Richmond City Council
March 19, 2024

CITY OF RICHMOND

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY
UPDATE

FINAL

JANUARY 24, 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 .......................................................................... 1 Background and Study Objectives 1
Facility Standards and Costs 1
Use of Fee Revenues 2
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 2
Other Funding Needed 4

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 5 Public Facilities Financing in California 5
Study Objectives 5
Fee Program Maintenance 6
Study Methodology 6
Types of Facility Standards 6
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 7
Organization of the Report 8

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ................................................................. 9 Land Use Types 9
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units 9
Existing and Future Development 10
Occupant Densities 11

3. SEWER FACILITIES .................................................................... 13 Service Area 13
Sewer Demand 13
EDU Generation by New Development 14
Facility Needs and Costs 15
Cost per EDU 16
Fee Schedule 16

4. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES ........................................... 18 Service Population 18
Existing Parkland Inventory 18
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 20
Park Facility Standards 21
Quimby Act Standard 21
City of Richmond Park Facilities Standards 22
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 22
Park Facilities Cost per Capita 23
Use of Fee Revenue 24
Fee Schedule 24

5. COMMUNITY CENTER AND AQUATIC FACILITIES ............................ 26 City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update ii

Service Population 26
Existing Recreation and Community Center Facilities Inventory 26 Planned Recreation and Community Center Facilities 28
Cost Allocation 28
Existing Level of Service 28
Future Level of Service 29
Use of Fee Revenue 29
Fee Revenue Projection 29
Fee Schedule 30

6. POLICE FACILITIES .................................................................... 31 Service Population 31
Existing Facility Inventory 31
Planned Facilities 32
Cost Allocation 32
Existing Level of Service 32
Future Level of Service 33
Fee Revenue Projection 33
Fee Schedule 34

7. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES .................................................... 36 Service Population 36
Existing Facilities Inventory 36
Planned Facilities 40
Cost Allocation 40
Fee Revenue Projection 41
Fee Schedule 41

8. LIBRARY FACILITIES .................................................................. 43 Service Population 43
Existing Facility Inventory 43
Planned Facilities 45
Cost Allocation 45
Existing Level of Service 45
Future Level of Service 46
Fee Revenue Projection 46
Fee Schedule 47

9. STORM DRAIN FACILITIES .......................................................... 48 Storm Drain Demand 48
EDU Generation by New Development 48
Planned Facilities 49
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 51
Fee Schedule 51

10. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 53 Compliance with AB 602 53
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update iii

66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 53
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 53 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot 54
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 54

11. IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................... 55 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 55
Inflation Adjustment 55
Reporting Requirements 55
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 57

12. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS .................................................. 58 Purpose of Fee 58
Use of Fee Revenues 58
Benefit Relationship 58
Burden Relationship 59
Proportionality 59

1 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysi s o f development impac t fees nee ded to support future development in the City of Richmond through 2040. 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 pu blic facilities fee. T he publi c fa cilities and impr ovements included in t his analysis are divi ded into the fee categories listed below:
▪ Sewer Facilities
▪ Parks
▪ Community Center and Aquatic
Facilities
▪ Police Facilities
▪ Fire Protection Facilities
▪ Library Facilities
▪ Storm Drains
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy object ive of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays t he ca pital c osts a ssociated with growth. Although growt h also imposes operating costs, ther e is not a similar sy stem to genera te reven ue from new d evelopment for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fee s that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public fa cilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.

The City collects public facilities fees under authority grant ed by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et s eq. Th is report provides th e necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in t he fee sc hedules contained herein.

The City progr ams development im pact fee-funded capital projects through its Capital Improvement Plan ( CIP). Usin g a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that wil l acco mmodate f uture growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capit al projects, the City can help ensure a reasona ble r elationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

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

The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the C ity’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 a vailable. Future facilities to serve growth will be identi fied t hrough the City’s annual CIP and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calcula te the park and recreation facilities fees, fire prot ection facilities and community and aquatic center facilities 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 develo pment. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be iden tified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new d evelopment can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid d eficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 2 a previou sly undeveloped area. This approach is used for the storm drai n, and sewer facilities fees in this report.

The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where specific needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determ ine new development’s fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of ne w facilities between ne w and existing dev elopment. This approach is used t o calculate the library and police facilities fees in this report.

Use of Fee Revenues
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current fa cilities to serve new development. Fa cilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a us eful life greater tha n five years. Imp act fee revenue c an be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, construction of infrastructure, the acquisitio n of vehicles or equi pment, info rmation te chnology, so ftware licenses and equipment.

In that the City cannot predict with certainty how and when development within the City will occur during the 17-year p lanning horizon assumed in this stud y, the Ci ty may need to update and revise the p roject lis ts fun ded by the fees do cumented i n this study. Any subs titute projects should be funded within th e same facility category, an d the substitute projects must still benefit and have a relationship to n ew development. The City could identify any changes to the projects funded b y the impact fees whe n it updates the CIP. The imp act fees could also be updat ed if significant changes to the projects funded by the fees are anticipated.

Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the develo pment impa ct fe es that meet t he City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 3 Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Fee Summary
Land Use
Sewer
Facilities 1
Parks -
Quimby
(Subdivisions)2
Parks
(Infill)2
Community /
Aquatic
Center
Police
Facilities
Fire
Protection
Facilities
Library
Facilities
Storm
Drains
Total -
Subdivisions
Total -
Infill
Residential - per Sq. Ft. 7.98$ 11.32$ 11.03$ 1.23$ 0.99$ 0.46$ 0.54$ 0.03$ 22.55$ 22.26$ Nonresidential - per Sq. Ft.

Commercial 3.55$ -$ -$ -$ 0.35$ 0.32$ -$ 0.05$ 4.27$ 4.27$ Office 4.43 - - - 0.54 0.49 - 0.07 5.53 5.53 Industrial 7.09 - - - 0.19 0.17 - 0.10 7.55 7.55 Warehousing 7.09 - - - 0.06 0.05 - 0.10 7.30 7.30 2 Only charged w ithin Richmond Municipal Sew er District Boundaries.

Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.7, 5.7, 6.6, 7.9, 8.8 and 9.5.
1 A development project either pays the Quimby fee of the park infill fee, not both. Development not occurring in subdivisions is subject to the infill fee. Development in subdivisions is subject to the Quimby fee.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 4 Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facili ties related to new de velopment in Richmond.

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 i n Table E. 2, approximately $ 420.9 million in additional funding will be ne eded to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop if fees are adopted at the maximum justified fee level. The “Additional Funding Required” column shows non-impact fee fun ding required to fund a share o f th e 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. To the extent that the City adopts fees tha t are lower th an t he maximum justified amou nt, the non -fee fundi ng requirements may increase, depending on the fee category and methodology.

The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing developme nt’s share of the planned facil ities. 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
Fee Calculation
Methodology
Net Project
Cost
Projected
Impact Fee
Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Sewer Facilities Planned Facility Standard 584,149,500$ 228,986,604$ 355,162,896$ Parks1 Existing Facility Standard 303,328,000 303,328,000 - Community / Aquatic Center Existing Facility Standard 33,783,200 33,783,200 - Police Facilities System Standard 80,000,000 32,771,000 47,229,000 Fire Protection Facilities Existing Facility Standard 17,641,200 17,641,200 - Library Facilities2 System Standard 29,933,657 14,747,472 15,186,185 Storm Drains Planned Facility Standard 5,947,000 2,586,945 3,360,055 Total 1,054,782,557$ 633,844,421$ 420,938,136$
1 Fee revenue show n if all development is infill development. Refer to Table 4.5 for projections of Quimby in-lieu fee revenue.

Sources: Tables 3.3, 4.5, 5.4, 6.5, 7.8, 8.5, 8.8, and 9.3.

Note: For facility categories calculated using the existing facility standard, the projected fee revenue is equal to the cost of planned facilities needed to serve new development.
2 The City has secured $13.9 million in grants to fund the planned facilities. The remainder w ill be funded through the City's General Capital Fund. See Table 8.7 for more detail.

5 1. Introduction
This report pres ents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommoda te new development in the City o f Richmond. This chapt er pr ovides background for t he stu dy 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 C alifornia during the p ast 45 years h as steadily unde rcut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
▪ The passage of a stri ng of tax limitation measures, s tarting with Pro position 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; ▪ Declining popul ar support for bond measures to f inance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; 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 t he burden of funding infrastructure expan sion from e xisting ratepayers and ta xpayers on to new dev elopment. Th is funding shift has b een accom plished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as pu blic facilities fees. Assessments and spe cial taxes require the approval of p roperty owners and a re appropria te when the fund ed fac ilities a re directly re lated to the developi ng property. De velopment impact fees, on the oth er hand, ar e an appropriate fundi ng source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Deve lopment 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 t hat new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Finding 2 of the General Plan Growth Management Element states: “To accommodate growth, Richmond will need to acquire additional sources of revenue to address future infrastructure and public facilities needs. Long -term growth management strategies include: Ensuring that new development pay s its fair share of community improvements through impact fees, development agreements and other mechanisms …” The primary purpose of this report is to update the City’s impact fees bas ed on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The maximum justified fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of pub lic facilities as new deve lopment leads to increa ses in service demands. This report supports the General Plan finding stated above.

The City collects public facilities fees unde r authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 6600 0 et seq. Th is r eport provides the necessary findings requ ired by th e Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

6 Richmond is forecast to see significant growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2040. This growth will creat e an increase in demand for publ ic services a nd the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges de scribed above, Richmond has decided to continue to use a deve lopment impact fee program to ensure that new development f unds its share of facility costs a ssociated wi th growth. Th is report makes use o f the most cur rent available growth forecasts and facility plans to update th e City’s existing f ee 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 t hat the revenue collected ade quately f unds t he facilities n eeded by new development. To avoid collect ing inadequate revenue, the invento ries of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities m ust be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees re calculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the California Construction Cost Index, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees.

For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 11.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues ke ep up with increases in the cos ts of public f acilities, it is recommended to conduct more ext ensive upda tes of the fee docu mentation and calcu lation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth fo recasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 11.

Study Methodology
Development impact fees are cal culated t o f und the cost of facilities requ ired to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:

1. Estimate existing develop ment an d future growt h: Identify a base year for existing development and a growt h forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;

2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facil ity s tandards used to p lan for new and expanded facilities;

3. Determine facilities re quired to serve new development: Estimate the total amount o f planned facilities, and ide ntify the share required to a ccommodate new development;

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

5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facil ities 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 po licy issue in devel opment impact f ee st udies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility s tandards document a reasonable relation ship between new development and the nee d for new facilities. Standards ensure th at new dev elopment does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.

Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

7 ▪ Demand standards determine the amount of fac ilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park ac res per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of wa ter per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. ▪ Design st andards determine h ow a faci lity shou ld b e designed to mee t expected demand, for example, park improveme nt requirements and technology i nfrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee an alysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost o f planned facilities built to sa tisfy the City’s facility design standards.
▪ Cost standards are an alternate met hod for determining the amount of facilit ies required to acc ommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when dem and standards were not explicitly devel oped for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed ba sed on a single me asure (co st or value) an d 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 develo pment.

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

There a re three common meth ods for determining ne w development’s fair share of planned facilities costs in this study: the existing inventory method, the planned facilities method, and the system plan method. Often the m ethod selected depends on the degree to whi ch the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.

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

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

Current replacement cost of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new de velopment will fund the expansion of facil ities at t he same s tandard currently serving e xisting de velopment. The existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This met hod is often used whe n a long -range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to s erve growth are identified through an annual CIP and budget process, possibly a fter c ompletion of a new faci lity master plan. This approach is used to calculate the park and recreation facilities fees, fire protection facilities and community center/aquatic facilities fees in this report.

Planned Facilities Method
The plann ed f acilities met hod allo cates costs based on th e ratio of pla nned fa cility 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 = cost per unit of demand
= cost per unit of demand
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

8 former is a Sewer trunk line extension to a previ ously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is expansion of a n existing lib rary building and book co llection, which will be needed only i f new development occurs, but which, if built, will in par t benefit existi ng development, as well . Under this method new development will fund the exp ansion of facilities at the st andards used i n th e applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the storm drain , and sewer facilities fees in this report.

System Plan Method
This method c alculates the fe e 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 me thod is useful when planned facilities n eed to be an alyzed as part of a system that benefits both exis ting and new d evelopment. It is difficult, for example, to allocat e a new fire station solely to ne w 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 e nsures that new development d oes not pay for existing deficienci es.

Often fa cility st andards based on poli cies such a s t hose found in Comprehensive Plans ar e higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables t he calculation of the ex isting deficiency required to bring e xisting development up to the polic y-based stan dard. The local agency must secure non -fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to co rrect the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.

This approach is used to calculate the library and police facilities fees in this report.

Organization of the Report
The determinati on o f a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a p lanning horizon and development of growth projection s for p opulation and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.

Chapters 3 through 9 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between n ew development and other development, and ide ntify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
▪ Sewer Facilities
▪ Parks
▪ Community Center and Aquatic
Facilities
▪ Police Facilities
▪ Fire Protection Facilities
▪ Library Facilities
▪ Storm Drains

Chapter 10 describes how this nexus studies complies with the requirements of AB 602.

Chapter 11 details the pro cedures 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 maximum justified public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 12. = cost per unit of demand

9 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allo cate those needs between ex isting and new devel opment. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2023 base year and a planning horizon of 2040.

Estimates of existing developme nt and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
▪ The estimate of existing development i n 2023 is used as an indica tor of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. ▪ The estimate of to tal development at the 2040 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future d emand to determine total facilities ne eded to accomm odate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. ▪ Estimates of growth from 2023 through 2040 are used to (1) a llocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.

The dema nd for public facilities is b ased on the service populat ion, dwel ling un its or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.

Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable re lationship between each fee and t he type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types for which impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. ▪ Residential D welling Units : All residential dwelling units, inclu ding detached and attached one-unit dwellings and all multifamily dwellings including apartments, duplexes, and condominiums.
▪ Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and service development ▪ Office: All general, professional, and medical office development ▪ Industrial: All manufacturing, distribution, and other industrial development. ▪ Warehousing: All warehouse development, including distribution facilities.

Some developments m ay includ e m ore th an one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both multifamily and commercial uses. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type.

The City has the dis cretion to determine which land use type best ref lects a de velopment project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the im pact characteris tics of the use . If a project results in t he intensification of use, at i ts discre tion, the City can charge the project the difference in fees between the existing low intensity use and the future high intensity use.

Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
The California State Legi slature recently amended requirements on local agencies for the imposition of development impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADU) with Assembly B ill AB 68 in 2021. The amendment to California Government Co de §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 Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

10 Calculating Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units For ADU s greater t han 750 squar e feet, impact fees can be charged as a per centage 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 r esidence, the impact fees would be 50 percent (800 square fee t / 1,600 square feet = 50% ) of the single family dwelling unit fee.

Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number o f residen ts, dwell ing unit s, employees, a nd building square feet in Richmond, both in 2023 and in 2040. The base year estima tes of household residents and dwelling units come from th e California Department of Finance. The 2040 projection of residents was identified in the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) 2016- 2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forec ast. The projection of total dwelling units in 2040 is based on increasing the supply of dwelling units proportionally to the pr ojected increase in population . This analysis ass umes that the same r atio of single family to multifamily will be maint ained as development occurs.

Base year employees were estimated based on the latest data from the US Census’ OnTheMap application and exclude 2,138 local government (public admi nistration) employees. Total projected workers in 2040 are identified by ABAG. The projected 2040 proportion of workers by land use is held co nsistent with curre nt estimates. The estimates of nonresidential building square feet were estimated by dividing employee counts by the occupancy density factors presented in the following table.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

11 Table 2.1: Existing and New Development
2023 2040 Increase
Residents1 111,924 164,220 52,296
Dwelling Units2
Single Family 25,125 36,865 11,740
Multifamily 15,746 23,103 7,357
Total 40,871 59,968 19,097
Employment3
Commercial 9,899 22,181 12,282
Office 8,695 19,483 10,788
Industrial 8,993 20,151 11,158
Total 27,587 61,815 34,228
Building Square Feet (1,000s)4
Commercial 4,669 10,463 5,793
Office 2,667 5,976 3,309
Industrial 7,753 17,372 9,619
Total 15,089 33,811 18,722
Sources: Table 2.2; ABAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Final Grow th Forecast by Jurisdiction; California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2023; U.S.

Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Willdan Financial Services.
4 Equivalent building square footage estimated by dividing employees by occupancy density factors.
1 Current population from California Department of Finance (DOF).

Projection total for 2040 from ABAG.
2 Current values from DOF. Total dw ellings units projection is based on maintaining current ratio of dw elling units to population. 3 Base year from OnTheMap Applicaion. Projection from ABAG allocated to land uses based on current proportions

Occupant Densities
All f ees i n this re port are calculated bas ed on the assumed square footage of the average dwelling unit or nonresidential building square feet . Occupa nt density a ssumptions ens ure a reasonable relationship between the size of a devel opment project, the i ncrease in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.

Occupant densities (residents per average dwelling unit or worker s per bu ilding square foot) are the most ap propriate c haracteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee impose d sho uld b e based o n the la nd use type that most closely represents the proba ble occ upant density of the development. The occupancy factors are shown in Table 2.2 . The residential density factor is based on data for Richmond from the 2021 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey, the most recent data available . The nonr esidential occupancy factors are derived f rom d ata from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

12 Table 2.2: Occupant Density Assumptions
Residential 2.72 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
Warehousing 0.34 Employees per 1,000 square feet Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Willdan Financial Services.

13 3. Sewer Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for sewer facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Richmond. The projects and asso ciated costs in this c hapter were identified in the City’s 2016 WWTP Facility Plan. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a sewer facilities impact fee to fund facilities to serve new development.

Service Area
Unlike the other facility categories included in this nexus study, the City’s sewer facilities do not serve the entir e City. The Richmond Municipal Sewer District (RMSD) serves approximately 14 square miles within the City of Richmond. Two other sewer districts provide service to the other areas of the City. Consequently, this fee is calculated based on demand from existing and new development within the RMSD boundaries and cannot be charged in other areas of the City.

Sewer Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased sewer demand provide the basis for calculating the sewer facilities fee . The need f or sewer facilities improv ements is based on the sewer demand place d on t he sys tem by develop ment. A typical measure of de mand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day genera ted by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on t he City’s system of sewer improvements because t hey r epresent the average rate of de mand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 3.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand fa ctors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow g eneration estimates based on data from the City’s Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

14 Table 3.1: Sewer Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation
(GDP/NA)1 Density2
Average
Flow
Generation/

DU, KSF
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family n/a n/a 165.00 1.00
Multifamily 3,000 25.00 120.00 0.73
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 1,000 21.78 45.91 0.28
Office 1,000 17.42 57.39 0.35
Industrial 1,000 10.89 91.83 0.56
Warehousing 1,000 10.89 91.83 0.56
1 Gallons per day per net acre.
2 Dw elling units for residential and thousand building square feet for nonresidential. Based on General Plan density assumptions and minimum FAR of 0.5 for commercial, 0.4 for office and 0.25 for light industrial.

Sources: City of Richmond Sanitary Sew er Master Plan Nov. 2011: Table 3-2; Willdan Financial Services.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 3.2 shows the e stimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. The EDU factors fr om Table 3.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions specific to the RMSD boundaries to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the pla nning horizo n and for new development within the District. New development will generate approximately 18,423 new EDUs through 2040, comprising 39.2% of sewer demand in the City at that time.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

15 Table 3.2: Sewer Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU
Factor1
Existing2
(DU/KSF)
Projected
Growth3
(DU/KSF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth in
EDUs Total
Residential - Dwelling Units
Single Family 1.00 17,881 8,953 17,881 8,953 26,834 Multifamily 0.73 8,051 4,032 5,877 2,943 8,820 Subtotal 25,932 12,985 23,758 11,896 35,654 Nonresidential - 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 0.28 3,360 4,536 941 1,270 2,211 Office 0.35 1,758 2,373 615 831 1,446 Industrial 0.56 5,856 7,904 3,279 4,426 7,705 Subtotal 10,974 14,813 4,835 6,527 11,362 Total 28,594 18,423 47,017
Percent of Total 60.8% 39.2% 100.0%
1 Per dw elling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential) Sources: ESRI Business Analyst; OnTheMap; Tables 2.1 and 3.1, Willdan Financial Services. 2 Existing dw elling units in Richmond Municipal Sew er District (RMSD) estimated using GIS analysis w ith ESRI Business Analyst. Based on ACS data. Existing equivalent building square feet estimate using GIS analysis using existing sew er district boundaries and employment data from OnTheMap. Jobs converted to equivalent building square feet using employment density factors from Table 2.2. 3 Projected development estimated in RMSD using cityw ide residential and nonresidential average compound grow th rates from 2022 to 2040 applied to development w ithin sew er district.

Facility Needs and Costs
Table 3.3 identifies the planned sewer facilities to be funded by the fee. The new sewer facilities were all identified in the City ’s 2016 WWTP Facili ty Plan. Since sewer facilities projects will benefit both existi ng development an d ne w development, capacity expan ding project s a re allocated to new development based on new development ’s share of sewer demand at the planning horizon. Projects that do not expand capacity are not allocated to the impact fee.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

16 Table 3.3: Sewer Facilities Allocation to New Development Escalated
Cost Estimate1
Allocation to
New
Development
Costs
Allocated to
New
Development
Waste Water Treatment Plant 2020-2040 2
CRITICAL PROJECTS 2020

1.5 Dewatering Facility 12,135,200$ 39.2% 4,756,998$
NEAR-TERM PROJECTS 2021-2025

2.1 Level 1 Nutrient Removal Improvements $ 1,712,200 39.2% $ 671,182

2.10 Site Protection from Rock Slides 2,140,200 39.2% 838,958

2.11 Low-Lift Effluent Pump Station 7,847,500 39.2% 3,076,220 LONG-TERM PROJECTS 2026-2045

3.1 Level 2 Nutrient Removal Improvements 195,760,500$ 39.2% 76,738,116$

3.2 Level 3 Nutrient Removal Improvements 120,281,400 39.2% 47,150,309

3.3 Wet Weather Improvements 193,049,500 39.2% 75,675,404

3.4 Digested Sludge Storage (to support dewatering) 8,703,600 39.2% 3,411,811

3.5 Biosolids Post-Processing (Dryer Facility) 42,519,400 39.2% 16,667,605 Total Project Cost 584,149,500$ 228,986,604$
1 Project Cost Estimates adjusted to 2023 construction costs using ENR BCI. 2 Richmond WWTP Facility Plan Final Draft 2016.10.7 Appendix A - CIP Summary Source: City of Richmond: WWTP Facility Plan, 2016: Engineering New s Record Building Cost Index; Wildan Finacial Services

Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facil ities allocated to new develo pment in Table 3.3 is divided by the to tal growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU. Table 3.4 displays this calculation.

Table 3.4: Cost per EDU
Costs Allocated to New Development 228,986,604$
Less Existing Fund Balance 277,985
Net Cost Allocated to New Development 228,708,619$
Growth in EDUs 18,423
Cost per EDU 12,414$
Sources: Tables 3.2 and 3.3.

Fee Schedule
The maxim um justified fee for sewer facilities is show n in Table 3.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new developm ent based on the EDU factors shown in Table 3.1.

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

The to tal fe e includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, acco unting, and other departmental and administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of p rojects funded by the f acilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative co sts City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

17 including revenue collection , revenue an d cost accountin g, mandated p ublic reporting , and fee justification analyses.

Table 3.5: Maximum Justified Sewer Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per Sq.

Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit4 12,414$ 0.92 11,421$ 228$ 11,649$ 7.98$ Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 12,414$ 0.28 3,476$ 70$ 3,546$ 3.55$ Office 12,414 0.35 4,345 87 4,432 4.43 Industrial 12,414 0.56 6,952 139 7,091 7.09 Warehousing 12,414 0.56 6,952 139 7,091 7.09 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.4; 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, 3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.

18 4. Parks and Recreation Facilities
The purpose of t he parks and recreation facilities impact fee is to fund t he parks and recreation facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified im pact f ee is pre sented based on the existing standard of parks and recreation facilities per capita.

Service Population
Park a nd recreat ion facilities in Richmond primarily serve resi dents. Therefore, demand for services and associa ted facilities is based on th e City’s residential populati on. Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park and recreation facilities.

Table 4.1: Park and Recreation
Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 111,924
Growth (2023 - 2040) 52,296
Total (2040) 164,220
Source: Table 2.1.

Existing Parkland Inventory
The City of Richmond maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table

4.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2023. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the inventory includes a total of 322.33 acres of improved parkland.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 19 Table 4.2: Parkland Inventory
Park Name Total Acres
Community Parks
B.T. Anderson Jr. Park 22.00
Central Richmond Greenway 11.00
Hilltop Lake Park 36.00
La Moine Park 22.00
Marina Bay Park 11.00
Martin Luther King Jr. Park 13.00
Nichol Park 21.00
Pt. Molate Beach Park 25.00
Subtotal 161.00
Joint Use Parks
Central Park 2.60
Fairmede Park 12.00
Hilltop Park 6.70
Olinda School Field 2.00
Valley View School Fields 11.00
Subtotal 34.30
Pocket Parks
Abraham Braxton Park 0.60
Bay Vista Park 0.70
Clinton Play lot 0.20
Elm Playlot 0.50
Humboldt Park 0.40
Humphrey Play Lot 0.20
Huntington Park/Senior Annex 0.30
Janice Play Lot 0.10
Kern Play Lot 0.30
Mendocino Play Lot 0.40
Monterey Play Lot 0.50
Moody Underpass Park 0.73
Sheridan Observation Poin 1.00
Solano Play Lot 0.20
Stewart Playground 0.80
Virginia Play Lot 0.20
Subtotal 7.13
Source: City of Richmond: Richmond Parks Master Plan Dec 22, 2010, Parks and Recreation Richmond Master Plan 2030

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 20 Table 4.2: Park Land Inventory Continued
Park Name Total Acres
Neighborhood Parks
Atchison Village Park 4.30
Barbara & Jay Vincent Park 6.00
Belding-Garcia Park 2.00
Boorman Park 4.00
Burg Park 1.00
Country Club Vista 2.60
Crescent Park 3.10
Harbor 8 Park 1.00
Hilltop Green Park 6.30
John F. Kennedy Park 4.80
Judge Carroll Park 2.50
Lucas Park 7.20
Lucretia Edwards Park 2.00
Marina Bay Trails 18.00
Mira Vista Park 1.70
Miraflores 4.30
Nevin Park 4.40
North Richmond Ball Field 8.20
Parchester Park 2.10
Rain Cloud Park 1.40
Rosie The Riveter Park 2.00
Shields-Reid Park 5.90
Shimada Friendship Park 3.00
Southside Park 3.50
State Court Park 2.10
The Plunge -
Tiller Park 2.70
Unity Park 10.00
Veterans Memorial Park 1.60
Wendell Park 2.20
Subtotal 119.90
Total 322.33
Source: City of Richmond: Richmond Parks Master Plan Dec 22, 2010, Parks and Recreation Richmond Master Plan 2030

Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 4.3 displays the unit costs neces sary to develop parkland in Richmond. The la nd cost assumption was based on an analysis of land sales comparisons from 2020, 2021 and 2022 within the City of Richmond using data from CoS tar. An estimate of $ 748,000 per acre for standard parkla nd improvements is based on Willdan’s experience with other recent cl ients in California. In total, it costs over $2 million to acquire and impr ove an acre of park land in Richmond.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 21 Table 4.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre
Share of
Total Costs
Standard Park Improvements1
748,000$
Subtotal - Improvements 748,000$ 37%
Land Acquisition2 1,266,000$ 63%
Total Cost per Acre 2,014,000$ 100%
2 Based on recent sales comparison data from CoStar.
1 Improvement costs are estimated at $748,000 per acre for site improvements (curbs, gutters, w ater, sew er, and electrical access), plus basic park and school field amenities such as basketball or tennis court, parking, tot lot, irrigation, turf, open green space, pedestrian paths, and picnic tables. Excludes special use facilities such as recreation centers, structures and pools.

Sources: Table 4.3; San Diego County Parks and Recreation: Prototypical Park Cost Estimate; CoStar; Willdan Financial Services.

Park Facility Standards
Park facilit y standards establish a re asonable relati onship between ne w developm ent and the need for expanded park fa cilities. Information regarding the Cit y’s existing inventor y of exist ing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.

The most comm on measure in cal culating new developm ent’s demand for par ks is the ratio o f park acr es per resident. In general, f acility standards may be b ased on a jurisdicti on’s existing inventory of park facilities, o r an adop ted policy stan dard conta ined in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a l and dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.1
Quimby Act Standard
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,0 00 residents. A juris diction can require residential devel opers to dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction’s existing park sta ndard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five ac res per 1,000 res idents).

The standard used must also conf orm to the jurisd iction’s a dopted general or specific pla n standards.

The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on f uture approved p rojects on single parcels, such as apa rtment 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 Ac t allows use of in -lieu fe e revenue for a ny park or recrea tion facil ity purpose.

Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park i mprovements including recreation

1 California Government Code §66477.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 22 facilities, and rehab ilitation of ex isting par k and recreation facilities. The Quimby Act generally requires that fees be used for neighb orhood and community park acreage to serve the subdivision, except in limited circumstances.

City of Richmond Park Facilities Standards
Table 4.4 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage pe r 1,000 residents based on the type of parkl and. In total the City has an existing parkland standard of 2.88 acres per 1 ,000 residents, which is less than the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The impact fee analysis in this repor t will be based o n maintaining the C ity’s 2.88 acre p er 1,000 resident standard as new development adds demand for parks in Richmond. Fees in-lieu of land dedication for subdivisions are calculated at the minimum Quimby standard o f 3.0 ac res of developed parkland per 1,000 residents.

Table 4.4: Parkland Standards
Park Acres 322.33
Service Population (2023) 111,924
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 2.88
Quimby Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 3.00
City Policy Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 3.00
Sources: City of Richmond; Tables 4.1 and 4.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 4.5 shows the park fa cilities needed to accomm odate new deve lopment at the exist ing standard. To achieve the stand ard by the plannin g horizon , depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, new development must fu nd the purchas e and improvement of between 150.61 and 156.89 parkland a cres, at a tot al cost ranging betwe en $303.3 and $311.3 million.

The facility standards and resulting fees under the Quimby Act are higher because development will be charged t o provide 3.0 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, a nd 2.88 acres of improvements, whereas d evelopment not subjec t to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide only 2.88 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 2.88 acres of improvements. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Q uimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 4.5 presents the rang e of total facility cos ts t hat may be incurred depending on t he a mount of development subject to the Quimby Act.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 23 Table 4.5: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total1
Parkland (Mitigation Fee Act) & Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) 2 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 2.88 2.88 Service Population Growth (2023-2040) B 52,296 52,296 Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B 150.61 150.61 Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 1,266,000 $ 748,000 Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $190,672,000 $ 112,656,000 $303,328,000 Parkland (Quimby Act), Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) 3 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 3.00 2.88 Service Population Growth (2023-2040) B 52,296 52,296 Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B 156.89 150.61 Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 1,266,000 $ 748,000 Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $198,623,000 $ 112,656,000 $311,279,000 Note: Totals have been rounded to the thousands.

Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4.
1 Values in this column show the cost of parkland acquisition and development in orer to meet the existing 3.0 acre standard under either the Quimby Act or the Mitigation Fee Act.
3 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Quimby Act. The Quimby Fee applies anytime the Subdivision Map Act is applied. Under the Quimby Act, an in-lieu fee is charged at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents; improvements charged at the existing standard. If a subdivision has less than 50 units, then the Quimby "in-lieu" fee w ill apply. If a subdivision has more than 50 units, then the developer has the option of dedicating land to meet its Quimby parkland requirements or paying the fee. 2 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Parkland and improvements are charged at the existing standard.

Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 4.6 shows the cost per capi ta of providing new park facilities at the Quimby standard, and the existing facility standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements.

The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of three fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of parkland dedi cation. This fee is payable by residentia l development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Miti gation Fee A ct F ee for parkland acquisi tion. This fee is p ayable by resid ential 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 acqu isition, not both. A ll development projects pay the Mitigat ion Fee Act Fees for park improvements.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 24 Table 4.6: Park Facilities Investment per Capita
Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee
Cost per Acre A 1,266,000$ 1,266,000$ 748,000$
Facility Standard B 3.00 2.88 2.88 Investment Per Capita C = A / B 3,798$ 3,646$ 2,154$ Sources: Tables 4.3 and 4.4.

Land

Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use pa rk and r ecreation facilities fee revenue to p urchase parkland and open space and construct improvements t o ad d to the s ystem of park facilities that s erves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilitie s and intensify usage of existing faci lities needed to serve new development. The City should program fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process.

Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the inve stment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for parkland acquisition , and parkland improvements. These investment fa ctors (shown in Table 4.6) are based on the uni t cost estimates and the City ’s existing facility standards.

Table 4.7 shows the maxim um justified park and recr eation facilities fee based on the existing standard per capita under th e Quimby Act and under the existing park standard under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. The investment per capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit using the occupancy density factor from Table 2.2. The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per sq uare foot by dividing the fee per dw elling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes an administra tive charge to fund costs that in clude: (1) legal, accounting, and othe r a dministrative support and ( 2) imp act fee progra m adminis trative 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 c ost of fee pro gram adm inistration. The administ rative charge should be re viewed a nd adjusted during compreh ensive i mpact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated fr om the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exc eed, the administrative costs associated with the f ee program.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 25 Table 4.7: Maximum Justified 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 Fee Charge1 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential Dwelling Unit - Subdivisions
Quimby Fee In Lieu of
Land Dedication 3,798$ 2.72 10,331$ 207$ 10,538$ 7.22$ Improvements 2,154 2.72 5,859 117 5,976 4.10 Total 5,952$ 16,190$ 324$ 16,514$ 11.32$ Residential Dwelling Unit - Infill
Parkland Acquisition 3,646$ 2.72 9,917$ 198$ 10,115$ 6.93$ Improvements 2,154 2.72 5,859 117 5,976 4.10 Total 5,800$ 15,776$ 315$ 16,091$ 11.03$ Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.6.
3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.
1 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.

26 5. Community Center and Aquatic
Facilities
The following chapter docu ments the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new recreation and community center facilities demanded by new development.

Service Population
Community center and aquatic facilities in Richmond primarily serve residents so this analysis assumes that demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City ’s residential population. Table 5.1 shows the existing and future pro jected residential population for community center and aquatic facilities . These facilities primarily serve resi dents so the se rvice population is based on the existing and projected residents of the City.

Table 5.1: Community Center and
Aquatic Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 111,924
Growth (2023 - 2040) 52,296
Total (2040) 164,220
Source: Table 2.1.

Existing Recreation and Community Center Facilities
Inventory
The City of Richmond maintains several community center and aquatic facilities. Table 5.2 summarizes the City’s exi sting community center and aquatic facilities building inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits. The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each facility was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Engineering News Record’s Building Cost Index.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 27 Table 5.2: Existing Community Center and Aquatic Facilities Building Inventory
A B C = A x B
Facility Address
Date
Acquired
Building
Cost
Cost
Index
Replacement
Cost1
Community Centers
Richmond Annex Senior Center 5801 Huntington Avenue 01/01/37 13,300$ 39.52 525,600$ Richmond Annex Senior Center Renovation 5801 Huntington Avenue 06/11/09 25,850 1.59 41,200 Booker T. Anderson Jr. Community Center 960 South 47th Street 06/30/04 294,361 1.85 545,000 Booker T. Anderson Jr. Community Center Restroom Building 960 South 47th Street 06/30/04 65,648 1.85 121,500 Booker T. Anderson Jr. Community Center Renovation 960 South 47th Street 01/01/80 2,525 3.71 9,400 Developing Personal Resources Center 1900 Barrett Avenue 01/01/79 288,647 4.01 1,157,800 Crescent Park Child Care 5050 Hartnett Ave, 01/01/70 161,464 8.21 1,326,100 May Valley Community Center 3530 Morningside Drive 01/01/80 153,740 3.71 570,800 Richmond Recreation Complex / Memorial Youth Center 3230 MacDonald Avenue 01/01/49 1,100,000 20.76 22,837,900 Richmond Recreation Complex / Memorial Youth Center Labor & Mats 3230 MacDonald Avenue 05/10/00 4,498 2.18 9,800 Richmond Recreation Complex / Memorial Youth Center Upgrade 3230 MacDonald Avenue 06/30/99 11,010 2.20 24,200 Richmond Recreation Complex / Memorial Youth Center Renovation 3230 MacDonald Avenue 06/11/09 296,820 1.59 473,300 Nevin Community Center 598 Nevin Ave 01/01/77 449,929 4.71 2,117,900 Nevin Community Center Renovation 598 Nevin Ave 06/11/09 160,859 1.59 256,500 Parchester Community Center 900 Williams drive 01/01/73 144,459 6.46 933,400 Parchester Community Center Renovation 900 Williams drive 06/11/09 226,107 1.59 360,500 Shield-Reid Community Center 1410 Kelsey Street 01/01/79 498,907 4.01 2,001,200 Shield-Reid Community Center Renovation 1410 Kelsey Street 06/11/09 214,657 1.59 342,300 Richmond Senior Center 2525 Macdonald Avenue 01/01/77 1,341,128 4.71 6,312,900 Total Replacement Value - Community Centers 39,967,300$ Aquatic Centers
Richmond Plunge Aquatic Center Restoration 1 E Richmond Ave 08/31/10 5,928,790 1.54 9,126,000$ Richmond Plunge Aquatic Center 1 E Richmond Ave 01/01/26 184,600 41.86 7,727,000 Kennedy Swim Center 4300 Cutting Blvd 04/23/99 4,300,000 2.20 9,459,800 Kennedy Swim Center Construction Cost 4300 Cutting Blvd 06/30/99 185,720 2.20 408,600 Kennedy Swim Center Construction Cost 4300 Cutting Blvd 06/30/99 851,479 2.20 1,873,200 Total Replacement Value - Aquatic Centers 28,594,600$
Total Replacement Value - Community and Aquatic Centers 68,561,900$ 1 Original facility cost, building construction cost escalated to 2022 cost.

Source: City of Richmond; Engineering New s Record Building Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 5.3 displays the City’s inventory of community center and aquatic facilities land assets. The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each site was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Consumer Price Ind ex for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 28 Table 5.3: Existing Community Center and Aquatic Facilities Land Inventory
Date A B C = A x B
Facility Address

Acquired Land Cost Cost Index Land Value 1
Community Centers
Richmond Annex Senior Center 5801 Huntington Avenue 01/01/51 1,660$ 10.85 18,000$ Booker T. Anderson Jr. Community Center 960 South 47th Street 04/05/62 27,080 9.40 254,400 Booker T. Anderson Jr. Community Center 960 South 47th Street 01/01/54 11,050 10.73 118,500 Disabled Peoples Recreation Center 1900 Barrett Avenue 06/11/57 9,500 9.95 94,500 Crescent Park Child Care 5050 Hartnett Ave, 04/07/71 194,240 6.88 1,336,000 May Valley Community Center 3530 Morningside Drive 05/02/60 14,740 9.62 141,700 Richmond Recreation Complex / Memorial Youth Center 3230 MacDonald Avenue 12/11/75 134,120 4.74 636,300 Shield-Reid Community Center 1410 Kelsey Street 01/01/53 7,290 10.69 77,900 Richmond Senior Center 2525 Macdonald Avenue 01/01/75 112,500 5.05 568,400 Point Richmond Community Center 139 Washington Avenue 06/15/60 25,790 9.62 248,000 Total Land Value - Community Centers 3,493,700$
-
Aquatic Centers
Richmond Plunge Aquatic Center Restoration 1 E Richmond Ave 01/01/54 18,050 10.73 193,600$ Kennedy Swim Center 4300 Cutting Blvd -
Total Land Value - Aquatic Centers 193,600$
Total Land Value - Community and Aquatic Centers 3,687,300$ 1 Original land cost, inflation adjusted to 2022.

Source: City of Richmond; US Dept of Labor: CPI Tables

Planned Recreation and Community Center Facilities
The City has one planned community center. Table 5.4 summarizes the cost o f the planned facility.

Table 5.4: Planned Community Center and Aquatic Facilities Cost Estimate
Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center 14,000,000$
Total Planned Facilities Cost 14,000,000$
Source: City of Richmond.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study r equirements that went into effect of January 1, 2022, a n exus study “shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the pr oposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriat e.” Table 5.5 expresses the City’s current community center and aquatic facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not us ed 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 lower than the cost per capita shown in Table 5.5. This lower cost per capita will drive the fee calculation.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 29 Table 5.5: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 68,561,900$
Value of Existing Land 3,687,300
Exsting Impact Fee Fund Balance 67,556
Total 72,316,756$
Existing Service Population 111,924
Facility Standard per Resident 646$
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.

Future Level of Service
The approach used to calculate this fee ensures that the existing level of service will be maintained throughout the planning horizon. If implemented at the maximum justified amount, the impact fees would maintain the $646 per capita facility standard through the planning horizon.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City plan s t o use community center and aquatic facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to construct a new comm unity center that will serve new d evelopment. The planned facility is detailed above in Table 5.4. The City will have to identify additional facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service through the planning horizon. The City c an use community center and aquatic facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are par t of the system of community center and aquatic facilities serving new development.

Fee Revenue Projection
Table 5.6 shows a projection of fee revenue needed to maintain the existing level of service.

Additional facilities will have to be identified to maintain the level of service through the planning horizon.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 30 Table 5.6: Community Center and Aquatic
Facilities Projected Fee Revenue
Cost per Capita 646$
Growth in Service Population (2023- 2040) 52,296
Fee Revenue 33,783,200$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 14,000,000
Future Facilities to be Identified 19,783,200$
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.4, and 5.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 5.7 shows the maximum justified community center and aquatic facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new develo pment based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per sq uare foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two -percent (2% ) admi nistrative char ge to f und costs t hat incl ude: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accou nting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program adm inistrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee pro grams, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewe d and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generat ed from the charge sufficiently cov ers, but does not exceed, the administ rative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 5.7: Community Center and Aquatic Facilities Fee
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 Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential Dwelling Unit 646$ 2.72 1,757$ 35$ 1,792$ 1.23$ Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.4.
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.
3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.

31 6. Police Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new dev elopment funds its f air share of police facilities.

A fee s chedule is present ed based on the existing inventory facilities standard of police facilities in the City of Richmond to ensure that ne w development provides adeq uate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
Police facilities ser ve both resi dents and bu sinesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 6.1 shows the existing and future project ed service p opulation fo r police facilities. While specific data is not available t o estimate the actual ratio of demand pe r resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assu me that d emand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less i ntensively than dwe lling u nits. 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 th e degree to which nonresidential developme nt yields a les ser demand for police facilities.

Table 6.1: Police Facilities Service Population
A B C D = A + (B x C)
Residents Workers
Worker
Demand
Factor1
Service
Population
Existing (2023) 111,924 27,587 0.31 120,500 New Development (2023-2040) 52,296 34,228 0.31 62,900 Total Development (2040) 164,220 61,815 183,400 Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non- w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31)

Existing Facility Inventory
Table 6.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of police facilities, which is comprised primarily of vehicles and equipment. The City operates primarily out of a leased facility, which is not included in this inventory. All fa cilities are located within the City limits. The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each item included in the inventory was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Engineering News Record’s Building Cost Index.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 32 Table 6.2: Existing Police Facilities Inventory
A B C = A x B
Facility
Date
Acquired Original Cost Cost Index
Replacement
Cost1
Hilltop Mall Police Sub-Station 03/31/10 434,014$ 1.54 668,100$ Vehicles and Equipment Various Various Various 14,837,979 Total 434,014$ 15,506,079$
1 Original facility cost escalated to 2022 cost.

Source: City of Richmond; Engineering New s Record Building Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
The City is planning to construct a new police facility. The City’s current capital improvement plan identifies the projected cost of this facility. Table 6.3 displays the cost of the planned facility.

Table 6.3: Planned Facilities
Cost Estimate
New Police Facility 80,000,000$
Total 80,000,000$
Source: City of Richmond Capital Improvement Plan FY2023-24 through FY2027-28.

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 publi c facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of s ervice is appropriate.” Table 6.4 expresses the City’s current police facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita.

This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculat ion, rather i t is shown here for informational purposes only.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 33 Table 6.4: Police Facilities Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 15,506,079$
Existing Service Population 120,500
Cost per Capita 129$
Facility Standard per Resident 129$
Facility Standard per Worker1 40
1 Based on w eighting factor in Table 6.1.

Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

Future Level of Service
Table 6.5 shows the calculation of the system facilities standard per capita for police facilities used to calculate the fees. This value is calculated by dividing the total value of all police facilities in 2040 by the total service population in 2040. The value pe r capita is multiplied by the wor ker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker. The resulting standard is the cost standard that will be achieved when all the facilities are realized, and new development has come online.

Table 6.5: Police Facilities - System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 15,506,079$
Value of Planned Facilities 80,000,000
Total System Value (2040) 95,506,079$
Future Service Population (2040) 183,400
Cost per Capita 521$
Cost Allocation per Resident 521$
Cost Allocation per Worker 1 162
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in the City. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned facilities and some non-fee funding will be requi red. Table 6.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required th rough 2040. After accounting for the projected fu ture impact fee City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 34 revenue approximately $47.2 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned facilities.

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

Table 6.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 521$
Growth in Service Population (2023- 2040) 62,900
Fee Revenue 32,771,000$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 80,000,000
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified (47,229,000)$
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3 and 6.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 6.7 shows the maximum justified police facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is co nverted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment dens ities (persons per dwelling uni t or empl oyees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per sq uare fo ot by dividing the fee per dw elling un it by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includ es a two perc ent (2.0%) administrative charge t o fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and admin istrative s upport, and fee prog ram administrative costs in cluding revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program ad ministration. The ad ministrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted durin g comp rehensive impact fe e updates to ensure t hat revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, b ut does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with t he fee program.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 35 Table 6.7: Maximum Justified Police 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 Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential Dwelling Unit 521$ 2.72 1,417$ 28$ 1,445$ 0.99$ Nonresidential - per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 162$ 2.12 342$ 7$ 349$ 0.35$ Office 162 3.26 527 11 538 0.54 Industrial 162 1.16 187 4 191 0.19 Warehousing 162 0.34 55 1 56 0.06 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.5.
3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 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.

36 7. Fire Protection Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure t hat new development funds its fai r share of fire protection facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the existing standard of fire protection facilities in the City of Richmond to ens ure that new development provide s adeq uate fun ding to meet its needs.

Service Population
Public safety facilities serve both r esidents, visitors, and busin esses. T herefore, demand for services and associ ated facilities are ba sed on the City’s service population including residents , visitors, and workers.

Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for fire protection facilities.

Residents and workers are assume d to create different amounts of demand for fire protection facilities. To calculate service population for fire protecti on facil ities, residents are weight ed at

1.00. A worker is weighted at 0.6 1 of one resident to reflect the lower per capita need for fi re services associated with businesses. The specific 0.61 per worker weighting used here is derived from an analysis of fire services demand by residential versus nonresidential land uses in other agencies in California.

Table 7.1: Fire Protection Facilities Service Population A B C D = A + (B x C)
Residents Workers
Worker
Demand
Factor1
Service
Population
Existing Development (2023) 111,924 27,587 0.61 128,800 New Development (2023-2040) 52,296 34,228 0.61 73,200 Total (2040) 164,220 61,815 202,000
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Service population w orker demand factor based on fire service call data from other Willdan clients w eighted by the relative proportions of residential and nonresidential land use in the City.

Existing Facilities Inventory
The City’s fire protection facilities inventory is comprised of the several fire stations , vehicles, apparatus, and equipment. All facilities are located w ithin the City limits. The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each item included in the inventory was adjusted for i nflation to its current replacement cost using the Engineering News Record’s Building Cost Index.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 37 Table 7.2: Existing Fire Protection Facilities Inventory A B C = A x B
Facility Date Acquired Building Cost Cost Index
Replacement
Cost1
Fire Station 61- 140 W Richmond Ave
Fire Station 61 01/01/68 108,795$ 9.86 1,072,200$ Retrofitting 06/02/99 16,667 2.20 36,700 Seismic Upgrade 09/23/99 248,334 2.20 546,300 Garage 01/01/70 14,581 8.21 119,800 Fire Station 62- 1065 7th St
Fire Station 62 01/01/70 156,396 8.21 1,284,400$ Re-Roofing Fire Station 62 06/30/10 179,100 1.54 275,700 Electronic Gate - Fire Station #62 01/21/09 21,000 1.59 33,500 Fire Station 63- 5201 Valley View Rd
Fire Station 63 01/01/92 906,605 2.60 2,356,000$ Trash Enclosure 01/01/92 1,655 2.60 4,300 Fire Station 64- 4801 Bayview Avenue
Fire Station 64 08/16/74 309,742 5.96 1,846,500$ Garage 01/01/74 36,410 5.96 217,100 Re-Roofing Fire Station 64 06/30/11 183,078 1.50 275,500 Electronic Gate - Fire Station #64 01/21/09 24,200 1.59 38,600 Fire Station 66- 4100 Clinton Avenue
Fire Station 66 01/01/68 52,068 9.86 513,100$ Garage 01/01/68 4,139 9.86 40,800 Fire Station 67- 1131 Cutting Blvd
Fire Station 67 01/01/53 118,607 17.46 2,070,500$ Garage 01/01/53 10,842 17.46 189,300 Electronic Gate - Fire Station #67 01/21/09 35,100 1.59 56,000 Fire Station 68- 2904 Hilltop Drive
Fire Station 68 01/01/81 348,552 3.49 1,214,700$ Garage 01/01/81 37,088 3.49 129,300 Fire Station 68-Laundry & Restroom 07/01/15 16,740 1.38 23,100 Electronic Gate - Station #68 01/21/09 30,000 1.59 47,800 Fire Training Facility- 3506 Cutting Blvd
Training Tower 01/01/53 31,742 17.46 554,100$ School Building 01/01/53 42,537 17.46 742,600 Smoke House 01/01/53 3,017 17.46 52,700 Youth Academy Building 01/01/53 91,847 17.46 1,603,300 Electronic Gate - Fire Training Center 01/21/09 37,400 1.59 59,600 Office/Storage Trailer 11/14/13 24,500 1.41 34,600 Total Replacement Value 15,438,100$
1 Original facility cost escalated to 2022 cost.

Source: City of Richmond; Engineering New s Record Building Cost Index, 1920 - 2022

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 38 Table 7.3 displays the C ity’s inventory of fire protection facilities land assets. The City provided an asset schedule for us e in this analysis. The original acquisition cost of each site was adjusted for inflation to its c urrent replacement cost using the Consumer Price Ind ex for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

Table 7.3: Existing Fire Facilities Land Inventory
A B C = A x B
Facility Address
Date
Acquired Land Cost Cost Index
Replacement
Cost1
Fire Station 62 1065 7th St 10/26/72 19,640 6.46 126,900$ Fire Station 63 5201 Valley View Rd 01/22/90 125,820 2.83 356,100 Fire Station 64 4801 Bayview Avenue 03/08/72 35,040 6.84 239,700 Fire Station 66 4100 Clinton Avenue 01/01/48 1,610 22.12 35,600 Fire Station 67 1131 Cutting Blvd 05/25/60 127,500 13.71 1,747,700 Total Land Value 2,506,000$
1 Original land cost inflation adjusted to 2022.

Source: City of Richmond; Engineering New s Record Building Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 7.4 displays the Ci ty’s current inventory of fire protection vehicles , apparatus, and equipment. The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each item was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 39 Table 7.4: Existing Fire Vehicles, Apparatus and Equipment A B C = A x B
Equipment Date Acquired
Acquisition
Cost Cost Index
Replacement
Cost1
Stationary Compressor 4/5/2021 68,629$ 1.00 68,600$ Spartan Tiller Truck 11/22/2021 1,230,660 1.00 1,230,700 2020 Ford Hybrid Explorer 12/3/2020 38,484 1.00 38,500 2021 Ford Hybrid Explorer 12/3/2020 38,484 1.00 38,500 Spartan Pumper Gladiator Truck 8/31/2020 725,993 1.04 757,100 Spartan Pumper Gladiator Truck 7/31/2020 725,993 1.04 757,100 Ford Hybrid Explorer 12/3/2020 38,484 1.00 38,500 Ward Diesel Exhaust Removal System 1/30/2018 57,416 1.12 64,600 Diesel Exhaust Removal Systems 10/5/2016 57,416 1.14 65,700 2015 Ford Explorer 6/1/2015 30,512 1.20 36,600 2015 Ford Explorer 6/1/2015 30,512 1.20 36,600 2015 Ford Explorer 6/1/2015 30,512 1.20 36,600 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe 11/19/2014 37,917 1.20 45,400 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe 11/19/2014 37,917 1.20 45,400 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe 11/19/2014 37,917 1.20 45,400 Spartan Heavy Rescue Apparatus 12/16/2014 397,827 1.20 476,600 Zeiss Stabilization Binocular 8/28/2013 6,277 1.21 7,600 Office/Storage Trailer 11/14/2013 24,500 1.21 29,700 2012 Ford Fusion Hybrid 2/2/2012 30,236 1.23 37,300 2012 Ford Fusion Hybrid 2/2/2012 30,236 1.23 37,300 2011 Hi-Tech/Spartan Type-1 Pumper 7/23/2012 522,721 1.23 645,100 Milnor 30015 T5X Grdn Washer Extractor 12/13/2011 9,940 1.23 12,300 Opticon Emergency Equipment 6/2/2010 12,311 1.28 15,700 Opticon Emergency Equipment 6/2/2010 12,311 1.28 15,700 Opticon Emergency Equipment 6/2/2010 12,311 1.28 15,700 Opticon Emergency Equipment 6/2/2010 12,311 1.28 15,700 Ford F250 Truck For RFD 6/30/2010 28,267 1.28 36,100 2011F250 Crew Cab 7/6/2010 35,933 1.28 45,900 Fuel Master 3500 Plus Prokee/RF 12/7/2009 15,036 1.28 19,200 Fuel Master 3500 Plus Prokee/RF 12/7/2009 15,036 1.28 19,200 Toyota Sit Down LPG Pnuematic 6/24/2009 9,000 1.32 11,900 Cargo Trailer 10/30/2009 8,373 1.28 10,700 Electronic Gate - Fire Station #62 1/21/2009 21,000 1.32 27,700 Isg K1000 Elite Camera 6/30/2008 65,231 1.34 87,400 Hi Tech Custom Pumper 9/30/2008 459,474 1.32 605,800 Hi Tech Custom Pumper 9/30/2008 443,320 1.32 584,500 Hi Tech Custom Pumper 9/30/2008 369,658 1.32 487,400 Fire Truck Rear Mount Aerial Model 9/30/2008 658,835 1.32 868,700 Hi Tech Custom Pumper 9/30/2008 369,658 1.32 487,400 Fire Truck 110 Ft. Aerial 6/3/2002 599,954 1.56 937,400 1500 Gmp Pumper Fire Truck 6/29/2001 379,303 1.60 606,200 1500 Gmp Pumper Fire Truck 6/29/2001 379,303 1.60 606,200 1500 Gmp Pumper Fire Truck 6/29/2001 379,303 1.60 606,200 1500 Gmp Pumper Fire Truck 6/29/2001 379,303 1.60 606,200 110 Ft. Aerial Fire Apparatus 6/29/2001 624,441 1.60 997,900 Type IV Fire Apparatus - 4 X 4 6/29/2001 26,058 1.60 41,600 Type Iv Fire Apparatus - 4 X 4 6/29/2001 26,058 1.60 41,600 Emergency Rescue Vehicle 9/8/1999 93,946 1.67 156,900 Emergency Rescue Vehicle 9/8/1999 93,946 1.67 156,900 Truck Pumper '98 Spartan 1/1/1998 289,600 1.73 499,800 Total Fire Equipment Value 13,162,800$
1 Original cost inflation adjusted to 2022.

Source: City of Richmond; US Dept of Labor: CPI Tables; Willdan Financial Services.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 40 Table 7.5 summarizes the total replacement cost of fire protection facilities owned by the City. In total the City owns over $31.1 million worth of fire protection facilities.

Table 7.5: Existing Fire Facilities Summary
Replacement
Cost
Buildings 15,438,100$
Land 2,506,000
Vehicles, Apparatus and Equipment 13,162,800
Existing Impact Fee Fund Balance (20,489)
Total 31,086,411$
Sources: Tables 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4.

Planned Facilities
Table 7.6 summarizes the planned fire protection facilities needed to serve the City, as identified in the City’s Capital Improvement P lan. The City anticipates that additional planned facilities will be needed to provide service to new d evelopment as it increases demand for fire protection services.

Table 7.6: Planned Fire Protection Facilities
Cost Estimate
Gender Specific Restrooms Fire Station 66 475,000$
Fire Department Regional Training Center 2,000,000
Total Planned Facilities Cost 2,475,000$
Source: City of Richmond Capital Improvement Plan FY2023-24 through FY2027-28.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study requirements that we nt into effect of January 1, 2022, a nexus study “shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the pro posed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of s ervice is appropriate.” Table 7.7 expresses the City’s current fire protection facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is used to drive the fee calculation.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 41 Table 7.7: Fire Protection Facilities Existing Standard Total Value of Existing Facilities 31,086,411$
Existing Service Population 128,800
Cost per Capita 241$
Facility Standard per Resident 241$
Facility Standard per Worker1 147
1 Based on w eighing factor from Table 7.1.

Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.5.

Fee Revenue Projection
Table 7.8 shows the projected fee revenue through 2040. After accounting for the cost of planned facilities, the City will need to id entify $ 15.2 million in additional planned facilities in order to maintain its existing facility standards.

Table 7.8: Revenue Projection
Cost per Capita 241$
Growth in Service Population (2023- 2040) 73,200
Fee Revenue 17,641,200$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 2,475,000
Future Facilities to be Identified 15,166,200$
Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.6, and 7.7.

Fee Schedule
Table 7.9 shows the maximum justified fire protection facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment dens ities (persons per dwellin g unit or empl oyees per 1,000 squa re feet of nonresidential bu ilding spa ce). The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two perc ent (2.0%) administrative charge t o fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and admin istrative s upport, and fee prog ram administrative costs in cluding revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program ad ministration. The ad ministrative charge should be rev iewed and adjusted durin g compre hensive impact fe e updates to ensure t hat revenue generated from the City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 42 charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with t he fee program.

Table 7.9: Maximum Justified Fire Protection Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.3 Residential Dwelling Unit 241$ 2.72 656$ 13$ 669$ 0.46$ Nonresidential - per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 147$ 2.12 312$ 6$ 318$ 0.32$ Office 147 3.26 479 10 489 0.49 Industrial 147 1.16 171 3 174 0.17 Warehousing 147 0.34 50 1 51 0.05 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.7.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.

43 8. Library Facilities
The purpose of this f ee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of library facilities.

A fee schedule is presented based on the existing facilities standard of library facilities in the City of Richmond to ensure that new development maintains the existing level of service.

Service Population
Library facilities in Richmond primarily serve resi dents. Therefor e, deman d for servic es and associated facili ties is based on the City’s residential populati on. Table 8.1 shows the ex isting and future projected service population for library facilities.

Table 8.1: Library Facilities Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 111,924
Growth (2023 - 2040) 52,296
Total (2040) 164,220
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Facility Inventory
The City’s library facilities inventory is comprised of three libraries and the library collections . The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each item included in the invento ry was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Engineering News Recor d’s Building Cost Index . Table 8.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of library buildings.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 44 Table 8.2: Existing Library Facilities Inventory
A B C = A x B
Facility Date Acquired Building Cost Cost Index
Replacement
Cost1
Main Library - 325 Civic Center Plaza2 -$
Bay View Branch - 5100 Hartnett Avenue
Bay View Branch Library 01/01/76 99,280 5.04 500,300 Bayview Branch Library Renovation 06/11/09 152,686 1.59 243,400 West Side Branch - 135 Washington Avenue
Westside Branch Library 01/01/60 68,475 13.71 938,600 Remodel - West Side Branch Lib 01/01/92 125,000 2.60 324,800 West Side Branch Library Renovation 06/11/09 112,936 1.59 180,100 Total Replacement Value 2,187,200$
1 Original facility cost adjusted to 2022 cost.
2 No value show n because library w ill be replaced by planned facility.

Source: City of Richmond; Engineering New s Record Building Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 8.3 displays the City’s inventory of library land assets. The City provided an asset schedule for use in t his analysis. The original acquisition cost of each site was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

Table 8.3: Existing Library Facilities Land Inventory
A B C = A x B
Facility Address
Date
Acquired Land Cost Cost Index
Replacement
Cost1
Main Library 325 Civic Center Plaza 01/01/1958 72,832 9.88 719,566$ Bay View Branch 5100 Hartnett Avenue 03/08/72 28,670 6.48 185,600 West Side Branch 135 Washington Avenue 06/15/60 25,790 9.62 248,000 Total Land Value 1,153,166$
1 Original land cost adjusted to 2022.

Source: City of Richmond; US Dept of Labor: CPI Tables; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 8.4 displays the City ’s current inventory of library collections. The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each item was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 45 Table 8.4: Existing Library Collections
Inventory Unit Cost1
Replacement
Cost
Books
Adult / Young Adult 204,180 36$ 7,350,500$ Children / Juvenile 120,152 36 4,325,500 Subtotal 324,332 11,676,000$
Multimedia
Adult / Young Adult 22,800 36$ 820,800$ Children / Juvenile 11,000 36 396,000 Subtotal 33,800 1,216,800$
Other
Bookmobile '95 International 1 184,904 184,900$ Total Library Collections 13,077,700$
1 Cost per item based on data from similar jurisdictions. 1995 Bookmobile Acquisition indexed to 2022.

Source: City of Richmond: Richmond Library Program Feb 2009; Wildan Finacial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 8.5 summarizes the planned library facilities needed to s erve the City, as identified by City staff. The City plans to rehabilitate and reconfig ure its current library so that it can increase its capacity to provide library services to existi ng and new development. The City has secured a grant to fund part of the main library reconfiguration.

Table 8.5: Planned Library Facilities
Project Cost
Main Library Project 29,933,657$
Total Project Cost 29,933,657$
Source: City of Richmond.

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 exis ting level of serv ice for each public facility, identify the proposed new lev el of service, and include an explanation of wh y the new level of service is appropria te.” Table 8.6 expresses the City’s current library facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita.

This cost per capita is used to drive the fee calculation.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 46 Table 8.6: Existing Level of Service
Existing Facilities 2,187,200$
Existing Land 1,153,166
Existing Library Collection 13,077,700
Value of Existing Facilities 16,418,066$
Existing Service Population 111,924
Facility Standard per Resident 147$
Sources: Tables 8.1 through 8.4.

Future Level of Service
Table 8.7 shows the calculation of the system facilities standard per capita for library facilities used to calculate the fees. This value is calculated by dividing the total value of all library facilities in 2040 by the total service population in 2040. The resulting standard is the cost standard that will be achieved when all the facilities are realized, and new development has come online.

Table 8.7: Library Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 16,418,066$
Cost of Planned Facilities 29,933,657
Total System Value (2040) 46,351,723$
Future Service Population (2040) 164,220
Facility Standard per Resident 282$
Sources: Tables 8.1 through 8.5.

Fee Revenue Projection
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in the City. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned facilities and some non-fee funding will be requi red. Table 8.8 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required th rough 2040. After accounting for the projected fu ture impact fee revenue, existing fund balances and grants approximately $1.2 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned facilities.

The City will anticipates funding the balance with the City’s General Capital Fund.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 47 Table 8.8: Fee Revenue Projection
Cost Per Capita 282$
Growth in Residents (2023-2040) 52,296
Estimated Fee Revenue 14,747,472$
Cost of Planned Facilities 29,933,657$
Less Projected Impact Fee Revenue 14,747,472
Less Current Impact Fee Fund Balance 143,484
Less CA Building Forward Grant 9,712,979
Less ARPA 3,656,490
Less CIP CIP (HVAC AR231) ARPA 500,000
Non-fee Funding Required 1,173,232$
Sources: Tables 8.1, 8.5, 8.6.

Fee Schedule
Table 8.9 shows the maximum justified library facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capi ta is converted to a f ee per unit of new dev elopment based on dwelli ng unit densities (per sons p er dwelling unit ). The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee i ncludes a two percent (2.0%) adm inistrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and a dministrative s upport, and fee prog ram a dministrative costs inclu ding reve nue collect ion, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the c ost of fee program ad ministration. The ad ministrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fe e updates t o ensure th at revenue generated f rom the charge sufficiently covers, b ut does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 8.9: Library Facilities Fee - Maximum Justified 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 Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential Dwelling Unit 282$ 2.72 767$ 15$ 782$ 0.54$ Sources: Tables 2.2 and 8.7.
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
3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.

48 9. Storm Drain Facilities
This chapter s ummarizes an analysis of the nee d fo r storm drain facilities to accommodate growth with in the C ity of Richmond. This projects and associated c osts in this c hapter were identified it t he City’s Storm Drain Master Plan , 2018. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new dev elopment and a storm drain fee t o fund storm drain f acilities that serve new development.

Storm Drain Demand
Most new development generates storm water ru noff that must be contro lled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation. Table 9.1 shows the calculation o f equivalent d welling unit ( EDU) demand factors based on impe rvious surface coefficient by land use category. The impervious surface coefficients are bas ed on data from the Environmental Protection Agency. EDU factors relate demand for storm drain facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.

Table 9.1: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units A B C = (43,560 / A) x B D = C / Single Family
DU or 1,000
Sq. Ft. per
acre 1
Average
Percent
Impervious
per Acre
Impervious
Square feet per
DU or 1,000 Sq.

Ft.

Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
(EDU)2
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 10.00 35% 1,525 1.00 Multifamily 25.00 80% 1,394 0.91 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 21.78 86% 1,720 1.13 Office 17.42 85% 2,125 1.39
Industrial 10.89 81% 3,240 2.12 Warehousing 10.89 81% 3,240 2.12 Note: Figures have been rounded.
1 Dw elling units for residential and thousand building square feet for nonresidential. Based on General Plan density assumptions and minimum FAR of 0.5 for commercial, 0.4 for office and 0.25 for light industrial. 2 EDUs per dw elling unit for residential development and per thousand square feet for nonresidential Sources: User’s Guide for the California Impervious Surface Coefficients, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency, December 2010. Richmond General Plan; Willdan Financial Services.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 9.2 shows t he estim ated EDU gener ation from new development t hrough 2040. New development w ill generate 49,974 new EDU s, represe nting 43.5 percent of to tal storm d rain demand in 2040.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 49 Table 9.2: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU
Factor1 Existing
Projected
Growth Existing Growth Total
Residential
Single Family 1.00 25,125 11,740 25,125 11,740 36,865 Multifamily 0.91 15,746 7,357 14,329 6,695 21,024 Subtotal 40,871 19,097 39,454 18,435 57,889 Nonresidential
Commercial 1.13 4,669 5,793 5,276 6,547 11,823 Office 1.39 2,667 3,309 3,707 4,600 8,307 Industrial 2.12 7,753 9,619 16,435 20,392 36,827 Subtotal 15,089 18,722 25,418 31,539 56,957 Total 64,872 49,974 114,846
Percent of Total 56.5% 43.5% 100%
1 Per dw elling unit (residential), thousand building square feet (nonresidential). ---------- DU or KSF---------- ---------------- EDU ---------------- Sources: Tables 2.2 and 9.1, Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 9.3 identifies the planned storm dra in facilities to be funded by the fee. The n ew storm drain facilities were all identified in the City ’s Storm Drain Master Plan. Since drainage projects will benefit both existi ng development an d new development, capacity expandi ng project s a re allocated to new develo pment based on new development ’s share of storm drain demand at the planning horizon. Projects that do not expand capacity are not allocated to the impact fee.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 50 Table 9.3: Storm Drain Capital Improvements
Proj.

No. Location Project Total Cost
Allocation To
New
Develpoment
Cost
Allocated
to Impact
Fee
1 Central Avenue - West end of Van Fleet Avenue Replace/upsize pipes upstream in storm drain system through area and increase inlet capacity. 676,000$ 43.5% 294,060$ 2 32nd Street - End of Spring Street south of
Freeway and railroad tracks Convert 32' of ditch to dual 48" RCP. 182,000 43.5% 79,170 3 8th-9th Street and Harbor Way Replace/upsize inlets to storm drain throughout area to alleviate flooding 332,000 43.5% 144,420 4 McLaughlin - Plumas Ave and San Benito St.

Add new storm drain along Plumas Ave. and upsize an
additional existing storm drain near Plumas and San Benito St. and connect to Carlson Blvd. system. Add inlets along Plumas Ave. 950,000 43.5% 413,250
5 McLaughlin - Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave Upsize inlets in Tehama and Carlson intersection. 105,000 43.5% 45,675 6 McLaughlin - Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave Upsize inlets and laterals in Tehama and Carlson intersection. 226,000 43.5% 98,310
7 McLaughlin - Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave Upsize inlets and laterals along Carlson Boulevard from Santa Cruz Avenue to Tehama Avenue. 560,000 43.5% 243,600 8 McLaughlin - Green infrastructure along Carlson
Boulevard.

Construct infiltration within the public ROW along Carlson Boulevard from Santa Cruz Avenue to Tehama Avenue. 2,215,000 43.5% 963,525 9 McLaughlin - Green infrastructure along Plumas
Avenue.

Construct infiltration within the public ROW along Plumas Avenue from San Pablo Avenue to Carlson Boulevard. 701,000 43.5% 304,935 Total 5,947,000$ 2,586,945$
Source: City of Richmond Storm Drain Master Plan 12/21/18; Willdan Financial Services.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 51 Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
This c hapter uses the planned facilities approach to calcul ate the storm drain facilities cost standard. The cost of planned facilit ies allocated to new development is divided by the gro wth in EDUs to determine a cost standard per EDU. Table 9.4 shows the facility cost standard for storm drain facilities.

Table 9.4: Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Planned Facilities Allocated to New Development 2,586,945$ Less Existing Impact Fee Fund Balance 235,671
Net Cost Allocated to New Development 2,351,274$
Growth in EDUs 49,974
Cost Allocation per EDU 47$
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for storm drain facilities is shown in Table 9.5. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU from Table 9.4 is converted to a fee p er unit of new development based on th e EDU factors shown in Table 9.1. The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) admin istrative charge to fund c osts tha t include: a standard overhead charge applied to a ll Cit y programs fo r legal, ac counting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative char ge should be reviewed and adjusted during com prehensive impact fee up dates to ensure t hat revenue generate d from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, th e administrative costs associated wi th the fee program.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 52 Table 9.5: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee 1
Admin
Fee 1,2
Total
Fee 1
Fee per Sq.

Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit4 47$ 0.97 46$ 1$ 47$ 0.03$ Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 47$ 1.13 53$ 1$ 54$ 0.05$ Office 47 1.39 65 1 66 0.07 Industrial 47 2.12 100 2 102 0.10 Warehousing 47 2.12 100 2 102 0.10 Note: KSF = 1,000 Square Feet
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.4; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2Administrative 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, 3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.

53 10. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among othe r c hanges, AB 60 2 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines f or impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When a pplicable, the ne xus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the p roposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nex us study suppo rts 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 J uly 1, 2022, s hall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the squ are footage of pro posed uni ts of the development. A loca l agency that imposes a fee pro portionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the dev elopment shall be deemed to h ave 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 improvem ent 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 categ ories are: parks, community and aquatic centers and fire protection facilities . The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita is shown in each corresponding chapter.

2. For fees calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensur e that the level of service do es not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the community/aquatic center facilities, sewer, and storm drain facilities i mpact fees. For sewers and storm drains projects were identified in the City’s various master plans as necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service.

3. For the fees calculated under the system stand ard methodology, the maximum justified fe es represent an increase in the fac ility level of service. The fees calculate d under this methodology are th e library a nd police facility fees. The increased level of serv ice is required to fund new development’s fair sha re of identified planned facilities. New development will not fun d t he entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, i t will fund a share of th e increased lev el of service represen ted by the planned facilities. The City will have to fund existing development’s share of the in crease level of service through any o ther funding so urce. The library and police facilities chapters include tables 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
The original nexus studies, fee schedules and corresponding revenue generated we re reviewed by the City and Willdan prior to conducting the nexus study analysis. The current fee schedule did not generate sufficient revenue to fully fund n ew development’s share of future needed facilities.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 54 Additionally, the City’s 2006 fee study assume d a pl anning horizon of 2025. Staff and Willdan agreed that the assumptions from the 2006 study needed to be updated to account for changes in planned development and the facilities needed to serve that development.

Table 10.1 displays annual fee revenue collected, by impact fee fund.

Table 10.1: Annual Collected Impact Fee Revenue
FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Fee Category Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals (YTD) Parks 432$ -$ -$ 23,604$ 80,256$ 26,352$ 59,220$ 3,024$ Traffic 1,042,199 163,223 1,329,544 990,507 470,727 221,218 629,841 233,605 Fire 76,404 25,665 148,752 100,785 70,690 23,442 54,797 28,992 Police 106,442 21,868 106,215 78,107 74,971 23,685 159,818 153,612 Community Centers/Aquatic 109,113 91,838 160,429 92,882 341,346 82,325 220,558 15,282 Parks/Open Space 447,963 375,929 272,270 387,278 679,474 343,270 1,158,109 63,726 Library 143,965 114,077 261,645 181,208 477,876 114,017 288,913 41,674 Storm Drain 619,556 113,542 578,597 490,117 161,910 51,701 154,376 111,219 Sewer - 60,441 238,736 715,857 764,633 202,688 511,878 176,564 Total 2,546,075$ 966,583$ 3,096,188$ 3,060,345$ 3,121,882$ 1,088,697$ 3,237,510$ 827,698$ Source: City of Richmond.

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 within each facility fee chapter. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facili ties identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study. .

55 11. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee progra m adoption procedures are fou nd in the California Governmen t Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee pr ogram requires the City Council to follow certai n procedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days pri or to the publi c hearing. The City’s legal counsel sh ould be consulted for any other procedural requiremen ts as well as advice r egarding adop tion of an enabl ing o rdinance 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 t o ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilit ies. We recomme nd that th e California Construction C ost Index (https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division- Resources-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 extens ive updates of the fee do cumentation and calculation (such as this st udy) w hen significant new data on gro wth forecas ts and /or facility pla ns become availabl e. Note that decreases in index value will result in decreases to fee amounts.

While fee updates us ing inflationary indices are ap propriate for periodic updates to ensu re that fee revenues k eep up with inc reases in the cos ts of public facil ities, the City will also n eed to conduct more exten sive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available.

Reporting Requirements
The City will comply with the annua l 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 t hese non-fee revenues is essenti al. Identification of the timing o f receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

Table 11.1 summarizes the an nual and five-year reporting req uirements i dentified in the Mitigation Fee Act.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

56 Table 11.1: Mitigation Fee Act - Annual and Five-year Administrative Requirements CA Gov't Code
Section Timing Reporting Requirements 1
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 Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 57 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan f or future infrastruct ure needs.

The CIP identifies costs and phasing fo r specific capital p rojects. The use of the CIP i n this manner docu ments a rea sonable rela tionship between new development and the us e of those revenues.

The City may d ecide to alter t he scope of the plann ed projects o r to substitute new projects if those new projects contin ue to represe nt an expansion of the City’s facilities and provide benefit to new development. If the total cost of facilities var ies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly.

58 12. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees ar e one-time fees typically paid w hen a building pe rmit is issued a nd imposed on development p rojects b y loc al age ncies responsible f or regulating lan d use (c ities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of publ ic facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee A ct (the Act) with Assembly Bi ll 1 600 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 fiv e s tatutory finding s required for ad option o f the public facilities fees docum ented in this report are pres ented in th is chapter and sup ported i n detail by the preceding chapte rs. All statutory references are to the Act.

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

Development imp act fees are designed t o ensure that new development will not b urden th e existing service population wit h the cost of fac ilities requi red to accom modate g rowth. The purpose of the f ees documented by th is re port is to provide a funding so urce fro m new development for capital improv ements to serve that develo pment. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development.

Use of Fee Revenues
▪ Identify the use to which t he fees will be p ut. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identif ied. That i dentification may, but nee d not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or sp ecific plan requi rements, or ma y be made in other public docu ments t hat identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).

Fees documented in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City’s sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility c ategories: parks and recreation faci lities community center and aquatic facilities, police facilities, fire protection facilities, library facilities, storm drain facilities, and sewer facilities.

Benefit Relationship
▪ Determine the reasonable re lationship between the fe es' us e 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, infrastructure and buildings, and purch ase of related equi pment, furnishings, ve hicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expec ted to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers assoc iated with new devel opment.

Under the A ct, fe es are not inten ded to fund planned f acilities ne eded to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.

City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 59 Burden Relationship
▪ Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilitie s and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

Facilities need is base d on a facili ty standard that re presents the demand ge nerated by new development for th ose facilities. For each facility category, demand is meas ured by a s ingle facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable rela tionship to the type of development. For some facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associa ted with re sidential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a singl e, per capita stand ard, one wor ker is wei ghted differently than one residen t base d on an analysis of t he relat ive use demand between residential and non -residential development. For other facility categories demand is e xpressed in terms of sewer flow generation or the increase in impervious surface associated with various types of development.

The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned fa cilities will partially serve the existin g service population by cor recting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fa ir share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairl y burden new development with t he cost of facilities a ssociated with serving the existing service population.

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of ho w service population an d g rowth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standard sections of each facility category chapter.

Proportionality
▪ Determine how there is a r easonable relationship b etween 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 betw een each facilities fee for a spe cific new development pr oject and t he cost of the fac ilities a ttributable t o t hat project is bas ed on the estimated new development growth th e project wil l 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 rev enue th an sma ller projects in the same land use classification. Th us, 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, Gro wth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service pop ulations or other factors are determined for diffe rent types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facili ty category chapter for a presentation of the maximum justified facilities fees.