Master Fee Schedule Update
Andrea Miller, Director of Finance
Mubeen Qader, Deputy Director of Finance
Antonio Bañuelos, Accounting Manager
City Council Meeting – May 21, 2024
Agenda
2 • Recommended Action
• Updated Fees
• Impact Fees
• Next Steps
• Questions
Recommended Action
HOLD a public hearing; and ADOPT an Ordinance
adjusting the dollar amount for proposed Developer Impact Fees using the two- and four-year phase in approach and other new user fees for services.
3 Updated Fees
• Most increasing by Employment Cost Index
• Other fees were analyzed to determine the actual cost for the City to provide that particular service
• Recreation fees left as is
4 Fee Updates –
5.0%
5 Fiscal Impact of Fee Updates
6 Departments Estimated Revenue Generated
Recreation -
Other Departments 3,478
Transportation 2,123
Police Dept 7,054
Code Enforcement 9,763
Fire Dept 16,420
Economic Development 27,734
Information Technology 31,666
Public Works 61,539
Non-Departmental 62,124
Community Development 410,099
Grand Total 632,000
Development Impact Fee Update Study
City of Richmond
May 21, 2024
What is a Development Impact Fee?
1One-time charge
Imposed at building permit stage
Imposed on all development projects
within a defined geographic area
Funds facilities to serve new development
8 Mitigation Fee Act Findings (Govt. Code §66001)
Key findings
Need: Development creates need for facilities
Benefit: Development use of revenue
Rough Proportionality: Fee amount development’s
share of facility costs (i.e. proportional to demand)
Other findings
Purpose of fee
Use of fee revenue
9 Requires local jurisdictions to make certain
information available on website:
Current impact fee schedule
Nexus studies
Annual AB1600 reports
Five-Year AB1600 reports
Changes to impact fee adoption process:
Prior to adoption of development fees,
an impact fee nexus study needs to be
adopted with 30 days notice
Technical changes:
Residential fees should be charged
per square foot, unless findings are
supported that justify another
metric
Large jurisdictions shall adopt a
capital improvement plan as a part
of the nexus study
Nexus study should identify level of
service
If fees are increasing, review the
assumptions of the original nexus
study and evaluate the amount of
fees collected under the original fee
AB 602
Impact Fees – Basic Methodology
ESTIMATE
EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT
AND FUTURE
GROWTH
IDENTIFY FACILITY
STANDARDS
DETERMINE NEW
FACILITY NEEDS
AND COSTS
ALLOCATE SHARE
TO
ACCOMMODATE
GROWTH
IDENTIFY
ALTERNATIVE
FUNDING NEEDS
CALCULATE FEE BY
ALLOCATING
COSTS PER UNIT
OF NEW
DEVELOPMENT
11 Impact Fee Categories
Sewer Facilities
Parks
Community / Aquatic Center
Police Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Library Facilities
Storm Drains
**Note that Richmond Traffic Impact Fees are not being updated at this time.
Changes to Report Since Last Version
Revised worker demand factor for fire protection facilities fee using latest incident data from the fire department Growth Projections
2023 2040 Increase
Residents 111,924 164,220 52,296
Dwelling Units 40,871 59,968 19,097
Employment 27,587 61,815 34,228
Sources: CA DOF; ABAG; US Census’ OnTheMap Application
14 Cost Allocation Methods:
WHAT Facilities Serve WHO
PLANNED FACILITIES
Planned Facilities
New Demand
SYSTEM PLAN
Existing + Planned Facilities
Existing + New Demand
EXISTING INVENTORY
Existing Facilities
Existing Demand
Cost Allocation Methodologies
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Facility Demand Facility Needs
Existing
Demand
Future
Demand
Existing Inventory Method
New
Facilities
Existing
Facilities
Fee $
System Plan Method
(Increase Service Level)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Future
Demand
Growth
Share
Existing
Deficiency
Existing
Demand
Existing
Facilities
Facility Needs
New
Facilities
Facility Demand
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Future
Demand
New
Facilities
Demand Facility Needs
Planned Facilities Method
16 Fee Program Methodologies
Parks
Community / Aquatic
Centers
Fire Protection Facilities
Existing Standard
Police Facilities
Libraries
System Plan
Sewer
Storm Drain
Planned Facilities
17 Planned Facilities
18 Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
Community Centers Storm Drain Facilities
Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center $ 15,000,000 Central Avenue - West end of Van Fleet Avenue $ 676,000 32nd Street - End of Spring Street south of Freeway and railroad tracks 182,000
Police Facilities 8th-9th Street and Harbor Way 332,000 New Police Station $ 80,000,000 Plumas Ave and San Benito St. 950,000 Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave 105,000
Fire Facilities Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave 226,000
Training Tower at New Facility $ 800,000 Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave 560,000 Fire Department Regional Training Center 2,000,000 Green infrastructure along Carlson Boulevard. 2,215,000 Total Fire Facilities $ 2,800,000 Green infrastructure along Plumas Avenue. 701,000 Total Storm Drain Facilities $ 5,947,000
Library Facilities
New Library $ 30,330,577 Sewer Facilities
1.5 Dewatering Facility $ 12,135,200
Parks 2.1 Level 1 Nutrient Removal Improvements 1,712,200 Acquisition and Improvement of 150.61 Parkland Acres $ 303,328,000 2.10 Site Protection from Rock Slides 2,140,200
2.11 Low-Lift Effluent Pump Station 7,847,500
3.1 Level 2 Nutrient Removal Improvements 195,760,500
3.2 Level 3 Nutrient Removal Improvements 120,281,400
3.3 Wet Weather Improvements 193,049,500
3.4 Digested Sludge Storage (to support dewatering) 8,703,600
3.5 Biosolids Post-Processing (Dryer Facility) 42,519,400 Total Sewer Facilities $ 584,149,500
Projected Impact Fee Revenue
19 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 20,550,400 20,550,400 - Library Facilities2 System Standard 30,330,577 14,904,360 15,426,217 Storm Drains Planned Facility Standard 5,947,000 2,586,945 3,360,055 Total $1,058,088,677 $ 636,910,509 $421,178,168
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.
1 Fee revenue shown if all development is infill development. Refer to Table 4.5 for projections of Quimby in-lieu fee revenue. 2 The City has secured $14.3 million in grants to fund the planned facilities. The remainder will be funded through the City's Ge neral Capital Fund. See Table
8.7 for more detail.
Maximum Justified Impact Fee Schedule
20 Land Use
Sewer
Facilities1
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 $ 0.40 $ 0.54 $ 0.03 $ 22.49 $ 22.20 Nonresidential - per Sq. Ft.
Commercial $ 3.55 $ - $ - $ - $ 0.35 $ 0.61 $ 0.06 $ 0.05 $ 4.62 $ 4.62 Office 4.43 - - - 0.54 0.94 0.10 0.07 6.08 6.08
Industrial 7.09 - - - 0.19 0.34 0.03 0.10 7.75 7.75 Warehousing 7.09 - - - 0.06 0.10 0.01 0.10 7.36 7.36 1 Only charged within Richmond Municipal Sewer District Boundaries. 2 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.
Staff Recommendation: Residential – Phase In Increases Over Four Years 21 Residential - Four Year Phase In
Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Parks - Quimby (Subdivisions) 4.39$ 6.12$ 7.85$ 9.58$ 11.32$ Parks (Infill) 4.39 6.05 7.71 9.37 11.03 Community / Aquatic Center 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.23 Police Facilities 0.25 0.44 0.63 0.82 0.99 Fire Protection Facilities 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.40 Library Facilities 1.19 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Storm Drains 0.45 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Sewer Facilities 2.29 3.71 5.13 6.55 7.98 Total (Subdivisions) 9.92$ 12.27$ 15.69$ 19.11$ 22.49$ Total (Infill) 9.92$ 12.20$ 15.55$ 18.90$ 22.20$ Staff Recommendation: Nonresidential – Phase In Increases Over Two Years 22 Nonresidential - Two Year Phase In
Current Year 1 Year 2
Office
Police Facilities 0.30$ 0.42$ 0.54$
Fire Facilities 0.26 0.60 0.94
Library 0.42 0.10 0.10
Storm Drainage 0.74 0.07 0.07
Sewer 2.32 3.38 4.43
Total 4.04$ 4.57$ 6.08$
Industrial
Police Facilities 0.11$ 0.15$ 0.19$
Fire Facilities 0.19 0.27 0.34
Library 0.18 0.03 0.03
Storm Drainage 0.79 0.10 0.10
Sewer 1.14 4.12 7.09
Total 2.41$ 4.67$ 7.75$
Warehousing
Police Facilities 0.11$ 0.06$ 0.06$
Fire Facilities 0.19 0.10 0.10
Library 0.05 0.01 0.01
Storm Drainage 0.79 0.10 0.10
Sewer 1.14 4.12 7.09
Total 2.28$ 4.39$ 7.36$
Comparison: Single Family Residential – 1,600 Sq. Ft.
23 $-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
Oakland
(Low)
Berkeley Oakland
(High)
Concord
(Low)
Richmond
(Current)
Concord
(High)
San
Leandro
(Low)
Hayward Richmond
(Maximum
Justified)
San
Leandro
(High)
Comparison: Multifamily – 20 Units
24 $-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
Oakland
(Low)
Berkeley
(Low)
Oakland
(High)
San Leandro
(Low)
San Leandro
(High)
Concord
(Low)
Hayward Richmond
(Current)
Concord
(High)
Richmond
(Draft)
Comparison: Commercial – 15,000 Sq. Ft. Retail
25 $-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
Hayward Oakland San Leandro
(Low)
Concord Berkeley Richmond
(Current)
San Leandro
(High)
Richmond
(Maximum
Justified)
Comparison: Industrial – 100,000 Sq. Ft.
26 $-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
San Leandro
(Low)
Oakland Concord Berkeley Richmond
(Current)
Hayward San Leandro
(High)
Richmond
(Maximum
Justified)
Credit Policy
• A public facility or improvement must be included on the current adopted list of public improvements and facilities for the applicable to be considered eligible for credits toward future Impact Fees.
• Fee Credits will apply only to the “cost of the improvements,” not the related financing costs.
• Costs incurred for work not directly related to improvement of a thoroughfare will not be eligible for credit. Specifically excluded from credit calculations are costs of contaminated soils removal or remediation. • Credits shall be awarded only upon receipt of satisfactory documentation that
(i) the improvement is completed; or
(ii) land has been conveyed to and accepted by the City; or (iii) that funds for the improvement are in escrow; or
(iv) that a construction contract for the improvement has been executed; or (v) that a performance bond approved by the City Attorney has been posted to ensure completion.
27 Next Steps
• Hold public hearing to consider adoption of nexus study and fee schedules (Tonight)
• Transportation impact fee study
• Completion of Long-Range Transportation Infrastructure Planning Study by end of calendar year
• Updated Transportation impact fee study to City Council in Spring of 2025 • Staff to return in June 2024 with proposed contract with vendor for Recreation Fee Study
28. Recommended Action
HOLD a public hearing; and ADOPT an Ordinance
adjusting the dollar amount for proposed Developer Impact Fees using the two- and four-year phase in approach and other new user fees for services.
29 Thank you
Questions/Comments?
30