fee funding for future facilities to serve growth is programmed through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process. This approach is to calculate the city hall, corporation yard, and park fees in this report.

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

Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is a portion of a roadway that has been identified as necessary to mitigate the impact from new development through traffic modeling analysis. Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is not used in this report.

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

Chapters 3 through 6 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
▪ City Hall Facilities  Recreation Facilities
▪ Corporation Yard Facilities  Parks
Chapter 7 describes how this nexus studies complies with the requirements of AB 602.

Chapter 8 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 9. = $/unit of demand
10 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2023 base year and a planning horizon of buildout.

Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2023 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The estimate of total development at buildout is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any.
• Estimates of growth from 2023 through buildout are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.

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

Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Residential: All residential dwelling units. Fees charged per square foot of living space.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development. • Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. • Industrial: All manufacturing, warehousing, and other industrial development.

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

The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use.

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

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

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

Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents and employees in Patterson, both in 2023 and at buildout. The base year estimates of residents come from the California Department of Finance. The projection of future residents comes from the City’s General Plan.

Base year employees were estimated based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap Application. Total employees at buildout were also identified in the City’s General Plan.

Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions
2023 Buildout Increase
Residents1
24,314 66,673 42,359
Employment2
5,861 32,196 26,335
1 Current population from California Department of Finance (DOF). Projection for buildout based on the City's General Plan.
2 Existing estimates based on data from OnTheMap. Excludes local government employees. Projection for buildout based on the City's General Plan.

Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2023; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 2018; City of Patterson; Willdan Financial Services.

Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with new building square footage, and the amount of the fee.

Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are used to estimate the increase in service population associated with new development. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.

The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factor is based on data for Patterson from the 2021 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey, the most recent data available. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
12 Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential 3.46 Residents per Dwelling Unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 3.26 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Willdan Financial Services.
13 3. City Hall Facilities
The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of city hall facilities.

A fee schedule is presented based on the planned facilities standard of city hall facilities in the City of Patterson to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

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

Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for city hall facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for city hall facilities.

Table 3.1: City Hall Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2023) 24,314 5,861 26,131
New Development (2023-Buildout) 42,359 26,335 50,523
Total (Buildout) 66,673 32,196 76,654
Weighting Factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s police facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
This study uses the existing standard methodology to calculate fees for city hall facilities. The city hall inventory is comprised of City Hall and the parcel of land on which it is located. The estimated cost per acre of land is based on an appraisal conducted for the City by the Hillas Appraisal Company in 2023. The replacement cost for the City Hall building is based on information provided by the City for use in this study. In total, the City owns $8.5 million worth of City Hall facilities.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
14 Table 3.2: City Hall Facilities Inventory
Inventory Unit Cost
Replacement
Cost
City Hall
Land 0.33 $ 65,000 $ 21,600
Building 17,000 500 8,500,000
Total $ 8,521,600
Sources: PEPIP-CA Property Schedule, February 21, 2022, City of Patterson; City of Patterson; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Table 3.3 shows the calculation of the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to city hall facilities at the same standard that existing development has contributed thus far. Using the existing standard methodology does not result in existing deficiencies.

Table 3.3: City Hall Facilities Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 8,521,600
Existing Service Population 26,131
Cost per Capita $ 326
Facility Standard per Resident $ 326
Facility Standard per Worker1 101
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use city hall facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of city hall and administrative facilities to serve new development. Table 3.4 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table

3.1. The City will have to identify $16.5 million worth of city hall facilities in order to ensure that the existing standard is maintained through buildout.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
15 Table 3.4: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita $ 326
Growth in Service Population (2023 - Buildout) 50,523
Fee Revenue $ 16,470,449
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 3.5 shows the maximum justified city hall facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).

The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the average square footage of dwelling units built within the past two years in Patterson.

The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

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

Table 3.5: Maximum Justified City Hall Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.3 Residential $ 326 3.46 $ 1,128 $ 23 $ 1,151 $ 0.57
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 101 2.12 $ 214 $ 4 $ 218 $ 0.22
Office 101 3.26 329 7 336 0.34
Industrial 101 1.16 117 2 119 0.12
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.3; Willdan Financial Services 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average residential dw elling unit is 2,023 square feet based on building permit data from 2020 and 2021.
16 4. Corporation Yard Facilities
The purpose of the corporation yard facilities impact fee is to fund the corporation yard facilities needed to serve new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the system plan standard of corporation yard facilities per capita.

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

Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for corporation yard facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for corporation yard facilities.

Table 4.1: Corporation Yard Facilities Service Population Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2023) 24,314 5,861 26,131
New Development (2023-Buildout) 42,359 26,335 50,523
Total (Buildout) 66,673 32,196 76,654
Weighting Factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1, Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s corporation yard facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
Table 4.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of land, buildings and vehicles. The City currently operates out two facilities: the corporation yard and the old corporation yard. Multiple buildings are located at each facility. Beyond buildings and land, the City has also made significant investments in vehicles, machinery, heavy equipment and solar panels. Note that the City’s property schedule, which lists building space and building replacement costs was the basis for the facilities shown in this inventory. Costs from that document have been increased to account for inflation, based on recent City cost estimates for an administrative building. The estimated cost per acre of land is based on an appraisal conducted for the City by the Hillas Appraisal Company in 2023. In total, the City owns $21.5 million in corporation yard facilities.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
17 Table 4.2: Corporation Yard Facilities Existing Inventory Inventory Unit Cost Value
Land (acres)
Corporation Yard 16215 Baldwin 6.00 $ 65,000 $ 390,000
Old Corporation Yard 420 S. 4th St. 0.42 65,000 27,300
Subtotal 6.42 $ 417,300
Corporation Yard Buildings
Public Administration Building 12,000 $ 500 $ 6,000,000 Vehicle Building B1 3,125 169 528,125
Vehicle Building B2 3,125 169 528,125
Vehicle Building C1 5,000 169 845,000
Vehicle Building C2 5,000 169 845,000
Equipment Storage Building D 4,500 182 819,000
Subtotal 32,750 $ 9,565,250
Old Corporation Yard Buildings
Public Works Garage 6,970 $ 198 $ 1,380,060
Office Building 960 179 171,840
Subtotal 7,930 $ 1,551,900
Public Works Vehicle Inventory
Heavy Duty Trucks $ 2,064,000
Light Duty Trucks 1,721,000
Machinery & Equipment 5,788,500
Total $ 9,573,500
Corporation Yard Solar Panels $ 368,000
Total Value of Existing Facilities $21,475,950
Sources: PEPIP-CA Property Schedule, February 21, 2022, City of Patterson; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Table 4.3 shows the calculation of the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to city hall facilities at the same standard that existing development has contributed thus far. Using the existing standard methodology does not result in existing deficiencies.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
18 Table 4.3: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 21,475,950
Existing Service Population 26,131
Cost per Capita $ 822
Facility Standard per Resident $ 822
Facility Standard per Worker1
255
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use corporation yard facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of corporation yard facilities to serve new development. Table 4.4 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 4.1. The City will have to identify $41.5 million worth of facilities in order to ensure that the existing standard is maintained through the planning horizon.

Table 4.4: Fee Revenue Projection
Cost per Capita $ 822
Growth in Service Population (2023 - Buildout) 50,523
Fee Revenue $ 41,529,783
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 4.5 shows the maximum justified corporation yard facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the average square footage of dwelling units built within the past two years in Patterson.

The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

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

Table 4.5: Maximum Justified Corporation Yard Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.3 Residential $ 822 3.46 $ 2,844 $ 57 $ 2,901 $ 1.43
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 255 2.12 $ 541 $ 11 $ 552 $ 0.55
Office 255 3.26 831 17 848 0.85
Industrial 255 1.16 296 6 302 0.30
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.3.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average residential dw elling unit is 2,023 square feet based on building permit data from 2020 and 2021. 20 5. Recreation Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis demonstrating the need for new recreation facilities needed to serve new development.

Service Population
Recreation facilities in Patterson primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 5.1 shows the existing and future projected residential population.

Table 5.1: Recreation Facilities Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 24,314
New Development (2023-Buildout) 42,359
Total (Buildout) 66,673
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Recreation and Community Center Facilities
Inventory
The City of Patterson maintains several recreation and community center facilities. Table 5.2 summarizes the City’s existing recreation and community center facilities inventory. Note that the City’s property schedule, which lists building space and building replacement costs was the basis for the facilities shown in this inventory. Costs from that document have been increased to account for inflation, based on recent City cost estimates for an administrative building. The estimated cost per acre of land is based on an appraisal conducted for the City by the Hillas Appraisal Company in 2023. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the City owns approximately $17.8 million in recreation and community center facilities.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
21 Table 5.2: Existing Recreation Facilities
Facility Amount Units Unit Cost Value
Land
Community Center / Aquatic Center Complex 6.02 acres $ 65,000 $ 391,300 Buildings
Aquatic Center - Pool House 2,985 sq. ft. $ 813 $ 2,426,805 Aquatic Center - Shade Shelter 4,000 sq. ft. 284 1,136,000 Hammon Senior Center 9,465 sq. ft. 872 8,253,480
Relocatable Classroom 1 960 sq. ft. 67 64,320
Relocatable Classroom 2 960 sq. ft. 67 64,320
Portable Classroom 960 sq. ft. 146 140,160
Subtotal 19,330 sq. ft. $12,085,085
Special Use Facilities
Aquatic Center - Pool 5,046 sq. ft. 639 $ 3,224,394
Skate Park 14,000 sq. ft. 40 555,145
Skate Park Shade Sails 682 sq. ft. 111 75,927
Pergola Structure 224 sq. ft. 69 15,465
Subtotal 19,952 sq. ft. $ 3,870,931
Community Center Complex Solar Panels $ 1,436,882
Total $17,784,198
Sources: PEPIP-CA Property Schedule, February 21, 2022, City of Patterson; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Recreation and Community Center Facilities
The City has planned several recreation and community center facilities to serve new development. Included in the plans are both expansions to existing facilities and the new construction of facilities. In total, the City has identified $54.1 million of recreation and community center facilities to serve new development. Table 5.3 details the City’s planned recreation and community center facilities.

Table 5.3: Planned Recreation Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Pools 21,954 Sq. Ft. of Pools $ 639 $ 14,028,606
Community Centers 40,000 Sq. Ft. 872 34,880,000
Gymnasium1
6,000 Sq. Ft. 872 5,232,000
Total Cost - Planned Facilities $ 54,140,606
1 Assumes 2,000 square feet of gymnasium per court. Three indoor courts are needed, per the draft Master Plan.

Sources: City of Patterson, Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan; Willdan Financial Services.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
22 Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study requirements that went into effect of January 1, 2022, a nexus study “shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.” Table 5.4 expresses the City’s current recreation facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City’s service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 5.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City can fund the planned recreation facilities that have been identified in the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Table 5.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 17,784,198
Existing Service Population 24,314
Facility Standard per Resident $ 731
Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Future Level of Service
Table 5.5 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in recreation facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

Table 5.5: Recreation Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 17,784,198
Cost of Planned Facilities 54,140,606
Total System Value (Buildout) $ 71,924,804
Future Service Population (Buildout) 66,673
Facility Standard per Resident $ 1,079
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3; Willdan Financial Services.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
23 Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use recreation facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are part of the system of recreation facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 5.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use recreation facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of recreation and community center facilities that serves new development. The list of facilities to be funded by the fee is detailed above in Table 5.3. Table 5.6 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 5.1. The cost of the planned facilities not funded by fee revenue represents existing development’s share of the facilities and can be funded by any revenue source other than impact fees.

Table 5.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 1,079
Growth in Service Population (2023 - Buildout) 42,359
Fee Revenue $ 45,705,361
Cost of Planned Facilities $ 54,140,606
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified $ (8,435,245)
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 5.7 shows the maximum justified recreation and community center facilities fee schedule.

The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the average square footage of dwelling units built within the past two years in Patterson.

The total fee includes a two-percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

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

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
24 Table 5.7: Maximum Justified Recreation Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.

Residential $ 1,079 3.46 $ 3,733 $ 75 $ 3,808 $ 1.88
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.4; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average residential dw elling unit is 2,023 square feet based on building permit data from 2020 and 2021. 25 6. Park Facilities
The purpose of the park facilities impact fee is to fund the parkland acquisition and park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of parkland and park facilities per capita.

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

Table 6.1: Park Facilities Service
Population
Residents
Census (2020) 23,781
Existing (2023) 24,314
Growth (2023 to Buildout) 42,359
Total (Buildout) 66,673
Source: US Census; Table 2.2.

Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory
The City of Patterson maintains many parks throughout the city. Table 6.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2023. All facilities are owned by the City. Parks are distinguished by the type of parkland (neighborhood or community parks), as described in the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2023. In addition to developed parkland the inventory includes undeveloped raw land and distinguishes the acreage accordingly. In total, the inventory includes a total of 101.24 acres of parkland.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
26 Table 6.2: Park Land Inventory
Name
Developed
Acres
Undeveloped
Acres Total
Community Parks
Centennial Park - 13.70 13.70
Sports Complex 12.00 9.30 21.30
Sports Complex Addition (Triangle) - 4.10 4.10
Subtotal 12.00 27.10 39.10
Neighborhood Parks
Amarylis Park - 0.83 0.83
Ambercot Park 4.07 - 4.07
Aprigold Park 3.89 - 3.89
Aurora Park 0.55 - 0.55
Autumn Royal Park 2.40 - 2.40
Blenheim Park 1.25 - 1.25
Blue Fiesta Park 0.50 - 0.50
Camas Lily Park 2.56 - 2.56
Castlebright Park 0.53 - 0.53
City Park 0.17 - 0.17
Del Puerto Park 0.31 - 0.31
Earlygold Park 1.26 - 1.26
El Pescadero Park 0.37 - 0.37
Floragold Park 4.26 - 4.26
Garza Park 5.54 - 5.54
Goldbar Park 3.80 - 3.80
Golden Amber Park 1.29 - 1.29
Meadow Rue Park 2.85 - 2.85
Mustang Clover Park 3.27 - 3.27
New Castle Park 2.08 - 2.08
Noble Park 0.57 - 0.57
North Park 0.98 - 0.98
Rosette Park 1.04 - 1.04
Sorenson Park 1.83 - 1.83
Sunflower Park 1.63 - 1.63
Sungiant Park 1.50 - 1.50
Sunglow Park 1.94 - 1.94
Tilton Park 3.50 - 3.50
Trigem Park 0.82 - 0.82
Valley Lupine Park 0.90 - 0.90
Veterans Memorial Park (South Park) 0.99 - 0.99
Wilding Park 2.47 - 2.47
Woodland Star Park 2.19 - 2.19
Subtotal 61.31 0.83 62.14
Total 73.31 27.93 101.24
Source: City of Patterson; City of Patterson Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2023.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
27 Parkland and Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded parkland and park facilities. The most common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act (using a city’s existing inventory of parkland and park improvements), or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.
2 In this case, the City will use the Mitigation Fee Act to impose park impact fees for development not occurring in subdivisions and will use the Quimby Act for development occurring in subdivisions.

Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to existing development.3 A simple and clearly defensible approach to calculating a facility standard is to use the City’s existing ratio of park acreage per 1,000 residents. Under this approach, new development is required to fund new parkland and park improvements at the same level as existing residents have provided those same types of facilities to date.

Quimby Act
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction’s existing park standard as of the last Federal Census justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents). The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction’s adopted general or specific plan standards.

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

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

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

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

City of Patterson Parkland and Park Facilities Standards Table 6.3 shows the existing standard for park acreage per 1,000 residents and documents the City’s standard as of the last Census for the Quimby Act standard. The table also shows the current standard for improved park acreage. The standard used to calculate the Quimby fee inlieu of land acquisition is 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents. The existing standard used to calculate the Mitigation Fee Act fee for land acquisition is 4.16 acres per 1,000 residents. The park improvements component is calculated to maintain the existing level of park improvements at the existing improved parkland standard.
2 California Government Code §66477.
3 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Background Report.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
28 Table 6.3: Park Standards
Existing
Standard
(2023)
Quimby
Act
Standard
(2020)
Land Standard
Total Parkland 101.24 101.24
Service Population 24,314 23,781
Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 4.16 4.26
Park Improvements Standard
Acres of Improvements 101.24
Service Population 24,314
Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 4.16
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 6.4 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Patterson. The assumed cost of standard park improvements per acre is based on a recent cost estimate received by the City for Villages at Patterson Park. The estimated cost per acre of land is based on an appraisal conducted for the City by the Hillas Appraisal Company in 2023 and is consistent with other land assumptions used in this analysis. In total, this analysis assumes that it costs $442,000 to acquire and improve an acre of parkland in Patterson.

Table 6.4: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
per Acre
Standard Park Improvements1$ 377,000
Land Acquisition 65,000
Total Cost per Acre $ 442,000
Sources: City of Patterson; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Standard park improvement costs based on cost estimate for the Villages at Patterson Park. Includes site preparation, basic furnishings and amenities, curbs, fences, playground, landscaping and irrigation costs. Excludes land acquisition costs.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 6.5 shows the costs needed to accommodate new development at the Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act standards for land dedication and acquisition, respectively. To achieve these standards by the planning horizon, depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, new development must fund the acquisition of between 176.21 and 180.45 parkland acres.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
29 The facility standards and resulting fees under the Quimby Act are higher because development will be charged to provide 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, whereas development not subject to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide only 4.16 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 6.5 presents the range of total land acquisition costs that may be incurred depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act.

Table 6.5: Parkland to Accommodate New Development
Calculation Parkland Total Range1
Parkland (Quimby Act) 2
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 4.26
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2050) B 42,359
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 180.45
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 65,000
Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $11,729,250 $ 11,729,250 Parkland Mitigation Fee Act 3
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 4.16
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2050) B 42,359
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 176.21
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 65,000
Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $11,453,650 $ 11,453,650 Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.
1 Values in this column show the range of the cost of parkland acquisition and development should all development be either subject to the Quimby Act, or to the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. 2 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Quimby Act (Subdivisions of 50 units or more). Parkland charged at Quimby Act standard. 3 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Parkland charged at the existing standard.

Table 6.6 shows the costs needed to accommodate new development at the existing Mitigation Fee Act standard for park improvements. To achieve this standard by the planning horizon new development must fund the improvement of 176.21 acres of park improvements.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
30 Table 6.6: Park Improvements to Accommodate New Development Calculation
Park
Improvements
Community Park Improvements - Mitigation Fee Act
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 4.16
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2050) B 42,359
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 176.21
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 377,000
Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $ 66,431,170
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.

Parks Cost per Capita
Table 6.7 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the existing facility standard, and at the Quimby standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of three fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition. This fee is payable by residential development not occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland improvements. This fee is payable by all residential development.

A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, not both. All development projects pay the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for park improvements. In this case, the Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication and the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition are the exact same amount.

Table 6.7: Cost per Capita - Existing Level of Service
Calculation Quimby Fee OR Impact Fee AND
Neighborhood
Parks AND
Community
Parks
Cost per Acre A $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 900,000 $ 1,300,000 Level of Service Standard1
B 4.26 4.16 2.52 0.49
Total Cost per 1,000 capita C = A x B $ 532,500 $ 520,000 $ 2,268,000 $ 637,000 Cost per Resident D = C / 1,000 $ 533 $ 520 $ 2,268 $ 637 1 Acres per 1,000 residents.

Sources: Tables 6.3 and 6.4.

Land Improvements
City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
31 Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use parkland and park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.

Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the cost in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for both land acquisition and improvement. These cost factors (shown in Table 6.7) are investment per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards.

Table 6.8 shows the park land acquisition fee based on either the Quimby Act, or Mitigation Fee Act standard. The City would collect the fee based on only one of the two approaches as appropriate. Each fee includes a component for park improvements which is based maintaining the existing standard park improvements. The costs per capita from Table 6.7 are converted into a fee per average sized dwelling unit using the residential occupancy density assumption from Table 2.2. The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per average sized dwelling unit by the average square footage of dwelling units built recently in Patterson.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Table 6.8: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.3 Subdivisions
Parkland (Quimby Act) $ 277 3.46 $ 958 $ 19 $ 977 $ 0.48 Improvements 1,568 3.46 5,425 109 5,534 2.74
Total $ 1,845 $ 6,383 $ 6,511 $ 3.22
Non-Subdivisions
Parkland (Mitigation Fee Act) $ 270 3.46 $ 934 $ 19 $ 953 $ 0.47 Improvements 1,568 3.46 5,425 109 5,534 2.74
Total $ 1,838 $ 6,359 $ 6,487 $ 3.21
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.7.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average residential dw elling unit is 2,023 square feet based on building permit data from 2020 and 2021. 32 7. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. 66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

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

1. For fees calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service. These fee categories are: city hall facilities, corporation yard facilities and parks. The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita is shown in each corresponding chapter.

2. For the fees calculated under the system standard methodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the facility level of service. The fees calculated under this methodology are recreation facility fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development’s fair share of facilities identified in the City of Patterson, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2023. New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of service represented by the planned facilities. The City will have to fund existing development’s share of the increase level of service through any other funding source. The recreation facilities chapter includes a table that shows the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita.
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Table 7.1 summarizes the key assumptions from the 2005/06 study as listed in that document.

Note that the General Plan was updated since the prior impact fee study, which has affected the assumptions used in this study regarding growth and the allocation of facilities costs.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
33 Table 7.1: Summary of Review of 2005/06 Study
Remaining Dwelling Units to be Constructed: 5,940
Remaining Nonresidential Square Feet: 10,221,245
Allocation of Future Facility Costs between New and
Existing Development:
57% New
43% Existing
Cost per Acre of Unimproved Land: $ 266,000
Source: City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Justification Study, 2005/06 Update. 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot and comply with AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities identified in the recreation facilities chapter. In addition to those facilities, which drive the calculation of the recreation facilities fees, the City is planning for the amounts of facilities within the city hall, corporation yard and parks facilities categories displayed in Table 7.2. Note that the City will refine this CIP annually during its budgeting and facility planning processes.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
34 Table 7.2: Capital Improvement Plan
Project Name
Approximate
Quantity Units Description Approximate Location
Total
Estimated
Cost Anticipated Funding Sources
Estimated
Project
Timeframe
City Hall Facilities 1
City Hall Expansion 2,960 Sq. Ft. Office space in Public Safety Center 1 Plaza $ 1,480,000 City Hall DIF, General Fund 2024 to 2030 City Hall Expansion 29,909 Sq. Ft. Additional administrative office space Citywide 14,954,387 City Hall DIF, General Fund Beyond 2030 Land Acquisition 0.64 Acres Land Acquisition for City Hall Expansion Citywide 41,600 City Hall DIF, General Fund Beyond 2030 Subtotal $16,475,987
Corporation Yard Facilities 2
Corp Yard Building 1 4,800 Sq. Ft. New operations bay 16215 S. Baldwin $ 811,200 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds 2024 to 2030 Public Works Garage 4,500 Sq. Ft. Expanded Public Works Garage 16215 S. Baldwin 891,000 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds 2024 to 2030 Corp Yard Building 2 1,500 Sq. Ft. New office space at 4th street corporation yard 420 S. 4th 268,500 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds 2024 to 2030 Collections Div. Building 5,000 Sq. Ft. New operations bay 14901 Poplar 910,000 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds 2024 to 2030 Large Equipment N/A Large operations equipment (trucks, machinery, equipment) 16215 S. Baldwin 3,703,000 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds 2024 to 2030 Corporation Yard Buildings 6,720 Sq. Ft. New Operations Bay 16215 S. Baldwin 1,135,680 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds Beyond 2030 Corporation Yard Buildings 6,720 Sq. Ft. Public Works Admin/Staffing 16215 S. Baldwin 3,360,000 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds Beyond 2030 Corporation Yard Buildings 10,000 Sq. Ft. Public Works Admin/Staffing Orange Ave 5,000,000 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds Beyond 2030 Renewable Energy Project N/A Solar Project Orange Ave 712,000 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds Beyond 2030 Corporation Yard Buildings 16,250 Sq. Ft. New operations bay Orange Ave 2,957,500 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds Beyond 2030 Land Purchase 12.41 Land for corporation yard Citywide 807,000 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds Beyond 2030 Corporation Yard Buildings 11,000 Sq. Ft. New operations bay Citywide 2,002,000 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds Beyond 2030 Corporation Yard Buildings 9,000 Sq. Ft. Public Works Garage (Mechanic Bays) Citywide 1,782,000 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds Beyond 2030 Corporation Yard Buildings 6,700 Sq. Ft. Equipment storage Orange Ave 1,326,600 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds Beyond 2030 Corporation Yard Buildings 5,000 Sq. Ft. Equipment storage Orange Ave/14901Popular 990,000 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds Beyond 2030 Large Equipment N/A Large operations equipment (trucks, machinery, equipment) 16215 S. Baldwin 14,874,000 Corp Yard DIF, Enterprise Funds Beyond 2030 Subtotal $41,530,480
Parks 1
VOP Soccer Complex N/A 40 Acre Soccer Complex (Design phase) Olive Ave $ 1,000,000 Park DIF, Quimby Fees, General Fund 2024 to 2030 VOP Soccer Complex 40 Acres Soccer Complex (Construction Phase) Olive Ave 15,080,000 Park DIF, Quimby Fees, General Fund 2024 to 2030 Additional Parks 136.21 Acres New Park Acquisition and Construction Citywide 60,204,820 Park DIF, Quimby Fees/Dedication Beyond 2030 Subtotal $76,284,820
Recreation Facilities 2
Community Center N/A Centennial Park Community Center (Design phase) Ward Ave $ 2,000,000 Recreation Facilities DIF, General Fund 2024 to 2030 Community Centers 40,000 Sq. Ft. Ward Ave / Citywide 34,880,000 Recreation Facilities DIF, General Fund Beyond 2030 Pools 21,954 Sq. Ft. Citywide 14,028,606 Recreation Facilities DIF, General Fund Beyond 2030 Gymnasium 6,000 Sq. Ft. Citywide 5,232,000 Recreation Facilities DIF, General Fund Beyond 2030 $56,140,606
Source: City of Patterson.
1 City Hall, Corporation Yard and Park facilities impact fees w ere calculated using the existing facility standard approach. Accordingly, impact fee revenue collected under this approach can be spent on any capacity expanding facilities project that benefits new development. This CIP documents the City's approximate facility needs at this time. This CIP w ill be revised annually as the City refines its capital plans and cost estimates. The cost of facilities identified in this document exceeds projected fee revenue. The City w ill have to fund existing development's share of future facilities w ith funding sources other than impact fees. 2 Recreation facilities impact fees w ere calculated using the system standard approach. The cost of facilities identified in this document exceeds projected fee revenue. The City w ill have to fund existing development's share of future facilities w ith funding sources other than impact fees.
35 8. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect.

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

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

The fee amounts can be adjusted based on the change in the index compared to the index in the base year of this study (2023).

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

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

Table 8.1 summarizes the annual and five-year reporting requirements identified in the Mitigation Fee Act.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Update Study
36 Table 8.1: Mitigation Fee Act - Annual and Five-year Administrative Requirements CA Gov't Code
Section Timing Reporting Requirements1
Recommended
Fee Adjustment
66001.(d)
The fifth fiscal year following the
first deposit into the account or
fund, and every five years
thereafter
(A) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. (B) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and thepurpose for which it is charged.
(C) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated tocomplete financing in incomplete improvements.
(D) Designate the approximate dates on which supplemental funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Comprehensive
Update
66006. (b) Within 180 days after the last
day of each fiscal year
(A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee.
(C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended including share funded by fees.
(F) (i) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.
(ii) An identification of each public improvement identified in a previous report pursuant to clause (i) and whether construction began on the approximate date noted in the previous report.
(iii) For a project identified pursuant to clause (ii) for which construction did not commence by the approximate date provided in the previous report, the reason for the delay and a revised approximate date that the local agency will commence construction.
(G) A description of any potential interfund transfers. (H) The amount of refunds made (if any).

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

Sources: California Government Code §66001 and §66006.

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Update Study
37 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs.

The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.

The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects if those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City’s facilities and provide benefit to new development. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly. 38 9. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.

The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.

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

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

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

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

Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City limits. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: recreation facilities, city hall facilities, parks, and corporation yard facilities.

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

The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.

Burden Relationship
 Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

City of Patterson Development Impact Fee Study Update
39 Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For city hall facilities and corporation yard facilities, service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development. For recreation facilities and parks, the service population standards are calculated using the City’s residential service population.

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

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

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

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

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