City Council and Authorities Concurrent
April 19, 2022

Business Expense Reimbursement Policy
Table of Contents
Overview .......................................................................................................................................2 Business Purpose ........................................................................................................................2 Travel Expenses ...........................................................................................................................3 Mileage.........................................................................................................................................................3 Airfare, Hotel, Rental Cars ........................................................................................................................3 Airfare...........................................................................................................................................................3 Hotel..............................................................................................................................................................3 Airport Transportation ................................................................................................................................4 Rental Cars..................................................................................................................................................4 Meal Reimbursement.................................................................................................................................4 Business Entertainment ..............................................................................................................5 Personal Travel Expenses ...........................................................................................................5 Team Outings/Offsite Events.......................................................................................................5 Employee Gifting..........................................................................................................................6 Office Equipment, FF&E ..............................................................................................................6

Overview
The following provides an update on our business expense processes and reimbursement policies for business travel and other expenses.

The Business Expense Reimbursement Policy provides guidelines to reimburse staff for reasonable and necessary business expenses. All expense reports must be submitted through Concur. Please be timely in submitting your reimbursement request; reimbursements should be submitted within 60 days.

As a general guideline, an expense must meet the following criteria to qualify for reimbursement. The expense should be:

1. Necessary for the employee to perform their job and documented as such, and

2. Reasonable in cost – as always, common sense prevails To streamline the process, employees will now book all airfare exclusively through Concur Travel.

To assist with travel arrangements, we have added a dedicated travel resource who can assist with needs related to business travel. The travel service can be reached at [email protected].

Employee expense reimbursements will no longer be accepted for air travel booked outside of the Concur Travel system. This update applies only to air travel and has no impact on hotel, auto, etc. As a reminder, your supervisor with budget authority must pre-approve airfare and hotel reservations.

Additionally, the importance of documenting a clear and concise business purpose for each expense line item cannot be overstated. The business purpose should be stated clearly and should relate directly to the employee’s job responsibilities. This is necessary to help accounting determine the appropriate disposition of individual expense reimbursements. Failure to provide sufficient documentation will resultin a delay in reimbursement. Below are general guidelines on the information that should be included when submitting expenses for reimbursement:

Business Purpose
When an expense report is submitted, you must provide a clear and detailed business purpose to supportthe expense.

Examples:
• Why was the expense incurred?
• What was purchased?
• What type of event does the business purpose relate to? • When/where was the event?
• Please avoid using acronyms in the business purpose field.

The business purpose must be entered for each expense line on your Concur report. If there is not enoughroom, please continue your explanation in the Comments field. Incomplete information will delay reimbursement.

Travel Expenses
The Concur tool helps make managing business travel less time consuming. Concur will also help employees stay in compliance with the travel expense policies. As noted above, it is important for you to state a clear business purpose for all reimbursement requests.

Mileage: Mileage reimbursement is based on the maximum IRS standard mileage rate (56 cents per mile as of January 1, 2021) for use of a personal vehicle to travel from your normal place of work to another location for work (e.g., the airport for business travel). Current mileage rates can be found at https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-rates. • As a reminder, mileage from home to Levi’s Stadium (i.e., normal commute) is not reimbursableper IRS guidelines. Mileage to and from a temporary place of work (meeting or conference) is reimbursable, less the mileage of the employee’s normal commute.

Airfare, Hotel, Rental Cars: As noted above, airfare accommodations can only be booked through Concur via our travel partner, Direct Travel ([email protected]). Please work with Direct Travel or the individual in your department responsible for booking travel for assistance.

Airfare: Ensure that your Concur Profile is up to date with your legal name, address, DOB, and Travel Preference section filled out. Business purpose should be stated clearly as mentioned above. Some guidelines when booking airfare:
• The lowest coach/economy airfare with major carriers that works for the employee’s travel schedule should be booked.
• Business Class and First-Class flights are not permitted. The only exception is if such travel is pre-approved by the President before purchase. • Have flights booked as far in advance as possible to get reasonable fares. • Any airfare of $500 or more requires pre-approval by your supervisor with budget authority. • Avoid booking flights and hotels based primarily on frequent flyer accounts if the cost is not reasonably close to comparable alternatives. Fees for airport clubs or frequent flyer programs are not reimbursable.
• Submit receipts for baggage fees, Wi-Fi, meals, etc.

Note: Airfare booked through Concur & Direct Travel will be paid by the Company directly. The employeewill not need to submit an expense report for airfare.

Hotel: If needed, email [email protected] for booking assistance. The itemized hotel folio must be submitted; a hotel confirmation or other receipt showing payment is not considered to be sufficient documentation for reimbursement by the IRS. • Hotel stays must be pre-approved by the budget manager. While high hotel costs are occasionallyunavoidable (e.g., NFL-mandated meetings in NYC), as a general guideline, hotel stays for business travel should not exceed $250 per night (plus taxes & fees). Attach supervisor email approval when submitting your expense report. • Hotel stays can be booked via Concur. Unlike Concur’s partnership with airlines through which the Company can pay airfare directly, hotels cannot be paid through Concur.

Employees will pay for their own hotel stay and submit an expense report for reimbursement.
• Hotel stays for a conference in the Bay Area are generally not reimbursable.

• Other hotel expenses:
o Parking – please self-park rather than valet whenever self-parking is available. o Room service – see Meal Reimbursement policy below.
o Phone calls - reasonable phone charges are reimbursable if the employee has not beenissued a company phone. Avoid excessive hotel long-distance charges.

Airport Transportation: In general, the mode of transportation used should be the most economical one suitable for the purpose of the trip.
• Mileage and economy parking will be reimbursed if parking at a Bay Area airport for businesstravel.
• Please use a shuttle, ride sharing service, or BART if the round-trip cost is less than economyparking at the airport.

Rental Cars:
• In general, the mode of transportation used should be the most economical one suitable for thepurpose of the trip.
• When renting a car, employees should use the 49ers rental company accounts through Concur,unless these options are not available.
• As a general guideline, rentals should be mid-sized or full-sized cars. Please use your judgment and consider Lyft and Uber as alternative options. • Employees booking rental cars through Concur can have the rental direct billed to the 49ers ifusing Hertz or Avis.
• If not booked through Concur, the employee will be responsible for the charges and will need to submit an expense report for reimbursement.
• Do not accept any insurance on rental vehicles – these charges will not be reimbursed. • Please fill the vehicle with gas prior to returning it to avoid excessive “fill-up” charges added to the rental.
• Please reserve rental cars well in advance due to the high demand and lack of supply in the current market.

Meal Reimbursement:
• The employee in attendance who has the highest level of authority in a group should always pay for the expense (e.g., if a VP and a Director are at a business meal, the VP should pay). • Staff meals are reimbursable up to a maximum of $76 per full day ($18 maximum for breakfast, $22 maximum for lunch and $36 maximum for dinner). • Itemized receipts are required for reimbursement. Missing receipts will result in reimbursement delay.
• Overages for meals in certain high-cost cities will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Employees should note the business purpose of the meal, including the name/company of the person(s) in attendance, and submit the itemized receipt.

Business Entertainment
Business meals include reasonable amounts spent on food and other refreshments purchased in surroundings conducive to and including a business discussion with existing or prospective customers.

Entertainment expenses are reimbursable only if the entertainment will directly benefit Forty Niners Stadium Management Company or one of its clients (e.g SCSA, StadCo, etc.)., or if it directly precedes or follows a substantial and bona fide business discussion for the purposes of obtaining income or another business benefit.

Business entertainment expenses include, but are not limited to, such items as the cost of meals and beverages, and the cost of transportation directly related to the above.

If the employee is dining with others for business purposes, the meal and related expenses incurred are “entertainment,” not “meals.”
• “Entertainment” expenses require additional explanation on the expense reimbursement report.
• The expense report will include date, names of individuals, titles, and companies, as well as the business purpose (for example: “Lunch with SBL Customer prospect”. This will allow Accounting to charge the expense to the correct client. • The most senior employee present should pay all business entertainment expenses.

Employees should always use their judgment and common sense when charging business meals and entertainment expenses.

Personal Travel Expenses
• As a reminder, airfare along with other personal travel expenses should not be booked on Concur or requested as a payroll deduction (AR1). Any such personal expenses (flights, hotel, meals, incidentals, etc.) should be paid directly by the employee (e.g., personal expenses incurred during hotel stay should be paid to hotel by employee via personal credit card). The only exception to the above is if personal expenses are preapproved for payroll deduction via email by President AND the employee’s VP level manager. Personal expenses can also be pre-approved for payroll deduction by President AND ownership.

Team Outings/Offsite Events
• Team outings should be pre-approved by the budget manager and department VP prior to booking hotel and airfare.
• Expenses for the outing/event should follow the guidelines set above regarding hotel, airfare,meals, etc.

Employee Gifting
• Recognition for employees in the form of company gifts is administered through our Human Resources (HR) department. Expenses submitted for any “company” gifts that are not part of an HR initiative cannot be reimbursed. This includes gifts given in recognition of personal events or achievements unrelated to work (e.g., birthdays, weddings, baby showers) or in recognition of holidays (e.g., holiday gifts for employees are coordinated through HR).
• Please avoid using gift cards as incentives or employee gifts for work-related achievement. Gift cards and other non-cash gifts should be viewed as income and are taxable to the employee, even though they are not “cash.” Office Equipment, FF&E
• Purchases of furniture, fixtures and equipment should be coordinated through your department VP and facilities (Bill Howell for SAP Performance Center or Stadium Operations for stadium purchases) and/or IT (computers and handheld devices).

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Please contact Esther Chi, Vice President, Controller or Chris Steele, Director, Accounting if you have any questions regarding the policy.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-510 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Report from the Stadium Authority for Action on Request from the Stadium Manager to Incur Charges for the June 15-18, 2022 Event and Arena Marketing Conference in Minneapolis, MN and Travel for the May 28-29, 2022 Grupo Firme Concerts at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, CA

BOARD PILLAR
Ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s Stadium

BACKGROUND
Through the Stadium Management Agreement, the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company (Stadium Manager) manages and operates Levi’s Stadium on behalf of the Stadium Authority for Non -National Football League (Non-NFL) events, like concerts, sporting events, and non-ticketed events.

On behalf of the Stadium Authority, the Stadium Manager is responsible for the marketing and booking of Non-NFL events among other duties at Levi’s Stadium.

The Stadium Manager is required to develop an annual Marketing Plan to outline the Stadium Manager’s plans to develop, implement, and monitor marketing, booking, advertising and promotion of Non-NFL Events for Levi’s Stadium. The Marketing Plan needs to be mutually agreed upon by the Stadium Manager and the Stadium Authority. On March 15, 2022, the Stadium Authority Board noted and filed the 2022 Marketing Plan.

Separately, on September 17, 2019, the Stadium Authority Board approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 2005, which rescinded the Executive Director’s delegated purchasing authority and requires all contracts or agreements to acquire supplies, materials, equipment and services to require Board approval by amending Chapter 17.30 of the Santa Clara City Code. On October 8, 2019, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2005, which became effective on November 8, 2019. As a result of the Board’s revocation of the Executive Director’s authority to procure good and services on behalf of the Stadium Authority as of November 8, 2019, the Stadium Manager must now seek approval from the Board and demonstrate that the Stadium Manager has properly and legally procured goods and services before contracts may be executed.

The Stadium Manager is requesting approval for the following Non-NFL event marketing activities:
· June 15-18, 2022 Event and Arena Marketing Conference in Minneapolis, MN: Authorization to incur charges up to $4,800 to cover registration fees ($800), travel expenses ($2,000), and potential client entertainment ($2,000) for one Stadium Manager employee; and · May 28-30, 2022 travel for the May 28-29 Grupo Firme concerts at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, CA: Authorization to incur charges up to $2,900 to cover travel expenses ($2,400) and potential client entertainment ($500) for two Stadium Manager employees.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-510 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
If approved, the cost for this activity will be charged to the FY 2022/23 Non-NFL Marketing budget for Ticketed Event) Dues and Subscriptions/Registration Fees, Networking and Entertainment, and Attending Conferences, Events, Client/Prospect Meetings line items.

DISCUSSION
Staff reviewed the Stadium Manager’s email request (attached to corresponding report #22-509) against the 2022 Marketing Plan. The requested marketing activity aligns with one of the key initiatives (“Continued proactive outreach, networking, and relationship building”) that are identified.

In the 2022 Marketing Plan, the Stadium Manager states that it plans to continue being proactive with networking and relationship building with key players in the live entertainment industry, which includes repeat visits and touch points to promoters. It also plans to maintain top of mind and relevant within the industry and decision makers by booking in person meetings with executives and attending conferences for networking opportunities. The Stadium Manager notes that it will strive to be proactive in looking for new marquee events and revenue generating opportunities to bring to the City of Santa Clara.

The travel and expense costs related to the requests will follow the Stadium Manager’s Business Expense Reimbursement Policy. As part of a previous request to incur charges for marketing-related conferences and meetings, the Stadium Manager explained that alcohol consumption is a part of the business marketing that they utilize to pursue Non-NFL events. While the use of public funds for alcohol consumption is generally not permitted by public agencies, the legislative body of the public agency can authorize this business expense. Therefore, there is an appropriate Board recommendation transmitted in this report to authorize the use of public funds to cover alcohol consumption for the request to approve potential client entertainment submitted by the Stadium Manager. Further, the Stadium Authority should be covered for the risk or liability arising from auto accidents or other such losses occurring at any of these marketing events (including liability arising from consumption of alcohol) pursuant to the Indemnification Clause in Article 12 of the Management Agreement.

Based on this review, staff recommends approval of the request to incur charges for registration fees, travel expenses, and potential client entertainment, including alcohol, for the described conference.

The Stadium Authority will require full supporting documentation before respectively releasing public funds upon procurement of registration fees, travel expenses, and client entertainment. This requirement is consistent with the Stadium Authority Board’s March 27, 2019 direction to staff to stop payment of any additional invoices for services unless there is substantial documentation of services rendered which must also be in compliance with State law and City Code.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The actions being considered do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment or pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Stadium Authority FY 2022/23 Non-NFL Marketing budget contains $55,000 for Ticketed Events.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-510 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
There are sufficient funds to cover the Stadium Manager’s request to incur up to $7,700 for the conference and concerts.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Stadium Authority Counsel and Stadium Treasurer’s Offices.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected].

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the Stadium Manager’s request to incur charges up to $4,800 for the June 15-18, 2022 Event and Arena Marketing Conference in Minneapolis, MN to cover registration fees, travel expenses, and potential client entertainment for one Stadium Manager employee; and

2. Approve the Stadium Manager’s request to incur charges up to $2,900 to cover travel expenses and potential client entertainment, for two Stadium Manager employees to travel between May 28- 30, 2022 for the May 28-29 Grupo Firme concerts at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, CA.

Reviewed by: Christine Jung, Assistant to the Executive Director Approved by: Office of the City Manager
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-302 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Resolution Establishing the Average Per-Acre Land Values in order to set the Parkland In -Lieu Fees for FY2022/23 for New Residential Development

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Sports, Recreational and Arts Assets

BACKGROUND
In July 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.1928 which added Chapter 17.35 “Park and Recreational Land” to the Santa Clara City Code (Code) that requires new residential developments to provide developed park and recreational land and/or pay a fee in-lieu of dedication (“In-Lieu Fees”) pursuant to the Quimby Act (“Quimby”) and/or the Mitigation Fee Act (“MFA”). The Code requires that land values be used in the calculation of the In-Lieu Fees. The City completes its annual land valuation study in accordance with City Code Section 17.35.040 and Supplemental Instructions approved by Council June 7, 2016. The appraisal reports have a valuation date of December 31 (full calendar year January 1 to December 31) and include the average value of an acre of land for each of the three residential ZIP Code areas of the City (95050, 95051, and 95054). The land valuation report is posted on the City website for a two-week public comment period and persons interested in this subject are notified. The purpose of this memorandum is to share the findings of the land valuation report and recommend corresponding updates to the Parkland In-Lieu Fee Schedule for FY2022/23.

DISCUSSION
In March 2022, the City of Santa Clara completed its annual land valuation study by Frank Schmidt & Associates with a valuation date of December 31, 2021 (Attachment 1). Table 1 below provides the 2021 valuation for the City’s three residential zip code areas along with prior years’ values for comparison.

Table 1 Average Land Value per Acre
Area 12-31-2021 12-31-2020 % Diff 12-31-2019 12-31-2017 12-31-2016 95050 $5,715,000 $4,720,000 21.0% $4,385,000 $3,738,000 $3,315,000 95051 $6,000,000 $5,120,000 17.2% $4,630,000 $3,993,000 $3,583,000 95054 $5,495,000 $4,830,000 13.8% $4,495,000 $4,035,000 $3,669,000 Note: Land valuation portion of In-lieu Fees were not
raised in 2018 and 2019.

Proposed Fees
City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 5 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-302 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
This report proposes to establish the average per-acre land values (Attachment 2) in order to set the Parkland In-Lieu Fee Schedule for FY2022/23. The proposed Parkland In-Lieu Fees have been incorporated into the Municipal Fee Schedule and will be considered during the Public Hearing for the approval of the Municipal Fee Schedule, RTC-22-99. The proposed fees are in conformance with Council Resolution No.19-8769 (Attachment 3) adopted on October 29, 2019 which directed staff to “phase in the park improvement cost increase of $2,664 (from $807 to 3,471) per capita over a fouryear period increasing 25% ($666) per year and continue to adjust the land valuation (increase/decrease) fee component each year based on the annual land appraisal at 100% cost recovery.” The Council, at the time, also directed staff to evaluate the effects of the policy and the potential use of a cost escalation factor.

The prior Council policy of using the 2017 land valuation data for a two-year period and the “phase in” of the 2018 park improvement values resulted in an estimated net loss/reduction of Park In-Lieu Fees in the amount of approximately $4,583,000, based on actual projects. It is important to note that while the increase in park improvement value was phased in over a four-year period, construction costs continued to increase an additional 21.1% (22.3% compounded) over the same four-year period (2018-2021) based on the State of California, Department of General Services Construction Cost Index reported by the Real Estate Services Division. Council had asked staff to review the use of a cost escalation factor and its potential effect on the park construction value used by the City in the calculation of the park in lieu fees. Had a cost escalation factor been implemented, the park improvement/construction value now used would be $4,246 per capita in today’s dollars, or an additional $775.49 per capita. Staff is not recommending implementation of a cost escalation factor at this time, but simply providing the information as a point of reference for Council policy consideration.

Staff will revisit the issue annually.

Table 2 Park Improvements/Construction Cost Escalation 2018 - 2021 2018 2019 2020 2021
+1.3% +3.6% +2.8% +13.4%
$3,471 $3,516 $3,643 $3745 $4,246
The proposed In-Lieu Fees are calculated based on the 2021 average cost of land ($5.715 million per acre in 95050, $6.000 million per acre in 95051, and $5.495 million per acre in 95054), and 100% of the 2018 per capita cost for park construction/ improvements ($3,471). If adopted, the In-Lieu Fees would increase between 15.4% and 21.6% depending upon the area of Santa Clara, the housing type (single family/multifamily), and whether the residential project is subject to Quimby or MFA.

Table 3 below provides a comparison of the current and proposed fees.

Table 3 Proposed In-Lieu Fees
Housing Quimby MFA
Area Type Current Proposed % Diff. Current Proposed % Diff. 95050 SF $51,567 $62,664 21.5% $45,828 $55,716 21.6%
MULTI $41,530 $50,468 $36,908 $44,872
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 5 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-302 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022 Table 3 Proposed In-Lieu Fees Housing Quimby MFA
Area Type Current Proposed % Diff. Current Proposed % Diff. 95050 SF $51,567 $62,664 21.5% $45,828 $55,716 21.6%
MULTI $41,530 $50,468 $36,908 $44,872
95051 SF $55,214 $65,263 18.2% $48,989 $57,968 18.3%
MULTI $44,468 $52,561 $39,454 $46,686
95054 SF $52,570 $60,658 15.4% $46,697 $53,977 15.6%
MULTI $42,338 $48,852 $37,609 $43,472
Developer/Appraiser Comments
The Annual Land Valuation appraisal report was posted on the City website for the ten-day review period (April 4, 2022 to April 14, 2022). Members of the public and development community were invited to review and comment.

Fee Implementation
In conformance with State law, the proposed City of Santa Clara 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule Resolution, attached to RTC 22-99, provides the required findings and implementation dates of fees for projects subject to Quimby (immediately after adoption of the Parkland In-Lieu Fee Resolution), and projects subject to MFA (no sooner that 60 days after adoption of the Parkland In-Lieu Fee Resolution).

Based on a public hearing date of April 19, 2022 and Council policy direction to implement fees no sooner than the new Fiscal Year on July 1, 2022, the Quimby In-Lieu Fees would apply to new residential housing projects with applications deemed complete on or after July 1, 2022; and, the MFA In-Lieu Fees would apply to new residential projects with applications deemed complete on or after July 1, 2022. For applications deemed complete prior to July 1, 2022, the existing In-Lieu Fees adopted in Resolution No. 21-8970 (Attachment 4) will apply.

Summary
On April 1, 2022, the City of Santa Clara completed its 2021 annual land valuation report with a valuation date of December 31, 2021. The prior land valuation report for 2020 had a valuation date of December 31, 2020. This report follows the established Council approved process and simply updates the land values used in the Parkland In-Lieu Fee calculations to reflect changes in the market. The use of older/lower land values results in City cost recovery of less than 100%, and a financial subsidy for new housing development, and creates a significant challenge for the acquisition and development of new public parkland and recreational amenities. Since several approved Specific Plans such as Lawrence Station, Tasman East, and Patrick Henry Drive, all require less public parkland dedication than the existing City park standards of 2.6 to 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents, setting In-Lieu Fees at 100% cost recovery is essential for mitigating the impact of new residential housing on the City’s existing park system and for providing adequate public parkland at the existing standards as a matter of park access and equity. If not, adequate public parkland will not be present within the highest density neighborhoods within the City. Neighborhood and community parks are essential to the quality of life in Santa Clara.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 5 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-302 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve commitment to a specific project which may result in potential significant impact on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The actual amount of Parkland In-Lieu Fee revenue collected will vary based on the project application type (Quimby/MFA), the area of the City (Zip codes 95050, 95051, 95054), the density of housing units (multifamily versus single family), the amount of public parkland dedicated, and the amount of financial credit developers receive for eligible on-site private open space and recreation amenities (which can reduce remaining fees due by 50%-65%). Since the exact number and type of new housing units to be built in any particular year is unknown, and the amount of parkland to be dedicated by a particular residential developer is also unknown, the exact amount of In-Lieu Fee revenues cannot be projected at this time.

However, when the In Lieu Fee Policy is set at 100% cost recovery, the In-Lieu Fee program will recover 100% of the costs necessary to provide new residents with developed public parkland and recreational amenities at the same level of service as provided to existing residents. If fees are set at less than 100% cost recovery, additional funds from the General Fund or other sources of capital will be needed to fill the funding gap, or the level of service will decline. Over time, the City will need to identify other funding sources for acquisition and development of new parkland in order to maintain current park system standards of 2.6 to 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents of adequately developed parkland and sufficient recreational facilities. Without sufficient parkland and facilities, there is increased demand on existing, older facilities which causes additional wear, earlier/more frequent repair/renewal, and higher maintenance and capital replacement costs.

COORDINATION
This agreement has been coordinated with the Community Development Department, the Finance Department and the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to establish the Average Per-Acre Land Values in order to set the Parkland InLieu Fees for FY2022/23 for New Residential Development in accordance with Title 17 (“Development”) Chapter 35 (“Park and Recreational Land”) of the City Code using the December 31, 2021 land valuation report.

Prepared by: James Teixeira, Director of Parks & Recreation Approved by: Office of the City Manager

ATTACHMENTS
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 5 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-302 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022

1. Land Valuation Appraisal Report dated December 31, 2021

2. Resolution - Average Per-Acre Land Values

3. Resolution No. 19-8769

4. Resolution No. 21-8970
City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 5 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™

ANNUAL LAND VALUATION APPRAISAL REPORT

VALUATION OF
The Average per Acre Land Value of High-Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential, Low-Density Residential, Very Low-Density Residential, Commercial, &Industrial Properties Located in Three Zip Codes (95050, 95051, and 95054)
City of Santa Clara, California
Santa Clara County

PREPARED FOR
Mr. James Teixeira, Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

PREPARED BY
Frank E. Schmidt, MAI, SRA
Frank Schmidt & Associates

EFFECTIVE DATE OF VALUE OPINION
December 31, 2021
Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] April 1, 2022
Mr. James Teixeira, Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Re: Annual Land Valuation Appraisal Report
Average Value of Three Hypothetical 1-Acre Lots,
One for Each Zip Code Comprising 95050, 95051, and 95054 Santa Clara, California, U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Teixeira:

Pursuant to your request, I have completed the annual land valuation appraisal to aid the City of Santa Clara in establishing park impact fees. Following this letter of transmittal is my appraisal and analysis opining the value of a hypothetical 1-acre lot in each of the City’s three zip codes.

In June 2016 the City of Santa Clara City Council approved Supplemental Instructions for the Appraisal of the Fair Market Value of land used in the Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee. These supplemental instructions and guidelines for the Appraisal are displayed in the Addenda. One of the supplemental instructions was that the valuation date occurs each year on December 31.

Since the date of my opinion of value, December 31, 2021 precedes the date I wrote and transmitted this appraisal by about 3 months, this is considered a retrospective appraisal as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Since this is a retrospective value, it is important to note that I only considered data that was available and/or public as of the date of value. The exception to this was the 2021 land area data provided by Old Republic Title Company which was not available until March 2022, and some brokerage reports published in January 2022, but containing 2021 data.

I have appraised the subject of this appraisal numerous times since 2014, and most recently with a date of opinion of December 31, 2021. Based on land area, in 2020 about 43% of all the transactions sold in the preceding 12 months were categorized as industrial and commercial, and the other 57% were categorized as residential. In 2021, approximately 42% of all transactions sold in the preceding 12 months were industrial and commercial, while 58% were categorized as residential. Because residential unit values are greater than commercial and industrial, this resulted in higher concluded values for each zip code in 2021 compared to 2020.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 2 To complete this appraisal, I conducted an investigation, gathered data, and made the analyses necessary to enable me to fulfill the purpose of this assignment, which was to estimate the fair market value of a hypothetical 1-acre lot comprising components of high-density residential, medium-density residential, low-density residential, very low-density residential, commercial, and industrial, to form and report the average value per acre of land in the three existing Zip Codes in the City of Santa Clara consisting of 95050, 95051, and 95054. The average value was established using the weighted average of these different property types, based on the percentage of total land area associated with the different property types that sold in the City of Santa Clara in the 12 months prior to the date of value and based on land area data provided by Old Republic Title Company.

I understand that this Appraisal Report is intended for use by the Client, the City of Santa Clara, for assistance in determining park impact fees.

The COVID-19 pandemic had various affects on local real estate markets in 2021. The December 9, 2021 UCLA Anderson Forecast states that “Since March 2020, the state of the COVID-19 pandemic has determined the course of the economy nationally and across California. With each successive wave, the economy has grown more resilient to the effects of the virus, but by the end of 2020, it became clear that consumer behavior, not government restrictions, had the greatest effect on economic outcomes.” Further discussion of the COVID-19 effects are presented throughout this report.

Hypothetical Conditions, Extraordinary Assumptions, and Contingencies Hypothetical Condition is defined as “a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.”1I supposed the following hypothetical conditions:
 The fair market value was estimated based on different land value components applied to a hypothetical lot. It was a hypothetical condition of this appraisal that the subject lot was a finished lot and rated average in all other physical, locational, and legal aspects.  Since the hypothetical lot will be comprised of different land value components and it is unlikely the City’s land use ordinances would allow the different property types on the same lot, it was necessary to apply a hypothetical condition that each of the following uses would be permitted on the subject lot: high-density residential, medium-density residential, low and very low-density residential, commercial, and industrial.

12020-2021Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USA, The Appraisal Foundation,2020) Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 3 Extraordinary Assumption is defined as “an assignment-specific assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.”2
 In this appraisal, land areas provided by Old Republic Title Company were used to estimate the weighted average of all the sale transactions that occurred in the City of Santa Clara in 2021. It was an extraordinary assumption of this appraisal that the land areas provided by Old Republic were accurate.

The use of these hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumption might have affected the assignment results.

There are general assumptions and limiting conditions set forth in this report.

Based on the investigation and analyses undertaken, I formed the opinion that the average value per acre on December 31, 2021, the effective date of opinion, for each zip code was:

Sincerely,
Frank E. Schmidt, MAI, SRA

2 2020-2021Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USA, The Appraisal Foundation,2020) Zip Code 2021 Average Value per Acre
95050 $5,715,000
95051 $6,000,000
95054 $5,495,000
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 6
CERTIFICATION 8
SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT 9
DEFINITIONS 11
REAL PROPERTY, REAL ESTATE, AND PERSONAL PROPERTY APPRAISED 12 PREVIOUS APPRAISALS 13
REGION & CITY DESCRIPTION 13
MARKET CONDITIONS 17
LAND USE ORDINANCES 40
HIGHEST AND BEST USE 41
APPRAISAL PROCESS 42
AVERAGE VALUE ESTIMATE IN 95050 ZIP CODE 43
AVERAGE VALUE ESTIMATE IN 95051 ZIP CODE 65
AVERAGE VALUE ESTIMATE IN 95054 ZIP CODE 68
RECONCILIATION AND OPINION OF AVERAGE VALUES 72
ADDENDA 73

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CLIENT : City of Santa Clara
LOCATION : City of Santa Clara, California
PROPERTY TYPES : Very Low-Density Residential, Low-Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential, HighDensity Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Land
SITE AREA : Each Hypothetical Lot is One Acre
FLOOD HAZARD STATUS : Zone X; the hypothetical lots are outside any flood zones
EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE : The hypothetical lots are not located in an Earthquake Fault Zone as designated under the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

GENERAL PLAN, &
HIGHEST AND BEST USE :

EFFECTIVE DATE OF VALUE : December 31, 2021
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED : Fee Simple Estate
AVERAGE VALUE CONCLUSIONS :

Use of Hypothetical Lot General Plan Highest & Best Use Very Low Density Residential Very Low Density Residential Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential High Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Regional Commercial Hold for Development of a Commercial Building Industrial Light Industrial Light Industrial Building
Zip Code 2021 Average Value per Acre
95050 $5,715,000
95051 $6,000,000
95054 $5,495,000
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 6

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
This appraisal and report were made applying these general assumptions:

1. No responsibility was assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or title considerations. Title to the hypothetical properties was assumed to be good and marketable and free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, easements, and restrictions except those specifically addressed in this report;

3. Responsible ownership and competent property management were assumed;

4. The information furnished by the Client and others was believed to be reliable. However, no warranty is given for its accuracy;

5. All engineering was assumed correct. Plot plans or any other illustrative material in this report were included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property;

6. It was assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions in the hypothetical properties that render them more or less marketable or valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them;

7. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, toxic waste, and/or other environmental impairments which may or may not be present on or in the hypothetical properties, was not investigated by this consultant.

As real estate consultants, we are not qualified to properly investigate this property for any discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage, filtration, or storage of hazardous substances which may adversely affect the value of this property. Neither are we qualified to detect the presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, nor other materials that could create an environmental impairment to the subject property or to other property caused by conditions present at the subject property. Our opinion(s) were predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would affect market value. No responsibility was assumed for any such conditions or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover and/or correct them;

8. It was assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless non-compliance is stated, defined, and considered in the report;

9. It was assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal and reported in the report; and
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 7

10. It was assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate or other opinion contained in this report are based;
This report has been made with the following limiting conditions:

1. Possession of the report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication or use. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the Client(s), for the Intended Use specified in the engagement agreement and/or report;

2. The consultant is not required to give further consultation, testimony, or attend court for matters involving the subject property unless arrangements have been previously made; and

3. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the Consultant, or the firm with which the Consultant is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media without prior written consent and approval of the Consultant.

Reader Note:

There may be other appropriate and more specific limitations on our opinions or conclusions identified in the cover letter or report as Hypothetical Conditions, Extraordinary Assumptions, or Contingencies.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 8

CERTIFICATION
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

4. I previously appraised the subject of this report for the same Client on several occasions, most recently in an appraisal report transmitted March 26, 2021 and having a date of value of December 31, 2020.

5. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.

6. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

7. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.

8. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).

9. I have not inspected the property that is the subject of this report since the subject lots are hypothetical.

10. Under my direction, Mr. Dennis Moredock verified the comparable data, performed analysis, and wrote the first draft of the appraisal report.

11. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

12. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

13. As of the date of this report, I am completing the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.

April 1, 2022
Frank E. Schmidt, MAI, SRA Date
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 9

SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT
Information Provided to the Appraisers
The Client provided excerpts from the Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study completed by Willdan Financial Services. Old Republic Title Company provided Santa Clara sales statistics of land areas to assist us in estimating the weighted average of all the sale transactions that occurred in the City of Santa Clara in the 12 months preceding the date of value. We were also provided the “Supplemental Instructions for Appraisal” approved by Santa Clara City Council on June 7, 2016, which are displayed in the Addenda. Lastly, in previous appraisals, City Parks provided us the Park Impact Fee Ordinance (No. 1928).

Extent of Research into Physical Factors
We drove several streets throughout Santa Clara over the past several years including various times in 2016, 2017, 2020, and 2021. We note changes that are occurring or have occurred, particularly regarding new development. We gathered data about land use ordinances for each hypothetical lot and the comparables from the websites of the appropriate municipalities.

Extent of Research Into Economic Factors
We gathered, analyzed, and applied macro-economic information gleaned from many sources, including:
 The Wall Street Journal
 12th District Beige Book
 GlobeSt.com
 CoStar News
 The Kiplinger Letter
 CoreLogic
We gathered, analyzed, and applied data about market conditions and other micro-economic information from:
 Websites of Commercial Brokerages
 Commercial and/or residential multiple listing services  Silicon Valley Business Journal
 San Jose Mercury News
 Discussions with agents active in the subject market
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 10 We talked to the buyers, sellers, and agents whose names we discovered on signage in the neighborhood and during comparable verification. We learned about additional market data from these people.

Extent of Comparable Data Research
We used a variety of sources and subscription services to gather comparable data, including:
 Verified Data Files from Other Appraisals
 CoStar Group
 DataTree
 MLSlistings.com
 LoopNet
 Commercial Real Estate Brokerage Websites
Verification
The most appropriate data that we discovered was verified with a party to the transaction. When that was not possible, we discuss and/or state the verification source(s), using public record data, subscription services, MLS, etc. in the Analysis section.

Among the comparables selected we studied copies of the assessor’s parcel maps, public record summary, aerial maps, records of survey, and other data such as structural, geological, or environmental reports, subdivision maps, title reports, etc. We also reviewed planning proposals/approvals and permit histories where appropriate.

Type and Extent of Analysis Applied
The data is summarized on spreadsheets displayed in the Analysis sections following. The analysis was comparative, iterative, qualitative, and quantitative.

Compliance
It was the intent of this appraisal to comply with the requirements of:
 The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) including the Ethics and Competency Provisions as promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 11  The Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
 The City of Santa Clara’s “Supplemental Instructions for Appraisal”

DEFINITIONS
According to the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1263.320 defines Fair Market Value as:
“(a) the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for so doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing, and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available.
(b) The fair market value of property taken for which there is no relevant, comparable market is its value on the date of valuation as determined by any method of valuation that is just and equitable.”
Revised federal definitions in the Uniform Act identify the definitions of “market value” and “fair market value” as one and the same. These terms are used interchangeably in this report.

Weighted Average means an average resulting from the multiplication of each component by a factor reflecting its importance or contribution.

Average Value means a value that is calculated by adding values together and then dividing the total by the number of values.

Fee Simple Estate means absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.”3

3 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed., (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015) Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 12

REAL PROPERTY, REAL ESTATE, AND PERSONAL PROPERTY APPRAISED Real Property is defined as all of the interests, benefits, and rights in the ownership of the physical real estate, that is, the bundle of rights with which the ownership of the real estate is endowed. Real estate is defined as physical land and appurtenances attached to the land.

Real Property Rights Appraised
The subject properties are hypothetical unimproved lots and the fee simple estate is appraised.

Real Estate Appraised
It is an assumption of this appraisal that the subject’s hypothetical finished lot is graded and level, all utilities and services are stubbed to the site, is ready for building improvement, and defined as follows:

Area : One acre
Shape & Frontage : Shape is rectangular with typical frontage along one street.

Topography : Level, at street grade
Drainage : Adequate
Utilities & Services : The municipality provides water, electrical, and sewer service. A private contractor provides garbage service.

Local utility companies provide telephone and cable. All utilities are piped and wired onto the hypothetical lot.

Easements : Typical public utility easements along frontage presumed.

Soil Conditions : It is a general assumption of this appraisal that the hypothetical site is suitable for any legally permissible and physically possible use.

Environmental
Impairment Issues : It is a general assumption of this appraisal that there are no environmental issues that affect the market value of the hypothetical lots.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 13 Off-Site Improvements : Street is fully improved and maintained by the City; it is asphalt paved with streetlights, curbs, gutters, and
sidewalks.

Street Access : Rates average in comparison to competing properties.

Exposure/Visibility : Rates average in comparison to competing properties for each hypothetical use.

Flood Hazard Status : Hypothetical lot is presumed to be within Zone X, which denotes areas of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMs as above the 500-year flood level.

Earthquake Fault Zone : The hypothetical lot is not located in an Earthquake Fault Zone as designated under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act.

Improvements : None
Personal Property Appraised
We did not appraise any personal property.

PREVIOUS APPRAISALS
The author previously appraised the subject(s) of this report for the City of Santa Clara on several occasions, most recently in an Appraisal Report transmitted March 21, 2021 with an effective date of opinion of December 31, 2020. The next most recent appraisal of the subject was transmitted June 11, 2020 with an effective date of opinion of December 31, 2019. The intended use of all appraisals was the same: to assist the City in determining park impact fees.

REGION & CITY DESCRIPTION
The County of Santa Clara is located at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. It encompasses about 1,304 square miles of land with 15 incorporated cities and towns. According to California Department of Finance (CDF), on July 1, 2021, the county had a population of 1,974,827, an increase of 0.06 percent from the July 2020 estimate. Over the past several years, Santa Clara County had been experiencing strong employment conditions. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 14 unemployment was at historical lows and essentially reflected full employment conditions.

According to statistics published by the State of California Employment Development Department (EDD), the Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 4.0% in December 2021, based on a labor force of 1,042,900. This is an increase from the March 2020 unemployment rate of 3.4%, prior to COVID-19. It is however lower compared with the one-year prior unemployment rate of 5.9%, based on a labor force of 1,040,900 jobs. However, the County’s unemployment rate peaked at 11.7% in April 2020 and has gradually declined since.

Santa Clara County, which makes up the bulk of Silicon Valley, is highly dependent on technology employment, including Adobe, Apple, Applied Materials, Cisco, eBay, Flextronics, Google (Alphabet), HP, Intel, Intuitive Surgical, Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Microsoft, Netapp, Oracle, PayPal, and Tesla.

The City of Santa Clara covers about 18.4 square miles and is surrounded by San Jose on the north, east, and south, and is adjacent to Sunnyvale and Cupertino on the west. The City of Santa Clara’s population estimate was 130,746 as of January 1, 2021, according to the CDF, about

2.7% higher than 12 months earlier. Employment conditions in Santa Clara followed a similar trend as seen in Santa Clara County. Unemployment, according to the EDD, was reported at a rate of 2.6% in the city of Santa Clara as of February 2022, based on a labor force of 72,900. The unemployment rate has generally followed a downward trend since peaking in April 2020 at

9.5%. Still, the current rate is far above the year ago rate of 5.3 percent in December 2020.

An aerial of the City of Santa Clara (outlined in red) and surrounding areas is shown below:

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 15 The two largest employers in the City of Santa Clara are Intel and Applied Materials. Other hightech companies, such as AMD, Nvidia, Palo Alto Networks, Sun Microsystems, ServiceNow, and Agilent Technologies have headquarters in the City. Other large employers include California’s Great America, Avaya Inc., Santa Clara City Hall, EMC Corporation, Macy’s, and Santa Clara University. The City of Santa Clara is the supplier for the City’s water and electric power, which it claims can save small industries almost 50% on their utility costs.

Levi’s Stadium, the home of the San Francisco 49ers, opened over the summer of 2014 in the northern portion of the city, adjacent to Great America Theme Park and the existing 49ers practice facility. The Santa Clara Convention Center is also nearby and offers about 302,000 square feet of meeting space.

The opening of Levi’s Stadium spurred an increase in demand for nearby properties. There are several projects under construction throughout the city and several proposals in progress that are anticipated to add thousands of square feet of new retail, office and residential. The largest proposal is from Related California and is named Related Santa Clara. The project is a 240-acre mixed use development located across from the street from Levi’s Stadium. It would include

9.16 million gross SF of office, residential units, retail and entertainment facilities, hotel rooms, and surface and structured parking facilities. The first development phase is approved and was slated to open to the public in 2023 but was delayed by the pandemic. The Lake Park office development project is a 4.05 acre project site that has received approvals for a 150,000 SF office development located at 3001 Tasman Drive. The Kylli mixed use development project is currently pending review and is located at 3005 Democracy Way. This project is a 46 acre site that proposes 3,000,000+- SF of commercial office/lab space, 100,000+- SF of neighborhood retail, 1,800+- new multi-family residential, a child care facility, and indoor and outdoor community spaces. The Santa Clara Square development project (The Irvine Company) encompasses approximately 93 acres and includes 1,862,000 SF of office, 178,000 SF of retail, and up to 1,840 units of residential apartment units. This project is at 2600 Augustine Drive. The NVIDIA project is under construction and is located at 2600, 2788 and 2800 San Tomas Expressway. The 35.6 acre site will have 1,950,000 SF of office/research and development (R&D) space within three buildings. The Lawrence Station Project – Kifer Road (Summerhill) is at 3505 Kifer Road and is currently under construction. This 29.4 acre project is part of the Lawrence Station Area Plan. The project is a 988 residential unit, four-story, multi-family development with 39,225 SF of retail/amenity space. Additional development in the City includes several new structures on the Santa Clara University campus and continued residential build-out of the Lawrence Station area.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 16 The City’s median household income was estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau at $126,006 in 2019 and the per capita income was about $53,986. The United States Census Quick Facts for 2015-2019 indicated the following demographics in Santa Clara:

Total Households 44,669
Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate 42.9%
Average Household Size 2.74
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 59.9%
In Civilian Labor Force 69.2%
The City is home to Santa Clara University, Mission College, a junior college, and Golden State Baptist College. The City is primarily served by Santa Clara Unified School District, which includes 19 schools spanning transitional kindergarten through high school. The southwest corner of the City is served by Cupertino schools.

The City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara County benefit from a number of freeways, arterials, and expressways that provide access to most areas of the region, including three interstate highways, I-280, I-880, and I-680 in addition to several federal and state highways, US-101, CA85, CA-87, CA-17, and CA-237. Caltrain, Amtrak, and ACE rail transportation, light rail, and VTA bus services provide mass transit for the city, connecting Santa Clara to the greater Bay Area. Located adjacent the City’s eastern border is the Norman Y Mineta San Jose International Airport, with service to about 30 destinations.

There are three primary zip codes within the city, which are shown on the following map as the color-coded areas within the black-outlined city limit boundaries. Note that the 95053 zip code applies to Santa Clara University, which is located within the Santa Clara city limits, but was not included as part of this appraisal.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One
Frank Schmidt & Associates
Source: zipmap.net
Conclusion
All locations within Santa Clara are proximate to nearby job centers, retail, housing, and linkages, contributing to the long

MARKET CONDITIONS
The December 9, 2021 UCLA Anderson Forecast
forthcoming. “The December Forecast
cases and predicts that consumers will temporarily cut back their spending on in But Anderson Forecast economists
writing that consumer spending may dip over the next quarter and then rebound quickly.” Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] zipmap.net
All locations within Santa Clara are proximate to nearby job centers, retail, housing, and linkages, contributing to the long-term demand for sites within the city.

UCLA Anderson Forecast expects encouraging economic news to be “The December Forecast assumes the likelihood of a winter surge in COVID cases and predicts that consumers will temporarily cut back their spending on in sts expect the impact on the economy to be relatively short term, writing that consumer spending may dip over the next quarter and then rebound quickly.” Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA
[email protected] 17
All locations within Santa Clara are proximate to nearby job centers, retail, housing, and expects encouraging economic news to be
assumes the likelihood of a winter surge in COVID-19
cases and predicts that consumers will temporarily cut back their spending on in-person services. expect the impact on the economy to be relatively short term, writing that consumer spending may dip over the next quarter and then rebound quickly.” Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 18 “California home prices continue to climb, and a lack of affordability has become increasingly important in both the policy sphere and for forecasting the Golden State’s economic growth.” “For the current quarter, UCLA Anderson Forecast senior economist Leo Feler, author of the national report, forecasts growth of 6.9%, which would be the highest growth rate for 2021, as the economy rebounds from the wave of cases caused by the delta variant. Feler notes that the omicron variant emerged too late to have much effect on the quarter’s average growth rate.” “Overall, the national forecast is for continued strong economic growth and labor market recovery, with a lessening of supply constraints and inflation. A more severe COVID-19 wave caused by the omicron variant could temporarily derail the forecast, but it’s still too soon to tell.” The Winter 2022 Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast California Commercial Real Estate Survey “was taken as the Delta/Omicron phase of the pandemic was raging and was slowing the return of consumers to the purchase of services, to the office, and to vacation travel.” Multifamily housing has rapidly bounced back from a “falling-rent” hiatus and is also in for a run of new project development. Though the last two Surveys suggested a turn in office and retail market, it has happened sooner than expected.”
Following we present some statistics and comments regarding the market conditions for each land use we are appraising. Land market conditions for each of these uses are not typically tracked by any firms that we are aware of; it has been my experience and historically as reported by market participants that the land market for these uses typically shadow the improved markets, oftentimes leading. We report on the sale, rental, and construction trends of the respective markets, in estimating the appropriate market conditions adjustments used in our following analysis.

Regional Economic Conditions
CoStar Group, Inc. is a multinational provider of information, analytics, and marketing services to the commercial real estate industry. According to a CoStar Group report on economic conditions in the greater San Jose/Silicon Valley market area:

The coronavirus pandemic abruptly ended what had been the longest economic expansion in U.S. history, and disrupted San Jose’s streak of above-average job growth.

California and Bay Area counties including Santa Clara are taking a cautious approach to reopening economic activity, and businesses are suffering from the downturn in commerce.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 19 According to San Jose think-tank Joint Venture Silicon Valley (JVSV), “Employment is back to pre-pandemic levels, though more concentrated in tech. Silicon Valley gained back most of the jobs lost early on in the pandemic by mid-2021, and the rest in the second half of the year. The recovery is uneven, however, due to rapid growth in the tech sector; for the first time in decades the proportion of lower-skill and lower-wage jobs nudged downward. Most of the tech jobs are concentrated in a handful of companies, with 13 percent at Google and Apple alone.” “Silicon Valley’s innovation engine is red hot. Despite pandemic-related restrictions, the region’s technology companies broke records, with the aggregate market cap of Silicon Valley and San Francisco’s public companies reaching $14 trillion (doubling the market low of February 2020). Venture capital reached an all-time high at $95 billion in 2021, fueled by a record 257 megadeals. These deals brought the region’s count of unicorn and decacorn companies to 230, more than any point in history. There were more IPOs (32) than any year in this century, and companies took advantage of other means to go public including direct listings and special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC) mergers, with the latter driving more M&A activity than in a decade.”
“Commercial development continues at a break-neck pace. The major tech companies such as Meta, Google, NetApp, and Apple have continued to build new space and execute leases for growth and expansion in the region, and Silicon Valley has seen an unprecedented amount of new commercial development gaining planning approvals (21.5 million square feet of new space across 135 sites). Much of the growth is planned for San Jose (62 percent), with large developments in the pipeline in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale as well.” Commercial Market Conditions
Commercial properties typically include office and retail uses. We discovered that office properties are generally being built in the central business districts and in light industrial locations. Research and development (R&D) properties have historically been a subcategory of industrial. However, R&D can rival office space in terms of finishes and quality and we elected to include a discussion of the R&D submarket as part of the commercial market. Many of the traditional retail corridors in this region, El Camino Real in particular, have land use ordinances that allow for residential mixed-uses.

In this market, real estate brokerages track office and retail statistics by city or submarket; they are not broken out by zip code. Following we present the relevant statistics pertaining to the Santa Clara market and provide comments from market participants regarding the perceived differences in each of the Santa Clara zip codes that the three hypothetical lots being appraised are located.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 20 Office Market
The Silicon Valley office market from early 2017 through 4Q-2021 was generally characterized by increasing vacancy rates, positive net absorption, and overall increasing average asking rental rates. The next table displays data from the Cushman & Wakefield’s 4Q-2021 Silicon Valley Marketbeat Office Snapshot and predecessor reports and includes statistics from the Silicon Valley market, the subject’s submarket (Santa Clara), and the adjacent Sunnyvale submarket.

OFFICE STATISTICS
Source: Cushman & Wakefield Marketbeat Office Snapshot
The data indicates that the office vacancy rate in Santa Clara generally increased from Q1-2020 through Q4-2021. This elevated vacancy rate is due to several large office buildings having significant vacancy. The Silicon Valley market has been overall more stable with vacancy reported at 15.3% for Q4-2021, up from the 15.2% rate in the third quarter. The region’s availability represents 13.7 million square feet of vacancy in 4Q-2021. Cushman & Wakefield reports that the City of Santa Clara has some of the largest subleases on the market including Citrix (311,000sf). Key 2021 lease transactions in the City of Santa Clara’s include 85,995sf at 3075 Olcott Street in Q2-2021 aided by a 116,103 square foot renewal by Ampere at 4655 Great America in Q3-2021 and a sublease of 31,250 square feet by Quotient at 2755 Augustine Drive in Q3-2021.

The average office asking rent in 4Q-2021 for the City of Santa Clara was $4.43/SF/Month on a Full Service expense basis, whereby taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities, and janitorial expenses are bundled into the base rent. This is slightly more than the $4.38/SF/Month asking rate from one year ago.
f
~
!
~
~
0 -. .,
~
I
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2. 00
Average Asking Rate & Vacancy Rate Office Market
-----------------------------------------------~ 35.0%
.-,u dar■ Vllt ncy Rate
' I
l ' - - ------------------------------------------~ --=~~ + 15.0"..6 _.,,,.. .,,,.. - --::,...-",,,,,----- ;_ _____ ....:::,,.___ _______ ..__= -:-= --'-;r•;rorn-.V;;;;a;:- ll ev-, __ va_ca_,_""- "'.,_ -'•=-= ..... - -'-= ----------,,----+ lO.O"A'i /
/ $1.00 ---------------------------------------~ ---------+ 5,(1'/j --~~~~------~--~ Sunnyvale Vacancy Rate ....._ ...._ _,,,,,,,. ---~~ $0.00 ~-~-~--~-~-~--~-~-~~-~-~--~-~-~--~-~-~--~-~-~~-+ 0.0'~ ~~~~~/~~//~~~~~~~~/~
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 21 Marcus & Millichap’s 4Q-2021 Market Report stated that in the San Jose Metro area, which includes Santa Clara, office vacancy increased 80 basis points in this year’s spring period as local tech companies reevaluated their space requirements. At midyear, vacancy was 15.1 percent. Class A vacancy rose 340 basis points in the last 12 months to 15.4 percent while Class B/C vacancy climbed 460 basis points. Asking rents in the San Jose Metro increased 0.8% yearover-year to $4.28/SF/Month.

Marcus & Millichap reported the following trends in the San Jose Metro:

Marcus & Millichap’s report states that “Development surges this year after construction was slowed during the downturn in 2020. Supply is on pace to increase by 3.8 percent in 2021, though most of the new space has preleasing commitments.” Over the past 12 months, developers will have completed 4.7 million square feet of space. “Investors returned to the market after pausing during the height of the downturn. In the third quarter of this year, the new record in office sales was established, including at least five deals valued over $200 million.

Buyers seeking discounted properties will be challenged to find those opportunities. Buyers never lost faith in the long-term health of the San Jose office market. During the 12-month period ending at midyear, the average price of an office property increased 3 percent to $575 per square foot. Since Google owns a sizable share of the office inventory, particularly in Mountain View, investors have limited options. Few markets had a decrease in the average cap rate during the year-long period ending in June, but the South Bay is an exception. During that time, the average rate dipped 10 basis points to 4.9 percent. Little pressure on first-year returns are expected until more clarity on office reoccupation is available.” There are several office developments under construction in Silicon Valley and Santa Clara.

Notable developments previously discussed in the City of Santa Clara include: Related California, Lake Park, Kylli, Santa Clara Square, and NVIDIA.

Supply and Demand Sales Trends
- CompletioTIJI Net.Absorption - Vacancy Rate - AveragePrice - AverageCapRatt '-l' 9 .... $600 8"
1 18.0" C,
~
~ ~ $550 6" l B ::I
i::: 15.5% ~
~ ~ l ~ ~ $500 4" .. 3 f ~
i 13.0"~
r f $450
s'
1 3" ~
0 - 10.5"
1 $400 2"
a 17 IB 18 20 21-
-3 8.0" • Foreca.tt .. Through ZQ
17 18 18 20 21• Sourua:CoStarGroup,Inc.;RealCopitalAnalytica Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 22 The Marcus & Millichap’s 4Q-2021 San Jose Metro Area report states “Delay in reopening pauses office recovery. Both Google and Apple pushed back their windows for workers to come back to offices until early next year due to the delta variant. The return of these anchor tenants will likely precede smaller firms that rely on contracts with Big Tech. As a result, a wider reopening is unlikely to occur until the first few months of 2022. Nonetheless, both Google and Apple do plan to bring most of their employees back onto their campuses. Each company has a large real estate presence in the South Bay and both have reported in-person collaboration is paramount to the success of their operations. Therefore, the recovery in San Jose should outpace San Francisco, where the large tech firms have already committed to significant remote work options.’
Research and Development (R&D) Market
The next table displays data from Colliers International’s 4Q-2021 Silicon Valley R&D Market Snapshot and its predecessor reports:

Source: Colliers International
The next tables display data from Cushman & Wakefield’s Marketbeat 4Q-2021 Silicon Valley R&D Market:

R&D Average Asking Rate & Vacancy Rate

14.00% $4.00

12.00%
$3.50

10.00%
$3.00 8.00%

6.00% $2.50

4.00%
$2.00

2.00%

0.00% $1.50
102018 2Q2018 302018 4Q2018 1Q2019 202019 3Q2019 402019 1Q2020 2Q2020 3Q2020 4Q2020 102021 2Q2021 302021 4Q2021 lliiiiil Santa Clara Vacancy Rate Sunnyvale Vacancy Rate - Silicon Valley Vacancy Rate --Santa Clara Asking Rate --Sunnyvale Asking Rate --Silicon Valley Asking Rate Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 23 Source: Cushman & Wakefield
As shown above, Silicon Valley’s R&D market experienced an overall stable vacancy rate within about 100 basis points of 10.0% from 1Q-2018 to 2Q-2020 before increasing to 12.1% in 4Q2021. Meanwhile, asking rents have increased from $2.46/SF/month in 3Q-2020 to $2.77/SF/month in 4Q-2021 on a NNN expense basis, despite the pandemic. A NNN expense basis in this market means the landlord is only paying for management of the account and reserves for replacement, while the tenant pays all other operating expenses.

Since 3Q-2018 the average asking rate in the City of Santa Clara increased from $2.10/SF/month NNN to $2.87/SF/Mo ending the 3Q-2020 or 0.99%/month. Over the last twelve months the asking R&D rental rate decreased to $2.49/SF/Mo ending the 4Q-2021. Investor demand for R&D and office product remains above average, especially for well-located, modern buildings with long-term tenants in place. However, the R&D vacancy rate trend shows a different narrative as in Santa Clara the vacancy rate experienced a cycle low of 5.0% in 2Q-2019 before registering 15.7% in 4Q-2021, the highest since Q4-2017. Part of the jump was due to the renovations at Mission Tech campus (at 2421-2451 Mission College Blvd), which resulted in 426,255 SF of vacancy coming online.

Cushman & Wakefield reported in their Marketbeat 4Q-2021 Silicon Valley R&D Market a net absorption of negative 1,009,477 SF of R&D space within Silicon Valley and a year-to-date total of negative 3,444,244 SF. The report notes that there is 2,775,991 SF of new R&D product under construction throughout all of Silicon Valley.

Retail Market
According to Marcus & Millichap’s Third Quarter 2021 San Jose Metro Area Retail Report, the long-term outlook remains bright, though the migration of many highly paid workers is delaying a stronger recovery in the retail arena. Furthermore, the emergence of the COVID-19 variants is giving pause to some to the local economy’s anchors. Google, Apple and Facebook have all pushed reopening into early 2022 as the current wave of positive cases needs to pass.

Nonetheless, tech companies in the South Bay do plan on bring all or a majority of their workers

OVERALL VACANCY & ASKING RENT
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1 .50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00 ................................................ _ 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
- Asking Rent,$ PSF - vacancy Rate
14%
12%
10%
8%
8%
4%
2%
0%

ASKING RENT COMPARISON
$7.00 8.42
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00 $2.
88 $2.47 $2.35 $2.1 B
$2.00 $1.73$1.81 $1 .35
$1.00
$0.00 PA MV Cl.II sun MP New SC N SJ ws MIi F,. SSJ MHIGII Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 24 back to their expansive campuses, which will boost retail spending next year and into the future.

New retailers will follow workers into the metro in 2022, filling up space that was left dark by other tenants that were unable to survive the recession. Investors stepped back during the 12- month period ending at midyear as buyers awaited more clarity regarding the work-from-home model. Single-tenant deal flow dipped about 30 percent during that time as acquisitions fell across all product types except convenience stores. Buyers paid an average of $743 per square foot for single-tenant-properties in the yearlong period ending in the second quarter. Prices were 8 percent above the prior year rate as investors retrenched and targeted high-credit tenants. The average cap rate remained steady at 4.7 percent year over year. Multi-tenant properties faced increased due diligence during the health crisis as operators weighed the possibility of having to refill in-line space following the downturn. The average price climbed 4 percent to $593 per square foot during the yearlong period ending at midyear.

Some retail categories have managed well during the pandemic while others have not. Drive-thru fast food and fast-casual restaurants generally did fine, particularly those with drive-throughs.

Sit-down restaurants, particularly those without outdoor seating have not done as well. Essential services, such as grocery, drug, and convenience stores have been stable.

Within Santa Clara, Westfield Valley Fair Mall completed a $1.1 billion expansion in 2020.

Most of the new retail being proposed in this market is part of larger mixed-use projects.

Spending Patterns
General market conditions for the retail real estate segment can be indicated by taxable retail sales. Typically, a market where taxable retail sales are increasing would be supportive of additional retail development as existing retailers are willing to expand and new retailers are interested in entering the market. The converse is true when taxable retail sales are declining.

Over the course of 2019 (the most recent statistics available), taxable retail sales in Santa Clara County totaled approximately $47,001,964,265, or more than $47 billion dollars. This represents an increase of approximately 3.9 percent over the total taxable retail sales reported over the course of 2018.

Average Asking Retail Rental Rates and Vacancy Rates
Cushman & Wakefield is a brokerage firm that publishes quarterly reports for the retail market in the San Jose metro area. They reported in their Q4-2021 Marketbeat Silicon Valley Retail that the economic fundamentals and the retail business in Silicon Valley showed continued improvement in the last quarter of 2021 despite some challenges, such as the supply chain shortage, inflation and rising of COVID-19 cases due to the Omicron variant in the last weeks of Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 25 December. At the end of 2021, Silicon Valley recorded an employment rate of 4.5% down from

6.2 % one year ago. Increasing population, job growth, high incomes and strong consumer spending continued to strengthen the performance of retail sector in Silicon Valley. At the end of 2021, the vacancy rate for Silicon Valley’s shopping centers remained the lowest in the Bay Area at 5.2%, with approximately 1.9 million square feet of vacant retail space. Santa Clara continued to record the lowest vacancy rate in the region at 3.9%. The quarterly net absorption continued in the positive territory. There was no new retail space completed in the fourth quarter of 2021 and the total retail inventory remained at 37.4 million square feet.

The chart below displays the average asking rental rate and vacancy for the Santa Clara submarket, Sunnyvale/Cupertino submarket, and Santa Clara County taken from Cushman Wakefield and its predecessor retail reports from 3Q-2017 onwards:

As indicated in the table above, the Santa Clara County retail market had an average asking rent of $2.96/SF/Mo NNN in 4Q-2021 which is a slight decrease compared to $3.01/SF/Mo NNN in 4Q-2020. Neighborhood and community centers account for most of the vacancies in the market.

In 4Q-2021 asking rents averaged $2.71/SF/Mo NNN in the subject’s Santa Clara submarket which is a decrease compared to $3.02/SF/Mo NNN in 4Q-2020. In 4Q-2021 the retail vacancy rate in Santa Clara was reported at 3.9% with no new retail under construction. Vacancy rates in the subject’s submarket declined from 5.7% from one-year ago. Asking rental rates in Santa Retail Asking Rates and Vacancy
$42.00 7.0%
$40.00
z

6.0%
z $38.00 z
~ u.. $36.00

5.0%
...... "'
~ $34.00 s
.. 4.0% ~
> u
C
"' "" $32.00 C
:ii
..
u 3.0% ..
>
~ $30.00 ..
"" 2.0% ~ .. $28.00 >
<C
$26.00

1.0%
$24.00 0.0%
- Downtown SJ Vacancy - Silicon Valley Vacancy - Santa Clara Vacancy Sunnyvale/Cupertino Vacancy --Downtown SJ Asking Rent --Si licon Val ley Asking Rent --Santa Clara Asking Rent --Sunnyva le/Cupertino Ask ing Rent Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 26 Clara had generally been stable since Q1-2018 before a sharp increase in Q4-2020 and a decline starting in the final two quarters of 2021.

According to Marcus & Millichap’s Hospitality Report for Fourth Quarter 2021, “The U.S. lodging sector entered the autumn season having made up substantial ground during the spring and summer months. Loosened capacity restrictions, vaccine availability and pent-up travel demand led to a marked increase in trips taken and rooms occupied. By the end of July foot traffic through airport check-points had recovered to about 80 percent of 2019 volumes, driven largely by leisure travelers, while hotel occupancy had roughly doubled from where it began in 2021. Hotels in popular vacation destinations are projected to perform best next year, including those near beaches and parkland. Hotels that cater to business travelers will continue to face hurdles next year. Travel for business purposes has so far lagged leisure trips in recovery. While vaccines and test are widely available, the potential for new coronavirus variants presents ongoing safety concerns that will prompt many employers to minimize staff travel. Barring a significant reversion in the health crisis, more conventions and trade shows should take place in 2022, with greater emphasis on physical attendance, prompting greater professional travel.

Hotels in major urban centers and frequent convention markets will see improved operation in 2022 but will remain the most troubled segment. The problem is compounded in the country’s largest gateway markets that typically cater to numerous international visitors, including New York and San Francisco. The return of certain health precautions in theses metros may dissuade some visitation to the area until the pandemic notably improves. Overall, a prolonged drought in demand in many densely packed locales extends the road to recovery.” Industrial Market Conditions
We referenced industrial (manufacturing) and warehouse market data from brokerages Cushman & Wakefield and Colliers International; we also interviewed local market participants for this report. Cushman & Wakefield reported in its Marketbeat Silicon Valley Industrial Q4-2021, that vacancy for industrial product in Silicon Valley decreased in 4Q-2021 to 3.3% from 5.3% in 4Q2020. Colliers International reported that warehousing vacancy decreased to 2.2% from 6.1% in the prior year. The Central Silicon Valley industrial submarket, which includes Santa Clara, San Jose, Campbell, and Sunnyvale, had an overall vacancy rate of 3.0% and an average asking rate of $1.29/SF/Month NNN at the end of 4Q-2021. The average asking rental rate in the subject’s Santa Clara submarket was reported at $1.48/SF/Month NNN and a vacancy rate of 1.7% was reported. The subject’s Santa Clara submarket represents a moderate sized industrial submarket in the region with a total industrial inventory reported at approximately 15,498,884 square feet, or roughly 23 percent of the total Silicon Valley industrial inventory.

In their Q4 2021 San Jose Silicon Valley Research & Forecast Report for industrial/warehouse properties, Collier’s International reported An accelerated shift to e-commerce coupled with Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 27 supply chain woes bolstered demand for industrial real estate. Silicon Valley saw industrial occupancy gains amount to 115,000 square feet in the fourth quarter and 2.0 million for the full year, making the industrial sector the fastest growing commercial property sector in 2021.

Silicon Valley’s industrial vacancy rate dipped below 2.0 percent in the final quarter of 2021, limiting tenant mobility and new deal volume. Gross absorption totaled just 1.0 million square feet, down 18.2 percent year-over-year. Nuro, an autonomous vehicle company, subleased 64,900 square feet at 3100 Molinaro Street in Santa Clara. At the end of 2021, the industrial availability rate stands at 3.8 percent, down 150 basis points year-over-year while the vacancy space rate is at 1.9, down 110 basis points over the same period. Not surprisingly, asking rents continued to rise and reached a new peak, averaging $1.32 NNN, $0.08 higher than a year ago.

The next chart shows industrial rental rate and vacancy trends since 1Q-2018 based on data from Colliers International. The chart shows generally stable to increasing vacancy rates and stable rental rates, Sunnyvale being the exception.

Vacancy rates for manufacturing were generally stable in Silicon Valley between the start of 2015 and 1Q-2020, before increasing to the high-three percent range. A similar trend has played out in the Santa Clara submarket with a generally increasing trend in manufacturing vacancy rates since 2Q-2018. However, manufacturing rental rates in Santa Clara continue to increase; the asking rental rate rose from $1.47/SF/month NNN in 3Q-2018 to $1.85/SF/month in 4Q2021. Within Silicon Valley, the average asking rate for warehouse was $1.43/SF/month in 4Q2021compared to last year’s rate of $1.38/SF/month. $4.00
$3.50
~ $3.00
2 ...

VI
~ $2.50
Q)
'iii
';, $2.00
C:
:,;;
< $1.50 Q)
~
~ $1.00 <i:
$0.50
Industrial Average Asking Rate & Vacancy Rate

10.0%

9.0%

8.0%

7.Cf'/4

6.Cf'/4 ~

5.Cf'/4 ~ C:

IS

4.Cf' "' /4 >

3.Cf'/4

2.Cf'/4

1.Cf'/4

0.Cf'/4
- Sant a Clara Vaca ncy - Sa n Jose Vaca ncy Rate - Sun nyva le Vaca ncy - Silicon Va lley Vacancy --Sa nt a Clara Ask ing Rate --San Jose Ask ing Rate --Su nnyva le Aski ng Rat e --Sili con Va lley Asking Rate Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 28 Warehouse data collected from Colliers International’s Silicon Valley Research & Forecast Report Q4 2021 and its predecessor reports are displayed in the next chart:

Warehouse vacancy rates in Silicon Valley had been declining for several years before increasing in 2018 and 2019, and then decreasing in 2021. Warehouse rental rates in Santa Clara decreased; the asking rental rate declined from $1.59/SF/month in 3Q-2020 to $1.29/SF/month in 4Q-2021. Within Silicon Valley, the average asking rate for warehouse generally increased to $1.24/SF/month in 4Q-2021compared to last year’s rate of $1.14/SF/month.

Data centers are one of the largest industrial occupancy groups in Santa Clara, due mostly to Silicon Valley Power, which has lower rates than elsewhere in the Bay Area. The rise of remote working reinforced the need and demand for data centers. We discovered several expansion plans and construction occurring on existing sites, notably from Prime Data Centers. There have been several land sales in recent years in Santa Clara that are proposed for new data centers.

Market participants report that data center operators will pay a premium for a larger site in Santa Clara and that the ideal site will be about six acres; however Prime is planning to build on a site as small as 1.68 acres. Two (data center) sites in Santa Clara were sold in 2021 (see Industrial Land Comparables I-1 and I-2, these are the most recent industrial sales that we uncovered).

CBRE’s U.S. Data Center Trends report for the 1H 2021 indicated the following market changes in Silicon Valley’s data center market:

Warehouse Average Asking Rate & Vacancy Rate
$1.70
z 14.0%
z
z $1.50 12.0% ...

VI
.....
~ $1.30 GI
... 10.0% l ..
"' $1.10 "" C
:.;;
<t "' $0.90

8.0% eC
.. 6.0% u
..
>
GI
"" 4.0%
I!
GI $0.70 > 2.0% <t
$0.50 0.0%
~ ~ Cl,(;) a,"- a,"- a,"- a,"- ~ :\,I;) ~ ~ :\,I;) ~ ~ '\,OJ ,,,OJ ._,.OJ "'OJ '\,OJ -,,OJ ._,.OJ - Santa Clara Vacancy - San Jose Vacancy - Silicon Valley Vacancy --Santa Clara Asking Rate --San Jose Asking Rate --Silicon Valley Asking Rate Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 29 The CBRE report notes that wholesale collocation data centers across primary U.S markets – Northern Virginia, Dallas, Silicon Valley, Chicago, Phoenix, New York Tri-State, and Atlanta recorded 142.7 megawatts (MW) of positive net absorption in the first half of 2021, 3.4% more than H1 2020’s level. Total inventory across primary markets topped 3 gigawatts (GW), as supply grew 7%, or 214.3 MW, during H1 2021. More than 527.6 MW of capacity was under construction in primary markets at the midway point of 2021, up 42% year-over-year, of which over half was located in Northern Virginia. Investors remained focused on top-tier assets – those with strong underlying tenancy and significant remaining lease term. Fewer deals were signed in H1 2021 than the previous six months, but the average size of user requirements was larger.

Vacancy rates reached historically low levels in several markets, led by Silicon Valley with a nationwide-low 1.6% of inventory available as of the end of H1 2021. Some users are moving away from a cloud-first approach to a hybrid IT structure, citing hidden fees and fluctuating costs by cloud service providers, latency issues and incompatibility of applications.

Silicon Valley’s total market inventory surpassed 300 MW in H1 2021. Leasing activity increased and was dominated by hyperscale companies. Cloud service providers continue to prelease large blocks of capacity, triggering construction activity. Though new supply came online in 2021, the vacancy rate continued to drop to a U.S. wide low of 1.6%, representing only

4.8 MW of availability. Silicon Valley’s construction pipeline grew another 35 MW during H1 2021, with the percent of space preleased increasing to 82%. Tight market conditions will continue until the development pipeline moves forward after entitlements, permitting and municipal delays. The development process will continue to take longer and uncertainty remains high. NTT signed 5 MW worth of deals with multiple enterprise companies fully subscribing Phase 1 of their new Santa Clara facility. Prime Data Centers purchased a 9-MW, fully entitled development site in Santa Clara with plans to build speculatively.

Historical Supply Growth
MW Under ConS!nld1on Prelecill!d New Dellvenes '"1llY
50 40
30 20
10 0
IH16 2Hl6 1Hl7 2Hl7 1H18 2Hl8 1Hl9 2Hl9 1H20 2H20 1H21
Source: CBRE Research, CBRE Data Center Salutions, Hl 2021 .

Vaainty
111%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Historical Demand Growth
MW Absorptloo Vacuncy
70 ------------------- 12%
w ~
so 8%
40 -------I
30 201S 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 HI 2021
Saurce: CBRE Research, CBRE Data Center Sollllions, Hl 2021. 6%
4%
2%
0%
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 30 Residential Market Conditions
The Housing Market Index, based on a survey by the National Association of Home Builders, reported “Despite inflation concerns and ongoing production bottlenecks, builder confidence edged higher for the fourth consecutive month on strong consumer demand and limited existing inventory. Builder sentiment in the market for newly built single-family homes moved one point higher to 84 in December, according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI) released today. This ties the highest reading of the year that was posted in February.”
“The most pressing issue for the housing sector remains lack of inventory,” said NAHB Chief Economist Robert Dietz. “Building has increased but the industry faces constraints, namely cost/availability of materials, labor and lots. And while 2021 single-family starts are expected to end the year 24% higher than the pre-Covid 2019 level, we expect higher interest rates in 2022 will put a damper on housing affordability.”
The California Association of Realtors (C.A.R.) published their December Home Sales and Price Report in mid-January 2022. The report notes that “Closed escrow sales of existing, singlefamily detached homes in California totaled a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 429,860 in December, according to information collected by C.A.R. from more than 90 local REALTOR® associations and MLSs statewide. The statewide annualized sales figure represents what would be the total number of homes sold during 2021 if sales maintained the December pace throughout the year. It is adjusted to account for seasonal factors that typically influence home sales.”
December’s sales pace was down 5.4 percent on a monthly basis from 454,450 in November and was down 15.7 percent from a year ago, when 509,750 homes were sold on an annualized basis. Despite the sixth straight year-over-year sales decrease, for the year as a whole, annual home sales rose to a preliminary 444,520 closed escrow sales in California, up 7.9 percent from 2020’s pace of 411,870.
“Despite signs of moderating in the second half of the year, California’s housing market continued to outperform last year’s level and remained competitive even as home prices rose at a double-digit pace — a testament to the imbalance of high demand and not enough homes on the market for sale,” said 2022 C.A.R. President Otto Catrina, a Bay Area real estate broker and REALTOR®. “For the year as a whole, the market turned in its best performance in more than a decade, as buyers took advantage of historically low interest rates and continued to value the benefits of homeownership amid another year of the pandemic.

California home prices remained below the $800,000 benchmark for the third straight month as the seasonal slowdown continued. Despite a deceleration in growth at the end of the year, the statewide median price rose to $796,570 in December, up 1.8 percent from November’s Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One
Frank Schmidt & Associates
$782,480 and up 11.0 percent from the $717,930 recorded in December 2020. The double annual price gain was the 17th consecutive month with more than a 10 percent increase since the summer of 2020. The annual increase was
end homes continued to moderate since July 2021. For the year as a whole, California set a new annual record median price of $786,750, improving 19.3 percent from the prior year. “The state’s housing market is expected to perform solidly this year as the economy recovers further and consumers’ desire to buy remains elevated,” said Economist Jordan Levine. “However, with
remaining an issue, the housing market will see headwinds of ongoing high inflation, which will put pressure on the Fed to raise rates sooner than previously expected. These factors will increase the cost of borrowing and put more affordability burden on poten purchase in 2022.”
Regional Housing Market
The Standard & Poor/Case-Shiller Home Price Index measures the average change in value of residential real estate given a constant level of quality and reflects single sometimes referred to as a repeat sale index. The next chart indicates that the subject’s San Francisco Metropolitan
2018 to 349.751 in December 2021
December 2020 and December 2021 the increase was about 1.61 confidence evident in the Housing Market Index.

Source: S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC
The State of California Department of Finance (DOF) compiles statistics on total housing units in both the cities and counties of California. Based on DOF statistics, Santa Clara County had a total housing supply of 680,298
Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] $782,480 and up 11.0 percent from the $717,930 recorded in December 2020. The double consecutive month with more than a 10 percent increase since the summer of 2020. The annual increase was also the smallest since July 2020 as the share of high end homes continued to moderate since July 2021. For the year as a whole, California set a new annual record median price of $786,750, improving 19.3 percent from the prior year. market is expected to perform solidly this year as the economy recovers further and consumers’ desire to buy remains elevated,” said C.A.R. Vice President and Chief Economist Jordan Levine. “However, with COVID cases surging and inventory constraints ining an issue, the housing market will see headwinds of ongoing high inflation, which will put pressure on the Fed to raise rates sooner than previously expected. These factors will increase the cost of borrowing and put more affordability burden on potential homebuyers who want to Shiller Home Price Index measures the average change in value of residential real estate given a constant level of quality and reflects single-family housing. sometimes referred to as a repeat sale index. The next chart indicates that the subject’s San Francisco Metropolitan Area increased about 33% from 263.868 in December 349.751 in December 2021, or about 0.92%/month. Over the twelve months between er 2021 the increase was about 1.61%/month, echoing the builder confidence evident in the Housing Market Index.

S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC
The State of California Department of Finance (DOF) compiles statistics on total housing units in both the cities and counties of California. Based on DOF statistics, Santa Clara County had a units as of January 1, 2021. This represents an increase of Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA
[email protected] 31
$782,480 and up 11.0 percent from the $717,930 recorded in December 2020. The double-digit consecutive month with more than a 10 percent increase since the also the smallest since July 2020 as the share of highend homes continued to moderate since July 2021. For the year as a whole, California set a new annual record median price of $786,750, improving 19.3 percent from the prior year.” market is expected to perform solidly this year as the economy recovers C.A.R. Vice President and Chief
COVID cases surging and inventory constraints
ining an issue, the housing market will see headwinds of ongoing high inflation, which will put pressure on the Fed to raise rates sooner than previously expected. These factors will increase tial homebuyers who want to
Shiller Home Price Index measures the average change in value of family housing. It is
sometimes referred to as a repeat sale index. The next chart indicates that the index for the % from 263.868 in December
lve months between
echoing the builder
The State of California Department of Finance (DOF) compiles statistics on total housing units in both the cities and counties of California. Based on DOF statistics, Santa Clara County had a . This represents an increase of 5,740
FRED "J - S&P/Case-Shiller CA-San Francisco Home Price Index g
i
~
I
350
340
330
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
02 2018 032018
Shaded areas Indicate u s recessions.
01 2019 02 2019 032019 012020
Source: S&P Dow Jones lndiCes LLC
02 2020 032020 0 1 2021 02 2021 032021
fred.st\ouls!ed.org
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 32 units over the 674,558 units as of January 1, 2020. Extending further back in time, the DOF estimates the total supply of housing units in Santa Clara County at 631,920, as of January 2010.

This indicates that over the ten-year period between 2010 and 2020, the housing supply in Santa Clara County increased by a total of 42,638 units, equivalent to a compounded annual increase of

0.655 percent or an average of 4,264 units per year.

According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)4 Projections 2040 report (most recent report), in 2015, Santa Clara County had a total of 648,900 households. ABAG projects that in 2030, the number of Santa Clara County households will have increased by a compounded annual increase of 1.04 percent, to 757,690 or an average of 7,253 households per year. As such, the demand for housing (i.e. households) is projected to increase at a considerably higher pace than that of housing supply.

In the City of Santa Clara, the DOF reported a total of 51,041 housing units as of January 2021.

This represents an increase of 2,066 units from the 48,975 housing units as of January 2020.

Housing is being built at a faster rate in Santa Clara than the County as a whole.

According to ABAG’s Projections 2040 report, in 2015, the City of Santa Clara had a total of 49,685 housing units. This statistic is projected to increase to 52,675 housing units by 2030, a compounded annual rate of 0.39%, or an average increase of 199 housing units per year. Based on the most recent two year and 10-year periods, the City has exceeded ABAG’s projections.

Local Multifamily Market
According to Integra Realty Resources Viewpoint 2021 San Jose Multifamily Mid-Year Report, Growth in the information technology industry over the past decade has strongly increased demand for housing in the Silicon Valley market. There has been limited new single-family home construction and developers responded with substantial new multifamily construction to satisfy demand. Research reports indicate roughly 2,000 to 3,800 multifamily units were completed each year in 2018 through 2020, with over 6,300 units under construction as of the end of 2020.

Prior to the coronavirus outbreak, vacancy remained low as new units were absorbed quickly and rental rates continued to increase moderately, particularly in core submarkets near corporate campuses and high-end suburban markets,. In recent years, unemployment reached the lowest level since the late 1990’s and even at full employment, job growth was positive in the region. However, in April 2020, unemployment jumped up and a significant number of jobs were lost following stay-at-home mandates and non-essential business closures. The greatest impact has been in the Leisure/Hospitality and Trade/Transportation/Utilities sectors. Market conditions began to moderate during the second quarter 2020 as a result of these policies enacted to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Vacancy in the multifamily market increased as a

4 Association of Bay Area Governments is the official comprehensive planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area region.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 33 result of the economic downturn, job losses, and changes in business operations which allows employees to move to more affordable locations and work from home. Also contributing is the continued increase in supply from new development but with slower lease-up periods. Overall vacancy has increased each quarter in 2020 and is above the year ago estimate. Rental rate growth had been declining prior to the pandemic and asking rent trends had already begun to show the effects of the coronavirus at the end of the first quarter, with the typical seasonal pattern of rent growth being disrupted. Forecasting rent growth is highly uncertain at this time; however, it is expected that the economic decline combined with significant supply growth from deliveries over the next several years will result in further declines in average asking rental rates.

Integra Realty Resources Viewpoint 2021 San Jose Multifamily Mid-Year Report summary is displayed in the following charts:

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 34 Values for multifamily properties are projected to increase over the next 12 months, according to Integra’s report. Asking rents over the next 12 months are projected to increase.

According to a CoStar report on the local multifamily market, the “Santa Clara submarket is an important job center, with some prominent companies making the city their home. The submarket is the second largest in the metro, with nearly 20,000 units in its inventory. The economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic and changing demand trends are weighing on submarket occupancy rates. Vacancies are decreasing for Class A units and increasing for Class B units. Prior to the pandemic, job growth around the metro had kept demand high, and absorption was able to keep pace with rapid supply increases over the past decade. Strong demand for housing, particularly near transit, was a driving force for rent gains in recent years.

The coronavirus pandemic has quickly changed market trends and created significant uncertainty Market Rate Indicators (YN)
Categories
Going In Cap Rate (%)
Asking Rent ($/Unit)
Vacancy Rate (%)
Class A Class B
T
....
....

Going In Cap Rate Comparisons (%)

8.00%

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%
0 .00%
Urban Class Suburban Urban Class Suburban
A Class A B Class B
■ San Jose, CA West Region ■ National
Asking Rents ($/Unit)
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
! "'
$1,000
$0 "'
Class A Class B
■ San Jose, CA West Region ■ National
Vacancy Rates (%)

8.0%

6.0%

4.0% ~
9 "'

2.0%

0.0%
Class A
■ San Jose, CA West Region
~
"'
Class B
■ National
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 35 in the market. But the expectation is for transaction activity to pull back as market participants take stock of the changing economic and commercial real estate landscape.” “Vacancy in Santa Clara has been volatile since 2016, with large scale construction projects driving the variability. In total, the submarket has added over 3,700 units since 2010. The submarket had previously been able to absorb the new units at a healthy rate, with the vacancy rate consistently normalizing just a few quarters after project deliveries. But the economic effects of the coronavirus are stressing near term occupancy rates. Remote working trends have allowed renters to look further afield to meet housing needs, reducing demand, and job losses are putting further pressure on apartment occupancies. As a result of the reduced apartment demand, existing units are experiencing move-outs, and new projects are facing longer lease-up times.” The Marcus & Millichap’s 3Q-2021 Multifamily San Jose Metro Area Market Report stated that the apartment market in the South Bay had a strong second quarter and was poised for continued momentum as Apple, Facebook and Google made plans to have their employees return to their campuses. However, the emergence of the delta variant and the rise in COVID-19 cases encouraged both Apple and Facebook to delay recalling employees until January of next year and Google to push back its full office opening until mid- October while also mandating vaccines for workers. Although the extensions will make the improvement in vacancy and rents more measured in the second half of 2021, the eventual return of employees to these economic anchors will prompt smaller firms to bring workers back to their offices.

Local Single-Family Market
According to the City of Santa Clara General Plan, an estimated 28,500 new jobs will be created and the population will grow by 32,135 people in the City between 2010 and 2035. The General Plan forecasts that 13,222 new housing units will be needed during that same period, based on an estimated household size of 2.5 people. The General Plan also states that household growth in the City has been much slower than the rest of Santa Clara County due to the lack of vacant residential land. Therefore, in order to meet future housing needs, construction of new housing will primarily occur through the redevelopment of existing sites.

Among the 51,041 housing units in Santa Clara, as reported by the DOF, the single-family (attached and detached) market represents about 19,510 or about 38% of the total housing units in Santa Clara.

CoreLogic is a national real estate, mortgage, consumer, and specialized business data provider.

They tracked the annual median home price for all homes (single-family, condo, and townhouse), including new construction, in the City’s three ZIP code areas through 2021:

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 36 The data above indicates that zip code 95051 consistently has the highest median price among Santa Clara’s zip codes. Zip code 95050 had the second highest median in most years. The $/SF indicator shows that 95051 has higher prices than 95050, which both have higher prices than 95054. The data indicates that median prices were increasing in 2018, stabilizing in 2019 and 2020, and increasing in 2021. Overall median prices were higher in 2021. By the end of 2021, median prices had increased about 7.5% per year in 95050, increased about 6.4% per year in 95051 and about 6.8% per year in 95054.

The $/SF indicators showed an overall increasing trend from 2020 to 2021. The total number of sales indicator showed an overall increasing rate from 2020 to 2021 in 95050, 95051 and in the 95054 zip code. Total citywide sales were 1,049 in 2018, 955 in 2019, 1,075 in 2020 and 1,538 in 2021. Overall, there were more sales transacted in Santa Clara in 2021 compared to 2018, 2019, and 2020 suggesting an increase in demand during the pandemic.

The following tables depict the median price trend by zip code over the 37 months ending December 2021 for single family homes and common interest developments (townhouse/condos) in the three zip codes of the City of Santa Clara using closed sale data obtained by MLSlistings.com:

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 37 As shown above, market data derived from the local MLS shows that prices were trending downward in 2018, and oscillated up and down in 2019 and 2020. Similarly, townhouses and condominiums oscillated up and down in 2021. However, prices for single family homes were generally trending upwards in 2021.

We note that CoreLogic data includes resales and new construction, while MLS typically does not include all new construction. This is because builders often do not use MLS to market their homes. The following tables show the annual and 2-year change for all housing types over the last three Decembers, according to the MLS:
$2,000,000
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
Median Sales Price & Median Days to Sell
For Single-Family Units by Zip Code
" .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .<> .<> .<> .<> .<> .<> ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., lllllililllilllllilllllll --95050 Median Price --95051 Median Price --95054 Median Price - - 95050 Median Da ys to Sell - - 9505 1 Median Days to Sell - - 95054 Median Days to Sell Median Sales Price & Median Days to Sell
Townhouse/Condominum
JIIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIIIII --95050MedlanSP --95051 Median SP --95054 Median SP - • 95050Median0aystoSetl - • 95051Median0aystoSell - - 95054 Median Days to Sell 100
90 80
70 :ii 60 l!
E so C
:;
40 ~
30 20
10 0
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 38 The data in the above table supports the opinion that 95050 and 95054 generally rate inferior to 95051. The data also indicates that median selling prices are higher over the past two years, but higher in 95051, higher in 95054, and lower in 95050 over the last 12 months. The median throughout the entire city, encompassing the three zip codes, increased 8.3% over the 12 months ended December 2021 from $1,305,000 to $1,413,000.

The next table using MLS statistics shows the monthly median change in selling prices in Santa Clara, adjacent Sunnyvale, and the larger Santa Clara County market since the start of 2018:

As the table above indicates, median selling prices peaked in the spring of 2018, receded until early 2019, were more stable through the end of 2019, but then increased sharply in the early part of 2020 through the spring of 2020. Prices were generally stable over remainder of 2020 in Santa Clara and Santa Clara County but declined in Sunnyvale. The median selling prices for each of these three areas generally increased throughout 2021.

Housing Type Zip Code December-19 December-20 December-21 % Change per Month % Change per Month Last 12 Months Last 2 Years
95050 $1,210,000 $1, 265,000 $1,230,000 -0.23% 0.07%
SFR, Condo, &
95051 $1,425,000 $1,415,000 $1,575,000 0.94% 0.44% Townhouse 95054 $1,202,500 $1,128,000 $1,450,000 2.38% 0.86% Source: Local MLS
Median Sales Price For All Residential
$2,000,000
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
~
-~
Q,
.. $1,400,000 :S
]
;
:;; $1,200,000 ~
:ii:
$1,000,000
$800,000
- Santa Clara - Sunnyva le - Santa Clara County
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 39 Conclusions
The overall long-term outlook for the economy remains bright, though the migration of many highly paid workers is delaying a stronger recovery in the retail arena. Furthermore, the emergence of the COVID-19 variants is giving pause to some to the local economy’s anchors.

Google, Apple and Facebook have all pushed reopening into early 2022 as the current wave of positive cases needs to pass. The unemployment rate began declining and detached single-family buyers showed greater interest in the market as they fled more urban areas such as San Francisco and smaller housing types and were looking for more space in less dense environments. The work-from-home dynamic kept pressure on delivery services and data center operators to keep up with demand, which in turn kept up demand for industrial properties storing product.

Essential retailers generally fared okay during 2021, particularly grocery stores, home improvement stores, drive-thru fast food, and quick serve restaurants. However, fine dining, hospitality, entertainment, and shopping malls, to name a few, were impacted by the pandemic.

As the vaccine was distributed in the community, restrictions were lifted, businesses reopened, and employment numbers gradually improved. Demand for most real estate is forecast to continue to return to pre-pandemic levels.

Commercial (retail and office) properties exhibited mixed indications due to the pandemic in 2021. Some retail is doing fine, but the hospitality/leisure/entertainment industries remain depressed. Office demand appears in limbo as many employees may or may not fully return to offices, particularly among tech companies. Furthermore, the emergence of the COVID-19 variants is giving pause to some to the local economy’s anchors. Google, Apple and Facebook have all pushed reopening into early 2022 as the current wave of positive cases needs to pass.

During 2021 office buildings experienced stable to increasing vacancy despite increasing asking rental rates. The rental rate increases were due in part to newer, better space becoming available as tenants migrated from nearby higher cost markets. The trend was generally the same for retail, whereby vacancy ticked down slightly over the second half of 2021, with Santa Clara continued to record the lowest vacancy rate in the region at 3.9%. Average asking rents were also down slightly at the end of the year. There is limited new retail construction occurring; most is part of mixed-use developments. Office construction is occurring, but it is mostly located in downtown San Jose and the Bayside portions of the county where larger blocks of land can be found and generally comprises high-intensity, four or more story buildings. Based on discussions with market participants, general market conditions and the sales data we analyzed, we applied a market conditions rate of change to the commercial land sale comparables used following of negative 0.75% per month from the start of April 2020 through 4Q-2020. From the date of sale through 4Q-2021 prices were more stable for commercial and did not warrant adjustment.

Over the past couple of years, industrial (and warehouse) market statistics indicated that rental rates have been trending upwards, while vacancy rates generally stabilized near 5%. Market Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 40 participants opined that selling prices are also increasing, especially for large sites suitable for data centers. The increase in industrial value is supported by an improved paired sale at 3600 Peterson Way in Santa Clara that sold in October 2016 for $30 million and again in June 2019 for $37 million, which indicates a straight-line increase of about 0.72% per month for this 75,800 square foot building on an approximate 5.42-acre site. 1623 S 10th Street in San Jose sold for $3,000,000 in August 2018 and again for $3,801,000 in October 2020, indicating a straight-line increase of about 1.0% per month. Based on increasing rents and prices, we concluded that competing industrial land prices were increasing at the rate of about 0.75% per month from the date of sale of the comparables through December 2020, with no additional adjustment in 2021.

Santa Clara (and the Bay Area in general) is an undersupplied housing market. Demand for housing is expected to continue in the long-term, with increased demand for higher density housing options, a result of the scarcity of developable land and the more affordable nature for prospective buyers/renters.

Market data and market participants report that residential prices declined in the latter part of 2018 and were stable overall during 2019. In 2020, the residential market showed different trends depending on property type. The market generally saw greater demand for detached residential over the course of 2020 and 2021 as buyers looked to have more indoor/outdoor space since they began spending a greater proportion of time at home. Meanwhile, condominiums and apartments experienced a slower market during 2021. Based on the market reports cited above, sales data analyzed, and market participant interviews, for the very low-density residential land sales used in the following analysis we applied an increasing rate of change of 0.25% per month from the start of 2020 through the fourth quarter 2020 and an increasing rate of change of 1.00% per month from the start of 2021 through the fourth quarter 2021. For the high-density land sales, median sale prices oscillated somewhat and multifamily rents stagnated or declined during 2021.

So, no market change is applied during 2019, 2020 and 2021 for this property type.

LAND USE ORDINANCES
Since we are analyzing hypothetical lots, we supposed that each use would be based on its appropriate General Plan designation. The appropriate zoning category for each hypothetical use was not a critical factor as the General Plan is the long-term planning tool used by the City.

Furthermore, comparable land sale transactions typically sell based on their intended use, which is supported by the General Plan in almost all cases. The City’s Phase II Land Use map is in effect and is intended to guide land uses for the years 2015-2025. Compared to Phase I, it expands the areas within the city where mixed-uses and higher-density residential is allowed. We supposed the following General Plan designations for each hypothetical use:

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 41

HIGHEST AND BEST USE
We studied the legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive uses of each hypothetical lot. We considered prevailing market conditions and recent development trends. As indicated in the market conditions section, except for retail/hospitality/office, each product type is generally experiencing increasing or stable prices and stabilizing vacancy rates. These are indications that the highest and best use is to construct the legally permissible product for each respective property type. However, for the commercial use, since many retail and office projects are on hold, construction would not likely be undertaken until the market improves, unless preleased or a build-to-suit is procured. Therefore, the highest and best use for the hypothetical commercial use would be to hold for future development of a commercial building until the market improves, unless preleased or a build-tosuit. We concluded to the following components of property uses for the highest and best use of the hypothetical lot based on the overall market and the instruction of the Client:

We applied a hypothetical condition that each of these uses was allowed on the hypothetical subject lot.

For this analysis and based on the market and the City’s General Plan, we concluded the most reasonable density to support the residential uses was about the midpoint or nearer the high end of the allowed density ranges (based on ever-increasing density proposals/approvals):

Use of Hypothetical Lot General Plan
Very Low Density Residential Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Residential
High Density Residential High Density Residential
Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential
Commercial Regional Commercial
Industrial Light Industrial
Use of Hypothetical Lot Highest & Best Use
Very Low Density Residential Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential High Density Residential
Commercial Hold for Development of a Commercial Building Industrial Light Industrial Building
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 42  13 dwelling units per gross acre (DU/AC) for Low-Density Residential;  26-30 DU/AC for Medium-Density Residential; and
 45 DU/AC for High-Density Residential.

For Very Low-Density Residential, which allows up to 10 DU/AC, we concluded that the most likely subdivision for a hypothetical one acre of land would support a subdivision at the high of this range, or 10 DU/AC. This is because the scarcity of land requires ever increasing densities to make projects financially feasible.

The likely commercial use would be an office building, but only if preleased or a build-to-suit.

The likely industrial use would be a data center, flex, light industrial building or some type of interim contractor storage yard with minimal building improvements.

APPRAISAL PROCESS
The appraisal profession has generally relied upon three traditional approaches in estimating the market value of real property. These are the Income Capitalization Approach, the Sales Comparison Approach, and the Cost Approach. While all three approaches are always considered in a valuation assignment, all three are not always applied. The quantity and quality of available data and the applicability of each approach relative to the value being sought are important factors in reconciling to an opinion of value.

Market value was estimated using the sales comparison approach. The income capitalization approach is seldom used when valuing land. The cost approach did not offer substantial insight into this estimate of market value since there are no building improvements. Sellers, buyers, and our peers in this market rarely rely on the cost and income capitalization approaches when offering, purchasing, or valuing properties similar to the hypothetical subject lots. Therefore, we did not undertake a cost or income capitalization approach.

Following we estimated the value of a hypothetical one-acre lot under each use scenario described above, as if located within the 95050 zip code, since the most data was discovered in this zip code. Next, we applied the weighted average of the highest and best land use component, based on the percentage of total land area associated with the different property types (as described above) that sold in the City of Santa Clara in the 12 months prior to the date of value (as reported by Old Republic Title Company). Lastly, we applied any necessary locational differences from the 95050 zip code conclusion to arrive at the appropriate average lot value in the 95051 and 95054 zip codes.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 43 AVERAGE VALUE ESTIMATE IN 95050 ZIP CODE
Very Low-Density Land Value
The writers examined data that was discovered by: talking to brokers, agents, property owners, and market participants from within the subject market; reviewing DataTree.com, MLSlistings.com, and CoStar.com databases for recent sales; and searching Loopnet.com and broker databases for current listings. We also reviewed development reports provided by the planning departments of Santa Clara and other nearby cities.

As stated above, for the very low-density value component, we assumed a density of 10 dwelling units per acre, at the high end of the allowed range under the Very Low-Density General Plan designation, which allows up to 10 dwelling units per acre. We searched for competing sales and listings of properties throughout Santa Clara and adjacent cities which were intended for development with residential densities less than 25 dwelling units per acre and that closed escrow over the last three years. We first analyze the subject hypothetical one-acre site located in zip code 95050 since more appropriate sales from this zip code were discovered. The sales we found most comparable are displayed on the following adjustment grid. The adjustment grid serves two purposes. First, it presents data, analysis, and conclusions about the subject and comparables in a way that facilitates comparison. Second, it presents the data in a format whereby the reader can follow the writers’ adjustment process.

A parcel map for each comparable sale is displayed in the Addenda. Selling prices were verified using our summary transcript of the public record and conversations with selling and listing brokers/agents, sellers, and/or buyers when possible. A map showing the location of these comparables is displayed in the Addenda.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt& Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 44

VERY LOW DENSITY COMPARABLE LAND SALES
ELEMENT OF ADJUSTMENT SUBJECT COMPARABLE VLD-1 .COMP ARABLE VLD-2 COMPARABLE VLD-3 :coMPARABLE VLD-4 COMPARABLE VLD-5 ADDRESS Average Street 4254 Cheeney St 159 Brookside Avenue 3159 Butte Street 1334 Miller Ave 1348 Mill er Ave Santa Clara Santa Clara Santa Clara Santa Clara San Jose San Jose APN 104-12-031 303-22-028 290-04-044 375-25-053 3 75-25-055 SELLER Lawrence L FargherTrust Domingo 1992 Revocable Trust Wallis 1983 Family Trust Steven K. Doi 2011 Trust Li Shaoliang BUYER BS & L S Schulman Trust RanJan Trust, et al Cheng C & Tsai L Chen Zhang Tao Ke Lun DOCUMENT NUMBER 24770884 24597855 24420940 24965466 24965471 SALE/ LISTING PRICE $925,000 $1,325,000 $1 ,600,000 $3,100,000 $3,232,000 SALE/ OFFERING PRICE PER SF $123.33 $96.72 $110.92 $139.87 $145.82 TRANSACTIONAL ADJUSTMENTS $308,333 $662,500 $800,000 $1,033,333 $1,077,333 REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS CONVEYED Fee Simple Fee Simple (M-t-M leases) Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple ADJUSTMENT 0.00% 0.00% 0 00% 0.00% 0.00%
FINANCING TERMS All Cash Conventional All Cash All Cash All Cash ADJUSTMENT 0.00% 0.00% 0 00% 0.00% 0.00%
CONDITIONS OF SALE Motivated Seller Arm 's-Length Arm 's-Length/Improvement Value Arm's-Length Arm's-Length ADJUSTMENT 10.00% 0.00% -9.38% 0.00% 0.00%
EXPENDITURES AFTER SALE Demolition Offset Demolition Offset None Demolition Offset Demolition Offset ADJUSTMENT 0.00% 0 00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
CLOSE OF ESCROW December 31, 2020 September2, 2020 March 4, 2020 May 18, 2021 May 18, 2021 TIME OF SALE/ MARKET CONDITION December 31, 2021 November 2020 August 2020 February 2020 March 2021 March 2021 MONTHS FROM START 10-2021 THROUGH 40-2021 12 12 12 9 9
ADJUSTMENT@% PER MONTH 1.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12 .00% 9 00% 900% MONTHS FROM START 10-2020 THROUGH 40-2020 1 4 10 0 0
ADJUSTMENT®% PER MONTH 0.25% 0.25% 1.00% 2 50% 0 .00% 0.00% ADJ PRICE PER SF AFTER TRANSACTIONAL ADJS $152.33 $109.40 $115.40 $152.45 $158.95 LOCA 11 ONAL ADJUSTMENTS
EXPOSURE/ VISIBILITY Average Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar ACCESS Average Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
APPEAL/SITE INFLUENCES Average Inferior Inferior/San Tomas Expy Superior Superior Superior ZIP CODE 95050 95054 95050 95051 95129 95129
OVERALL LOCATIONAL RATING Inferior Inferior Superior Superior Superior

PHYSICAL ADJUSTMENTS
SITE SIZE (ACRES) 1.00 0.17 0.31 0.33 0.51 0.51
SITE SIZE (SF) 43,560 7,500 13,700 14,425 22,164 22,164 UTILITY/TOPOGRAPHY Rectangular/ 1 Street Front Rectangular/ 1 Street Front Rectangular/ 1 Street Front SI Irregular/ 1 Street Front Rectangular/ 1 Street Front Rectangular/ 1 Street Front

USE/ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
ZONING R3-18D R 1-8L R1-6L R1-8 R1~
GENERAL PLAN Very Low Density Res Very Low Density Res Very Low Density Res Very Low Density Res Residential Neighborhood Residential Neighborhood NUMBER OF UNITS 10 3.0 1.5 1.5 3 .0 3.0
ESTIMATED I PROPOSED DU/ACRE 10.0 17.4 4.8 45 59 5 9
INTENDED USE Residential Triplex SF + ADU Residential + ADU 3 Residential Units 3 Residential Units AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT Yes/ 1 Unit (10%) No No No No No PARK FEE COMPONENT PER UNIT $40,588 Superior/None Superior/None Superior/None $27,300 $27,300 ENTITLEMENT STATUS Has Zoning & GP Had Zoning and GP Had Zoning and GP Had Zoning and GP Has Zoning & GP Has Zoning & GP OVERALL PHYSICAL & USE/ZONING RATING Superior Inferior Inferior Superior Superior

OVERALL RATING-SUBJECT SHOULD SELL FOR LESS MORE MORE LESS LESS Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 45 Adjustment Process
Transactional adjustments were made sequentially for property rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale/motivation of participants, expenditures incurred by the buyer after the sale, i.e. demolition costs, and market conditions since the sale date.

Comparable VLD-1 is the December 2020 closing of a parcel in an off-market transaction. Based on a conversation with the buyer, the seller was in poor health and was motivated to sell. The existing rents for this triplex were well below market and the agreed upon selling price was close to land value. The buyer is a builder who may renovate or demolish; he has not yet decided. If demolished, he estimated that another triplex would be built, but possibly a fourplex. After making all other adjustments first, an upward adjustment is concluded for motivation on the part of the seller, as shown above. Since this comparable is expected to support three units again, the developer of this comparable will not pay park impact fees since there will be no net new units.

Comparables VLD-2 is the sale of single-family lot improved with an older home. The buyer of Comparable VLD-2 intends to demolish the home and construct a new two-story dwelling and add a 748 square foot detached additional dwelling unit (ADU). This comparable will not pay park impact fees since ADU’s are exempt under the Santa Clara City Code (17.35.090).

Comparable VLD-3 was the sale of an improved lot that could support two lots or a SFD and an ADU. The listing broker opined that the existing improvements needed a lot of work, but that the buyer intended to move into the home, which dated from the 1940s. Based on the expected utilization of the improvements, we concluded that a downward adjustment was warranted for their contributory value. The amount of adjustment was estimated based on our observations, input from the listing broker, and a good fit for the data. A downward adjustment of $150,000 for this element of comparison was applied to the comparable on the Conditions of Sale line.

Comparables VLD-4 and VLD-5 are the sales of two single-family lots improved with older homes. These comparables were offered together by separate ownerships. The comparables were offered as a development site and a four lot conceptual site plan was included with the listings.

Instead of a four lot subdivision, the buyer intends to demolish both of the homes and subdivide the two existing lots into six lots and one common access lot. These comparables were selected to help bracket size.

Comparable VLD-1 continued to be rented following close of escrow; we concluded that the cost of demolition was offset by the rents that could continue to be received. The seller of Comparable VLD-2 was given some time to lease back following close of escrow; again, we concluded that the cost of demolition would be offset by rental income. The sellers of Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 46 Comparables VLD-4 and VLD-5 were each given a short time to lease back following close of escrow; again, we concluded that the cost of demolition would be offset by rental income..

As discussed in the preceding material, market conditions adjustments are applied from the start of the first quarter 2020 through the end of the fourth quarter 2021.

Locational adjustments were broken into elements that reflect the property’s identity to potential tenants or buyers (exposure, visibility), access (to freeways and amenities), and overall desirability of the location based on neighborhood factors such as age and condition of nearby properties, proximity to enhancing or detrimental factors, or an identifiable valuation element relating to address (locational appeal, zip code). Locational adjustments were warranted for the elements of comparison as summarized on the grid. As will be discussed in the following material, residential land values in the 95050 zip code rated superior to the 95054 zip code but inferior to the 95051 zip code; thus, the 95054-located comparable is adjusted upward and the 95051-located comparable is adjusted downward. Although Comparable VLD-2 backs to a public park, beyond the park is San Tomas Expressway, which is within about 200 feet of this comparable and is not separated by a sound wall, rating inferior to the subject; an overall upward adjustment is concluded for this element of comparison. Comparable VLD-4 and VLD-5 are considered to be in a superior location with a higher median sales price and are therefore rated as overall superior to subject.

Physical and Use/Zoning adjustments were broken into elements that reflect property size, utility/topography, allowed land uses and density, intended use/development density, affordable housing component, park fees, and entitlement status.

Comparable VLD-3 is located at the elbow of two streets and thus has an irregular pie-slice shape; an upward adjustment is concluded for inferior utility. For this analysis, upward adjustment was warranted for the lower densities of Comparables VLD-2, and VLD-3. Each comparable warrants downward adjustment for having either no park fees or for having lower park fees than the hypothetical subject lot.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 47 Conclusion
Following adjustment for the elements summarized on the grid, we concluded to the overall ratings displayed at the bottom of the sales grid. Bracketed by the comparable ratings, giving most weight to the sale comparables located in Santa Clara, we concluded to the following unit value of unentitled very low-density residential land in the 95050 zip code:

Unit $/SF x Land Area (SF) = Indicated Value
$125 x 43,560 = $5,445,000
Estimated Market Value of a 1-Acre
Very Low-Density Residential Lot in 95050 Zip Code: $5,445,000 Low Density Land Value
For the low-density value component, the City’s land use classification cites a low-density range of 8-19 dwelling units/acre (DU/Acre), which is greater than the maximum 10 DU/Acre allowed in the very low-density classification. We assumed a density of 13 DU/Acre, about the mid-point of the density range. In the market, the primary value difference between very low and lowdensity land relates to density. The density adjustment was estimated based on the relationship between price per SF and density, as evidenced by the comparables. In the chart below, we plotted the preceding very-low density comparables and the high-density comparables used in the following high-density value scenario.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 48 As shown in the chart above, the price per square foot of land increases with increasing density.

This is congruent with our observations in the market that as density increases, price per SF of land typically increases. The difference in pricing for changing densities is clear when comparing the lowest to the higher densities. And the price/SF difference is less when comparing the median to higher densities. We concluded there is a difference in value/SF between the preceding very low density and low-density residential which has a higher density. The trendline in the chart above indicates that the appropriate unit value based on a density of 13 dwelling units per acre would be about $132 per square foot. However, by graphing only the very low density sales, the following occurs:

Comparable Price per Square Foot vs. Proposed DU/Ac
$240.00
$220.00
>
-~
C
Cl> .,, $200.00 Q.

Cl>
u
X
Cl>
..

C
Cl> $180.00
E
t;
::,
:;,
"'
«i $160.00
:.
ii
LL
V, $140.00 a.

Cl>
u
'ct
-g $120.00
t; i ::,
:;,
<(
$100.00
$80.00

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 Proposed Dwelling Units per Acre
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 49 The chart above showing just the low density comparables indicates that the appropriate unit value based on a density of 13 dwelling units per acre would be in the range of about $135 to $140 per square foot.

Based on the comparable data, with a density of 13 dwelling units per acre for the low-density residential land use, we concluded to $136/SF.

Conclusion
We concluded to the following Low-Density residential value in the 95050 zip code for 1-acre of land:

Unit $/SF x Land Area (SF) = Indicated Value
$136 x 43,560 = $5,924,160
Estimated Market Value of a 1-Acre
Low-Density Residential Lot in 95050 Zip Code: $5,924,160 2021 Comparable Price per Square Foot vs. Proposed DU/Ac $155.00
$150.00
$145.00
-~
I!! $140.00 .,
-c:,
~ $135.00 .,
" >< $130.00 .,
...

C
.,
E $125.00 t;
::,
'S' $120.00 ..
-;;; $115.00 :;;
,t:
.. $110.00 ....
~
~
~
~
~
~ ·~ V>
~
"- $105.00 ., •
" ·;:
"- $100.00 -c:,
.,
t;
$95.00 ::,
'S'
<(
$90.00
$85.00
$80.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Proposed Dwelling Units per Acre
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 50 High Density Land Value
Similar to the preceding very low-density land search, we searched data sources for high and medium-high density residential land transactions and examined data that was discovered by talking to brokers, agents, property owners, and market participants from within the subject market. We also reviewed development reports provided by the planning departments of Santa Clara and other nearby cities.

As stated above, for the high-density value component, we assumed a density of 45 dwelling units per acre, a little higher than the midpoint of the allowed range under the High Density General Plan designation, which allows 37-50 dwelling units per acre. The sales we found most comparable are displayed on the next grid. A map showing the location of these comparables is displayed in the Addenda. A parcel map for each comparable sale is also displayed in the Addenda. Selling prices were verified using our summary transcript of the public record and conversations with selling and listing brokers/agents, sellers, and buyers. We were unable to confirm the details of Comparable HD-2 with a party to the transaction. We relied on published data, city records, subscription service data, news articles, and information available from a summary transcript of the public record for transaction details regarding these comparables.

Frank Schmidt& Associates
Real Estate Appraised:

Phone: 510
Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, Phone: 510-468-9219
Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA
[email protected] 51
HlGR m::, TI' COMPARAllL~ LAND U '.

ELEMENT OF ADJIJ5TMENCi" SUBIECT COMPAIIAIIILE HD-1 COMPARABLE-ffD-2 COMP~RABLE HD-3, COMPAIU!.Blf HJ>-.4' I mMPARABlf l!D--5 Avera~• !>treet g50 Mnnrne SI 16111 Dvk O!<lter llfllue 3/il<ll Steoens c,-eel,: l!hcd. Z303-B l9 caUe lleil MwJ>do I
2221-2251 DIie De Llln"B
ADDRESS 2232-2bIB calle Del M1.111do
SitBt~ Clara SitntaCla:ra Santa Clara s.anta aara sanra Clara :Sa1110 ctara APN 2169-10-3&6 22449-006 2!34-39-010 097- 5-0llD & 061 [)!1746-02{] & lll7 S'EUE:R Voo Ra.esfeld FMnH Pannershf91 I( & IU)trtdaar Ml-.ert!Sfng LL[ ,.rn £Jcdu51Nel~ Propenl~ LLC Bet-a 8:. PrtKpe,rtles LLC laisa11 LLC/2232 Galle el Mundo t u:
iHJYEII Lamb Parmers LLC DIii[ Ceoter LP CKP1"""Merkllam LP 2263 Galle Del M •ndo LLC GS Tasm,rn EilS{ StJilerrlii>f\', LLC D~UM ENT UMst:P. =- 243807 I ~ 252]1709 24840021 2S 62:!3 /2.506il:l 5 SAILE / U SJlllV6' PRICE $4,700.000 $12,100,~ $5,~15..000, $S,OOO,OOCI $21,!l!li,OOO SAILE J OfffRINCl l'.RICE l'E!R SF $ZD7..13 $H7.03 $197.47 $"18:l,ll;J I $235, 95 TilANSA.CTIDNAtADJUSTMENB
I
P.EAL PP.OPERTY Rllil-lTS COmrEWED feeSlmp_te raee Simple (Shoo "Ferm L•-l FeeSJmple Fee Simpl e ~ ... si.mple re...s1mp1e AIDUil"Mfl'l'l D.ll0%' D..oll'II, {]_IJIJ% 0. ol6 D.001' fJ ANCING TERMS C:Orwentl<>Aill Cllilveotlacral coo ..... ir1:1011al COnW!fl!:ltma:l CDmteri!Jior.ia.i ADJ!ISl'MfN'T D.00,.' o.o:m !J.~ 11% D.00%
CONDITIONS Of ~ALE M1aembl~ge Arm'.s0 Lenr;lh Arm's--Len,gm Assat1bla8e Ass.em!Jl;i8e AIDUSl'Mr-NT -s.oo,1,' Cl..001' {].00'1' -5.~ "5..0 !1:.

EXPENDl1URE5 AFTER SAtE oemolltion Otl~t
I
oe:mo1ttlol1 or □~ SiF Office Bld,..g Demolltion -Offo?t oemoll~on offset De<noli.tloo Olifset A!lJUSl'MfNT D.oo%1 L6:>% {]_~ □~ D.00%
CLOSE OFfiCROW rro1ua:rv 3. 2020 Jmua,ry 15. 21J2{] Fe.brua:rym. 2022 r-ebr11,.ary 19, 2fil l Au~st u , 2n2l TIME DI' '>ALE /-t::ET CONDITION Dec em 1>e<r n, 101.1 DE>Cembe, 1{]18 RI. Septilll.'I Aprll lfill ESL AjlJlll019 Est. Fe~- 20.W MONTHS FROM START l.Q-2 :19 THROUGH 4Q-2lll!l 12 J ll a 0 AIDUS1MflYT ,!> S Pfill MON1N O.llll% D.ooo!. 0.00% □□!( !»'. 0.001" MONTHS l'ROM STAIIT lQ-2 20 TH!IOUGH ~o.-~o~o J!2 12 □ 12 JJ□ ADJUSl'MENT@' S: .l'fR MOJlmj 0.00% o.llC!I,' 0.00'11 {1.00,C .11(1!\; 0 .00!1:.

MONTHS l'IIOM STAIIT lQ-2D21 THII.OUC.H ~Q-:MJZl n 12 B 12 12 ADJUSl'Mf.N'T@I ~ PfRMONTN 0.1111% D.oi,,I, D.IOCm {]_~ □. De l O. OOlll ADJ 1PRICE/SF AJ:TljK TIIAN5.ACTION'AL ~ DJS, $H7.lS $200,lll $197.0 $172.7,4 ! $224. lS L1XATIONAL ADJIJ!iliMENTS
EXPOSURE f VISI BILITT' A...,..age Simllar{C<>rner SimU1>r Slm a, Simtlar Slmll.ar ACCESS "'""'•g• !ilrnllar S1m.ilar 51.m:ll;u- stmilar Similar APPE.M/SlTE ltffLUl:NilS AYelilge Similar Slm.llB1 Slmlla.r Slmil.ar I
Similar
ZIP CODE 95050 !lS 51l gsos□ gsas1 95054 95054
O\ISERAU LOCATIONAL IRA.lllt!i Similar Sllmilar sldnll...- stma .. I Slmlliir Pall¥'SICA,~ AD.JUSJMeJNTS.

I SITE SIZE jA.CllfSj 1..00 0.52 1..4.1 OS9 l..01 2_14
5ffE 5l2E {SFl 43,560 22,625 61,.411 25.700 43;996 93,1.lil UTILITY /TOPOGRAPHY R~ctaongt.llar ( 1 Street froo,t Mo.Uy Rectau,g,,.lilr/Z frofrtil!le< M0511\' R,ectangui!ar/Deed Resl Rect.ansutar / 2 Sll"e..t Fronts Rerl'an,gt.111>r / l streenroo t M<J5ll'y llectang.ut-ilr / 3 Street Fronts USf(ZlJNING ADJU!ITMffilS.

Zot{ING t.c. {COl'Ylfl1u"1ty tom.,..,.cial] 0G CT TN frr.anslt Nelg bmt 1oo,d) "FN jTramlt NeJgt,l,ortioodl GENERAL Pl.AN' High Density Resldentr.al comm,iruty Mll«!d Use Community commercial community Ml•ed Use Hl~h De11Slty Reslde<1tla1 HIGh Density Resldenll.al ALLOWED DENS'IT'f !dwellfflg Un.its per aaej 37-50 NIA N/A ID-36 Mlfllmuml□□ Mtnlmummo INUMBE!I. m UNIT, 45 36{Prn ll.iltaj U9 5g, ~3 371
ES11M4Tl'D / l'IIOPOSBD OU/ACRE 45.0 69.3 841.4 0..0 300.0 173.4 INTErmEDUSf R.estdennal Ml(ed-Use eo;ooos imll Retail Attoraable HII-IIS.lJl.ll Attoroabte_ HOO.!lJltl i\eSld.e1LUaJ Re!.ldenlial AFFOII.DABLE HOUSING COMPONENT 10%onll--lteu 1!J% or ln-Ueu Yes /lDDlli v·es / l!l !'! In-lieu Fee 111--lleufee PARK FE:E COMPONENT PER UNrT $35,9 li $32,6!!8 $31.<JSB $33,SiMj $21.,ffi $30,918 ENTITl.EMENT Sillll.JS Ha,s z.ootng & GI' Had Ge<1er.al .l'l.-11 Needs Z<llll,_g aod 6eJ>Bral Plan Had General Pl.an Hi>S 2.oning & GP HM Z:on!J'lg & GP 011\EKM.L Pt l"'tSICP.L II, U5f/ZONINCl RATING SI~ Superior Slightly SllPe!IOI Slightly Stl_pe-,-lar SHglltly lllferJor S[fl!ILtlV SUperl,Qr OV,ERM.LltATING- WIU[CTSIWllWHI.I. rOR Ui5S LES§ I..E'i'S MDRE ! ILESS Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 52 Adjustment Process
Transactional adjustments were made sequentially for property rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale/motivation of participants, expenditures incurred by the buyer after the sale, i.e. demolition costs, and market conditions since the sale date.

Comparable HD-1 was purchased as part of an assemblage—the buyer had recently purchased two adjacent properties. Similarly, Comparables HD-4, and HD-5 were also purchased as part of an assemblage. Based on the data, a downward adjustment is warranted for motivation on the part of the buyer.

Comparables HD-1, HD-3, HD-4, and HD-5 required the demolition of existing improvements before their new, intended use could be realized. We concluded this expense was offset by the interim income from the improvements. So, no additional adjustment was warranted for this element of comparison.

Comparable HD-2 is a closed transaction of an infill site improved with a vacant 30,000 square foot office building. This building will require demolition prior to redevelopment, estimated at $200,000, based on our observation and cost data. This element of comparison is shown as an upward adjustment on the Expenditures After Sale line.

Locational adjustments were broken into elements that reflect the property’s identity to potential tenants or buyers (exposure, visibility), access (to freeways and amenities), and overall desirability of the location based on neighborhood factors such as age and condition of nearby properties, proximity to enhancing or detrimental factors, or an identifiable valuation element relating to address (locational appeal, zip code). Locational adjustments were warranted for the elements of comparison summarized on the grid.

Physical and Use/Zoning adjustments were broken into elements that reflect property size, utility/topography, allowed land uses and density, intended use/development density, affordable housing component, park fees, and entitlement status. Physical and use/zoning adjustments were warranted as summarized on the grid.

Comparable HD-1 and HD-3 both had two street frontages, allowing for greater design flexibility, rating superior utility, and warranting downward adjustment. Comparables HD-4, and HD-5 both are zoned Transit Neighborhood and have a minimum density of 100 dwelling units per acre. Comparable HD-3 will have 100% affordable housing and was given a 15% credit on the park fees. Comparable HD-4 has been given a credit of $1,290,000 for park fees in exchange for 14,000sf of dedicated park space and private amenities. The comparables proposed building densities/acre bracket the subject; the highest densities warrant downward adjustment and the Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 53 lower densities warrant an upward adjustment. Comparables HD-1 and HD-2 will require a zoning change or general plan amendment to allow for residential and an upward adjustment is warranted for this element of comparison. The comparables with approved entitlements rated superior to the subject’s unentitled status and are adjusted downward. Park impact fees varied somewhat based upon the use and timing of the fee.

Conclusion
Following adjustment for the elements summarized on the grid, we concluded to the overall ratings displayed at the bottom of the grid. The comparables were analyzed based on a price per square foot and a price per unit units of comparison. The range of adjusted values is more consistent on a price/SF basis rather than a price/density unit basis; therefore, the price/SF is utilized as the primary comparison of value. Bracketed by the comparable ratings, the following value of unentitled high-density 45 DU/Acre residential land in the 95050 zip code is concluded:

Unit $/SF x Land Area (SF) = Indicated Value
$195 x 43,560 = $8,494,200
Estimated Market Value of a 1-Acre
High-Density Residential Lot in 95050 Zip Code: $8,494,200 Medium Density Land Value
For the medium-density value component, a density of 30 dwelling units per acre is assumed, slightly above the midpoint of the allowed range under the Medium Density General Plan designation, which allows 19-36 dwelling units per acre, because buyers typically build to the higher end of allowed density. In the market, the primary difference between the medium-density land value and high-density land value relates to density. The density adjustment was estimated based on the relationship between price per SF and density, as evidenced by the comparables. In the chart below, we plotted the preceding high-density comparables and the very-low density comparables used in the preceding low-density value scenario. We graphed the change in land value per square foot versus the change in density.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 54 As stated in the preceding material, the data shows the price per square foot of land increases with increasing density, which is congruent with our observations in the market. The difference in pricing for changing densities is clear when comparing the lowest to the higher densities. The chart above indicates that at a density of about 30 dwelling units per acre, the indicated price per square foot is about $140 to $145, but is somewhat skewed by the cluster of low density sales.

The next chart removes the low density comparables and includes only the higher density comparables:

Comparable Price per Square Foot vs. Proposed DU/Ac
$240.00
$220.00
>
-~
C
.,
,, $200.00 Q.
.,
u
X
.,
~
C
., $180.00
E
t;
:::,
'5'
..
iii $160.00
~
.t'.
..
u.. $140.00 "' c..
.,
u
·c
c..
,,
., $120.00
t; i :::,
'5'
<I;
$100.00
$80.00

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 Proposed Dwelling Un its per Acre
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 55 The chart above indicates that at a density of about 30 DU/acre, the indicated price per square foot is about $200 to $205 per square foot. This is slightly more than the high density value concluded above, which may be due in part to the higher cost of underground parking typically found in more dense projects. Based on the preceding comparable data, giving greater weight to the more comparable similar density range and the higher density sales chart above, with a density of 30 DU/acre for the medium-density land use, a unit value of $200/SF is concluded.

Conclusion
We concluded to the following medium-density value in the 95050-zip code for 1-acre of land:

Unit $/SF X Land Area (SF) = Indicated Value
$200 x 43,560 = $8,712,000
Estimated Market Value of a 1-Acre
Medium-Density Residential Lot in 95050 Zip Code: $8,712,000 Commercial Land Value
Like the search for residential land sales data, we searched similar data sources and examined data that was discovered by talking to brokers, agents, property owners, and market participants $230.00
$225.00
$220.00
>
-~ $215.00 C
'tJ " $210.00 1i.
"
~ $205.00
" 1: $200.00 " E
t:
:, $195.00
:;;
..
.; $190.00
" $185.00 '1;
u.

VI $180.00 "-
" $175.00 .!!
~
'tJ $170.00
t: "
:, $165.00 :;;
< $160.00
$155.00
$150.00
2021 Comparable Price per Square Foot vs. Proposed DU/Ac ♦
♦
•
•
♦

20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00 170.00 180.00 190.00 Proposed Dwelling Units per Acre
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 56 from within the subject market. We searched for recent sales of competing retail and office properties throughout Santa Clara and nearby cities. Those we found most comparable are displayed on the grid on a following page. A map showing the location of these comparables is displayed in the Addenda.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt& Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 57 lcoMi\ffiRCTAL LA1 ID COMPARABLE SALES
I Eil.EMLIT OF ADJil"STIIiE.

SEilJE.R
BUYER
S.l!.LE PRICE
PARCilS'IZE (.~ )

PARCELSIZE (SF)
S.4IES PRIC QU ,!;RE FOOT
DOC.mtENT NlY.'.!iBER
TR.\J."\"S..\CTIONAL AD.JUSTIIEl'<TS
REAL ROP. RIGm'S CONVEYED
FIN.!INC'ING 'EER\iS S
rmaNS OF ~UE
[ ENilITu"RE.S MIEltPUIICHME
C:ON1lt.,\CT DATE / 1'1KT CONDITIONS

RECORDIN DATE
MONTHS, FROM: Eh"D lQ-20 THROUGH 4Q-2 l
- ~ J7',i 1:tlt~ ... rKr i'.'illrJ th
!\D,K l'RICE'SF WITH IRANS. ADJ".
llOCATIONAL Al)Jt:"STIIBl\lT.S
,..._ : 1,,1, ,_.,...1 1 ,c ....
!UlPEAIJSIIE JNH.UENCES/ . .!1£CESS
ZliP OODE
LOCA.TION.ll. ·OOMPARISON
PHYSICAL & USE/Zi01'1"INC ADJUSTMENTS
P.4RCllSIZE (.,!;.rre;)
lHlLITY
I
OW-fill'E Ill1POOVEMEN'I
ZONl!NG'GHNER.41. PL.<\..l'>i
IPF<OPOSED usa:s:i
IIPHYSIC.U. & SEJZO~l:NG OOMP . .\RJS"ON
I SliEJE.CT .SHOl ."LD SILL FOR:

UBJEC-T

1.00 43,;560
Deceimer 3], 2021
-o.75% 1------------l
AlWS~
Aval!:g>:
95050
u oo
CT / Regj:ooal Coolnl!!ucis:l
ColJmE£dal
Compa:r11ble ,C-1
;3, 5 El C~.a!lino Real
S:mm Clarn
22-0--02-049
Nonm E!tice, TIIEtEe
3375·~DlySgmre
S9 9-cS 000

1.630
l,l!(B
SLW.73
24595053
F. S:imple (Sha. -@filLe:N!,)
Al]Qiili
.i\mi's-~Inip:ro,.,-ed
-15.0'¼
'NO!li!
0Jl%
Jul:y .2020
5 -3..75%
SU4.3Ci
~
Similar
9505]
Superiar

1.630
' imilai'
C F f Coomnm:ity :-.ti"i:a:l.0Use
R2tail m Nea;-Temi.

Superiar
Comparable C-.2
3372 El UlI!llllO Res!
_90--02- 02
.An S Shin
Vegllllifd USA lLC

0.871
38,2.11
8139.75
2 5!:'9843
Offl,.fun:et (6 Malll!hs m 1019)
F. Simp]~ (SllmMerm ~ )
All C.ash
.~s--Lengm/Illlprol:,ed
-1LO'%
J'lllle :2.020
7 S.ll7.8$
Similar
Simih!r
9505]
Sia!ilaJr
o.sn
Similalr
CT f Comiwnily 1med-iUse
Retail illNe:!11"-l'emi.

SJ. Superioo
Comp:m1ble C-.3
.125 Colenm.''•Sa!!!II!
SallJose
23(146..,093
G1P •~1u.c
Sim JoseHDt>:l!m.·~LllC
S!l,800,,000

1.873
Sl'W.l!
24139364
Uii!mD\\11
Fee s~
Construction Loom.

Comparable C---1
!!55 E~R.omi
~~
309-51-00.S
.Sunilby Liii;imgTrust
SST In,re51illEDil!i lLC
$6;WO,OOO
l.B II
49,223
24998730
2!>.iaams
f,ee Sirr!l!fl!!
}\]lCasb,
SIJ0:02
Comparable C-5
1:2:..0 0-dmead Ply
Smnii)'!.>rue
2] 6-414-MS.
i?rim:e:on G;r-den ?iropeme: I.LC
IWJ.l. Propc,"1ie: UCSC lllC
$'(,450,000
,o:910
42,240
25091522
l Monih
Arm's I.ei,gtb A:mrs-Lengt:ll,•~ AJJ:Gl,;:..Lengllh/ImpL"oi..rl ~& ~~ ~
NGDi! Dem,;iationOfEet b)• l!ni:= DemilitionOifset by Iorome IHI¾ ,O!O'¾o OJ)%
Est ~:Ell!l!Jer 2019 11arch 2021 .~ 202.

Nffl,""f-llile! 2 20]9
9 -6.75, 'a
SUl.Ol
Cl!!mi!./Infuior Traffic
95110
l .873
Siimhu'
Simiw
A(PD)/ Cmmi!ll!d llld/CcmmJ.

S'l!pertfur
June 17, 2021
940~7
Simili:r
l.130
Sill!illi,r
S:imililr
9 -6. 5%
$11.]..24
OJ PD I Col!:!rI!scial.

Offroe ar PreidJrol
Superior
Septen:ll:,;,r08, 2021
imih!r
Similar
94085
Simib:r

0.9 0
Simibr
Simih!r
li.1S I Iimlstru.l
Hotel
3 -225¥
$]0Ul!l1
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 58 Adjustment Process
The adjustment methodology was similar as above for the residential land sales.

Transactional adjustments were warranted. As described above, due to a lack of commercial land sales, some improved sales were utilized for which the improvements contributed little to the overall selling price. Comparables C-1, C-2, C-4, and C-5 were improved.

Comparable C-1 was marketed as a development site; the eventual buyer planned to continue the retail uses. Based on a discussion with the listing broker, our observations, and the age and condition of these improvements, which comprised about 25,150 SF, the contributory value was estimated at about $60 per square foot of building area, or about 15% of the selling price as shown on the adjustment grid. This is shown as a downward adjustment. Similarly, the sale of Comparable C-2 included about 7,800 square feet of improvements dating from the late 1950s; each contributed to the overall selling prices. Based on our observations and discussions with the broker, the contributory value for each of these buildings was estimated at about $75 per square foot of building area, or about 11% and 16%, respectively of the selling prices as shown on the adjustment grid. These are shown as downward adjustments.

Comparable C-4 included a 6,295 square foot restaurant building originally constructed in 1972.

This site was being sold for land value and the restaurant was leased month-to-month. We concluded that the cost of demolition would be offset by rental income.

Comparable C-5 included a 5,515 square foot restaurant building. The building was vacant at the time of sale, but could have been leased on a month-to-month basis. We concluded that the cost of demolition would be offset by rental income.

Market conditions adjustments were applied from the contract date through the date of opinion using the degree of adjustment(s) discussed in the Market Conditions section.

Locational adjustments were broken into elements that reflect the hypothetical property’s identity to potential tenants, buyers, or occupants (exposure, visibility), access (to freeways and amenities), and overall desirability of the location based on neighborhood factors such as age and condition of nearby properties, proximity to enhancing or detrimental factors, or an identifiable valuation element relating to address (locational appeal). Locational adjustments were warranted as summarized on the grid. Note that Comparable C-3 does not face Coleman Ave despite its Coleman Ave address.

Physical and Use/Zoning adjustments were considered for size, utility, off-site improvements, zoning/General Plan, and planning/entitlement status. Within the range of the comparables, larger Comparables C-1 and C-3 warranted upward adjustment. Among the differences in land use ordinances, those of Comparables C-1 and C-2 were more favorable and warranted a Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 59 downward adjustment. Comparable C-3 sold entitled for a hotel development and warranted a downward adjustment for this element of comparison.

Conclusion
Bracketed by the comparables, we concluded to the following for commercial land in zip code 95050:

Unit $/SF x Land Area (SF) = Indicated Value
$95 43,560 $4,138,000
Estimated Market Value of a 1-Acre
Commercial Lot in Zip Code 95050: $4,138,000
Industrial Land Value
We searched the same databases listed above and reviewed other data discovered by talking to brokers, agents, property owners, and market participants from within the industrial market. We searched for recent sales of competing industrial properties throughout Santa Clara and nearby cities with similar industrial markets. We also searched for recent improved sales with improvements that were nearing the end of their economic lives or that contributed little to the overall sale price. Those we found most comparable are displayed on the following grid. A map showing the location of these comparables is displayed in the Addenda.

We are aware of additional sales data in this market described below but were not selected as comparables:
 The Fujitsu campus at 1200-1280E. Arques Avenue on the Santa Clara border with Sunnyvale sold in October 2020 to Lane Partners. This campus includes six buildings on about 26 acres. The purchase price was recorded at $104 million, but we discovered that there was an additional $15 million spent on lease buyouts. Based on a total purchase of about $119 million, the equivalent land value is indicated at about $104 per square foot.

The site is expected to be redeveloped and allowed uses could include R&D, office, and data center. The large size precluded use as a comparable. We were unable to confirm the details of Comparable I-1 with a party to the transaction. We relied on published data, city records, subscription service data, and information available from a summary transcript of the public record for transaction details regarding this comparable.  There was an improved sale at 2170 Martin Avenue that closed escrow in November 2020, but based on a discussion with the listing and buying broker this was effectively a Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 60 distressed sale as the seller’s business had dried up due to the pandemic. Furthermore, the buyer and seller had a previous relationship and the broker represented both sides. For these reasons, it was not appropriate to use as a comparable.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt& Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 61

INDUS'TIRIAL LAND COMPARABLE SALES
El..E\fEI~T Of .IDJUSTME.'IT SUBJECI COl\iIPARABU I-1 cm,IPAJH.BLE I-.2 COMP _\RABLE 1-3 C'rn',[P,\R.ABLE I--1 COMPARABLE I-5

ADDRESS
A ,;;erage Street 2225 MatiD .ih-e 2 l75 1'.brtin lh.-e I 535 & 15' 5 Indusl'rial Av,;. 365Reed St 990 Martin Avenue Sam.;Oa.ra S:mra = &1.11.ta Qara San Jo5e Santa Clara S~ . a-a. .APN 224- 0-119' 224-10-1 5 3,7-30-020 & 025 23047-105 224-6 -010 SELLER. Pra.ject 3S I.LC LVP Marlin Ai.-eAssocs Frank J. & Leslie A.. ~ Street Associates 980 :M.utin. Avemie ILC ILC Miangioo.e BUYER :ms Mann Property u.c 2175 Martin Pra,pe,rty ILC llB_ R\IICompmy XllV Prosperous Corgi Hd~ 1 llC Mail. & E ell:r Vemi LLC llC SALE PRICE $2&,150,000 SB,900,000 $1:2,800,000 5,358,000 Sl,1-00,000 OOCUI\'lENF NUMBER 25 19'5.861 .2502-04-U 249023 .8 24 _1853 243Sl016 BONDS ASSlJMED I SF $1).00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
TOTAL COST I'O BUYER. 1 Sf' SL5i',OJ SlS!l.94 S:SU 'i' Sl 0-t 7@ 5108.37 TRAN"SACTIO:'>JAL • .\DJU.SU.:t:r_ ;-TS
REAL PROPER.IT RIGHIS CONVEYED Fee Su:aple Fee Simple Fee Simp e Fee Siim,,l.e Fee Simp e Fee Siim,,l.e . .UnVST!J.tLI\7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00"/4
FINANCING TI:iRMS Com;enti.omil All Cash. C@m,entional .. .Cash C@m,entional AD·R tSTJtLNT 0.00% 0.00'"-t.. OJJO% 0.00% 0.00%
CONDmONS OF S.<UE Ann's-Length .".lm's--Le.ngfh A.mi's-Length Ar.m's-Len,,-"1:h Pw:du,se by Tenant AD·RlSTJfENT 0.00% 0.00¾, 0.1)0% 0.00% -10.00"/o
ADDffiONAI..COSTS 'ID BUYER Demo -: on Offret Demolilion Offset Demo "l:iol!l Offie . None Noo,e AD/t'ST:HENT 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
CONTRIBUJ\OR.Y W.IlJ""E OF IMPROVEMENTS None !l!l.e N= Yes/24,145 SF Yes/4,000 SF AD·R tSBtL,VT 0.00% 0.00% 0.1)()% -22 .53% -13.64%
CT..OSE OF ESCROW l 15 _0_1 7 _1 1/2021 n 20_0 1/15 (l'J_j) 1Thffi OF SAUE / MARKE'I' crnIDilION Dec.ember 3], 2021 ND ltme• _O_l SepfEl!ll'be,r 2020 Septembe,r 20'"20 No1.,--ember20l9 MO'S FROMS.ili.ll!THRO--GHDec_ 31, 2-0_0 0 0 3 3 3
AD·Jt"STMENT (01., ~~ PER J!fOlYTH 0.75¾ 0.(}0% 0.00% __ 25% __ 25% 9.75% ,IDJL"'STED PRICE J SF 5157,0J SlS!l·.'il4 583,00- ss:~.9t S92.-l5 LOCATIONAL .IDJCSTIH:KIS
EXPOSU"lIBVI.SIBlli!TY Ai.-erage Si.milai· Simi),!!!" Sup/F,;vy Similai· Similar ACCESS A,;.-er.ige Si.milai· Simila!- Similar Simi H Similar NEilGHBO:RHOOD APPEAL A,.-erage Similar Simila:!" Iefe:rior Similar Similar:

ZIP CODE 95050 95050 95050 95112 95-050 95050
m"ER.ALL liOC.\110)..-U R.AllI',G Similai· Simila!- ilm'eri.ar Simila Simi.bx PHY"SICAL & USE/ZO?l.""IN"G ADJUSH:t:rNTS
PARCELSJZE (ACRES) 1.00 4.B 1.68. 3.62 .17 0.47
PARCEL SIZE (SF) 43,560 179 903 73,)Sl 157,68.7 5 , 74 2-0,300 UITI..ITY A-n~rage S:imil.ar Simila:!" Similar Simi!u Similar OFF~SITES Fim:ilied Lot Similar Simihr Similar 5i.miLar Similar rnlENDED USE Industrial ilndmt.;ial Inirusirial Industrial Cootractm- Yam Zl)_ I G Hea,y Induslria.l. Ligl!:t Induslru!l. Light fudustrial Hel,<y Indimrial Light~al H.e~,'Y Indimial GENERAL PL4N Light !ndlli5t!rial I.ow Intenrity OfficelR&D Low Intensify Office!R&D Heasy Indusmal LigM In.dusilia.l Hea.,y lncmsmal m "ER.,_\LL pm·s1c.-u. & l,"'SEfZOi',lKC RATLYC Similai· Superior imerim· Inferior imerior 0\ 'ER.-ll.L RATIXG, STBJECT SHOlLD SELL FOR.: S.I\fil...-\R LESS :HORE :\IORE MORE Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 62 Adjustment Process
Adjustments were considered for and applied in a similar manner as above for the commercial sales. Because there are few industrial land sales in this market, we used two sales that were improved with buildings that contributed value to the selling price: Comparables I-4 and I-5. To estimate the residual land value of these transactions, we estimated and deducted the contributory value of the building improvements based on our observations, feedback from the verifying broker(s), and the adjustment that was a good fit for the data. Additionally, data center land sales (see Industrial Land Comparables I-1 and I-2) are the most recent industrial sales that we uncovered.

Comparable I-5 was purchased by the tenant and based on the data, a downward adjustment was warranted for buyer motivation. After making all other adjustments first, a downward adjustment was warranted for motivation on the part of the buyer.

Market conditions adjustments were applied at the rate concluded to in the Market Conditions section. As stated in the preceding material, industrial property in the City of Santa Clara (and Silicon Valley in general) continues to be in demand, supported by rising asking rental rates, generally stable vacancy rates, and the opinions of market participants.

Like the commercial sales grid, locational adjustments were considered for exposure, visibility, access (to freeways and amenities), and overall desirability of the location, including zip code.

Sale I-3 was adjusted downward for its inferior San Jose location. Locational adjustments are warranted as summarized on the grid.

Physical and use/zoning adjustments were considered for size, utility, intended use, zoning, general plan land use designation, and off-site improvements. Both I-1 and I-2 were purchased by Prime Data Centers. For I-1 the buyer plans to develop a 207,000 square foot data center with a 32MW capacity. For I-2 the buyer plans to develop a three story 80,000 square foot data center with a reported 9MW capacity. The selling agent report that the property sold entitled and has a “will serve letter’ from Silicon Valley Power. These sales were adjusted downward for the entitlements. Within the range of the comparables, only Comparable I-5 rated superior for its smaller site size, warranting a downward adjustment. Any other warranted adjustments are summarized on the grid.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 63 Conclusion
Following the adjustments discussed above and considering the overall rating comparison for each comparable, the unit values of the most recent comparables suggested a land value in the $130 to $135 per square foot range.

We concluded to the following for industrial land in the 95050 zip code:

Unit $/SF x Land Area (SF) = Indicated Value
$130 43,560 $5,662,800
Estimated Market Value of a 1-Acre
Industrial Lot in Zip Code 95050: $5,662,800
Average Value Estimate in 95050 Zip Code
The average value was estimated by applying a weighted average based on the land area of the total sales in Santa Clara in 2021 by property type. The information was obtained from Old Republic Title Company (ORTC). It was an extraordinary assumption of this appraisal that the land areas provided by Old Republic Title Company were accurate.

ORTC reported a total of 1,442 sale transactions in Santa Clara in calendar year 2021. These included 31 commercial sales, 26 industrial sales, 731 residential single-family sales, 50 2-4 residential unit sales, and 587 medium to high-density residential sales which comprised residential unit sales greater than 5 units, condominiums, and townhomes. This compares to 922 total transactions reported in 2020 by ORTC.

Residential transactions included single family, townhomes, and condominiums, 2 to 4 unit, and residential units greater than 5 units. Of the total residential sales, and similar to the 2016, 2017, and 2020 data, single family transactions comprised the most land area, as shown in the next table, in 2021. In 2019, commercial and industrial sales comprised about half of the total land area in the city by area. In both 2020 and 2021, a greater percentage of land area sold in the city was residential. This will result in higher 2021 values for the hypothetical 1-acre lot because residential land in this market transacts at higher unit prices than commercial and industrial. This is congruent with overall market trends over the last year.

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 64 The total number of land square feet (SF) sales (broken out by property type) is reflected in the next table:

Old Republic Title Company provided the data depicted in the preceding table, segregated by property type. The single-family sales were grouped into very low density, 2-4 residential sales were grouped into low-density, the townhome and condominium data were grouped into the medium to high-density residential, retail and office was grouped into commercial, and industrial, R&D, and manufacturing was designated industrial. As shown in the table, within the city limits of Santa Clara, commercial/industrial sales accounted for about 42.01% of the total while residential sales accounted for about 57.99% of the total.

Conclusion
The Total Percent in the previous table was applied to the appropriate categories for each property type. Since the data provided by the title company did not segregate medium and highdensity residential, we split the total percentage evenly between the two densities (10.58% /2 =

5.290% to each). As shown in the next table, the appropriate weighted values are summed to produce the average value of a hypothetical 1-acre lot in the 95050 zip code:
2021 City of Santa Clara Sales
Sale Type Land SF Total Percent
Commercial 1,197,542 11.25%
Industrial 3,275,752 30.76%
Very Low Density Res identia l 4,654,623 43.71%
Low Density Res idential 394,618 3.70%
Mediu m to High Density Residentia l 1,126,563 10.58%
Total 10,649,098 100.00%
Source: Old Republ ic Tit le Company
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 65 Average Value of a Hypothetical 1-Acre
Lot in the 95050 Zip Code: $5,715,000 (Rounded)
AVERAGE VALUE ESTIMATE IN 95051 ZIP CODE
We estimated the value of 1 acre of land for zip code 95050 above. Following we apply any differences in value between the 95051and 95050 zip codes to estimate the average value of one acre of land in 95051.

Estimating Differences Between Zip Codes
Differences between the 95050 and 95051 zip code for each use was based upon market feedback and anecdotal information. We also considered differences in values/rents for the commercial and industrial uses, and compared median selling prices and rents for the residential uses.

Residential Difference
Market participants and selling prices provided support that residential prices in the 95051 zip code are generally higher compared to the 95050 zip code. Some brokers believed that the 95050 area was slightly better due to Santa Clara University and a larger upper-middle class. Others pointed to the fact that the 95051 includes an area of the city close to Apple’s headquarters and also within the Cupertino Union School District, a higher rated school district, which commands residential price premiums. Several brokers reported that some of the nicest neighborhoods in the City are in and around San Tomas Expressway, which bisects 95050 and 95051.One market participant opined that the neighborhoods in 95051 were generally safer and that insurance premiums were lower rendering 95051 to be more desirable. Recent residential yearly-summary median prices/SF and Year End 2021 median prices/SF between the 95050 and 95051 zip codes, as reported by CoreLogic, indicated the following:
2021 VALUES FOR 95050 ZIP CODE SUMMARY
Land Use Price per SF Price per Acre x Weighted Average = Weighted Value Very Low Density Residential $125 $5,445,000 X 43.71% = $2,380,010 Low Density Residential $136 $5,924,160 X 3.70% = $219,194 Medium Density Residential $200 $8,712,000 X 5.290% = $460,865 High Density Residential $195 $8,494,200 X 5.290% = $449,343 Commercial $95 $4,138,200 X 11.25% = $465,548
Industrial $130 $5,662,800 X 30.76% = $1,741,877
TOTAL AVERAGE VALUE $5,716,837
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 66 The chart above indicates that the median selling price/SF has historically been higher in zip code 95051, corroborating the general consensus among market participants. In 2018 the median price per square foot was about 5.3% higher in 95051 than 95050. In 2019, the difference was about 2.7% and it was 4.1% in 2020. In 2021 the difference was 6.3%. The CoreLogic data indicated that the aggregate median selling price in 95051 was 14.6% higher than 95050 in 2018,

8.3% higher in 2019 and 16.7% higher in 2020. In 2021 the median selling price was 15.5% higher. This data supports the opinions of market participants that 95050 rates inferior to 95051.

In the next table, based on data reported by MLS the median price in 95051 has historically been higher than zip code 95050. In the most recent year 95051 was about 28% higher in December than 95050, however this appears to be an anomaly in the zip code 95050 as the fourth quarter had some of the lowest median selling prices reported in 2021. However, unlike CoreLogic which reports all recorded sales transaction, MLS only reports listings marketed on MLS, which often does not include all new construction. This is because builders, in the current market environment, often market their product in-house without using MLS, which is probably more cost effective and garners more marketing control to the builder. 51,000
5900
SBOO
$700
5600
S500
S400
$300
S200
S100
so
2019
95050
2020
950 1 95054
2021
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 67 Based on market feedback, historical norms, and giving more weight to the CoreLogic data, which includes all recorded transactions, supported by MLS data, we concluded 2021 residential prices in zip code 95051 were 10.0% higher than zip code 95050.

Commercial Difference
We discovered that commercial land values are generally similar among commercial uses located along El Camino Real and Stevens Creek Blvd. within the 95050 and 95051 zip codes, which are the primary commercial corridors in Santa Clara. A comparison of the 3-year average asking rental rate (2018-2020), as compiled by CoStar, revealed that the average rents (for office and retail combined) between these zip codes were $4.53/SF/Month in 95050 vs. $3.49/SF/Month in 95051, or a difference of about 29.8% higher in 95050. This metric is skewed somewhat by newer retail construction over the last several years in 95050. The 4Q 2021 average rents for retail only between these zip codes were $2.39/SF/Month in 95050 vs. $3.05/SF/Month in 95051. A comparison of the 3-year average asking rental rate (2018-2020) among office properties as reported by CoStar was $3.70/SF/Month in 95050 vs. $3.83/SF/Month in 95051, or about 3.5% higher in 95051. Additionally, CoStar reported a lower vacancy rate in 95051 over the same period (2.14% vs. 6.00% among all office and retail). The 4Q 2021 average rents for office only between these zip codes were $4.78/SF/Month in 95050 vs. $4.08/SF/Month in 95051. The average selling price per square foot among these two zip codes was within 6% of each other over the last three years (2018-2020), $451 in 95050 vs $478 in 95051 for both office and retail properties. Based on market data, rental rates differences, selling price differences, and vacancy rate differences we concluded that commercial land values in 95051 rated 15% inferior to 95050.

Industrial Difference
Among industrial properties, much of the product in the 95051 zip code is built as, or allows for R&D and higher intensity office uses, and greater floor area ratios, rating superior to 95050.

Furthermore, about 65 acres of industrial lands in the 95051 zip code, around Kifer Rd and Lawrence Expressway, are converting to residential uses, reducing the supply of industrial properties, and pushing increasing demand and value for industrial at the same time. A comparison of the average rental rate per SF, as compiled by CoStar, showed that the average Housing ype Zip Ca<le De<:ember-19 D€'cember-20 O€'cember-2 ndo, &
95050 $ ,210, $ ,265,000 $1,230,000 SFR, 9505 S ,425, $ .,415,000 $1,575,000 wnh s.e 9505 $1,202,5 $ , 128,000 $1,450,000 Souroe,: Local M LS
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 68 rental rates were equal in 95051 during 2021 ($2.21/SF vs. $2.21/SF). The rental rates are partly skewed because there are a greater number of older buildings in 95050 and many of those buildings are more warehouse in nature, which command lower rental rates. The average selling price per square foot among these two zip codes was within about 6% over the last three years (2018-2020), $325 in 95050 vs $345 in 95051, according to CoStar. CoStar reported that investors were not active in 95051 during 2021 and therefore an accurate comparison cannot be made in 2021. Again, the difference in prior years is partly explained by the type of product within each zip code, with 95050 having older and generally lower quality finishes/build-out. A discussion with a local industrial broker felt that all areas of the city were generally comparable.

After consideration for differences in asking rents, sale prices, and the opinions of the market, we concluded that industrial land prices rated about equal in 95051 compared to 95050.

Conclusion of Value in 95051 Zip Code
Based on the above, we concluded residential uses in zip code 95051 rated 10.0% superior, while commercial values rated 15% inferior, and industrial values rated similar. In the next table, the adjusted price per acre for each land use in the 95051 zip code was adjusted and the appropriate weighted values are summed to produce the average value of a hypothetical 1-acre lot in the 95051 zip code:

Average Value of Hypothetical 1-Acre
Lot in the 95051 Zip Code: $6,000,000 (Rounded)
AVERAGE VALUE ESTIMATE IN 95054 ZIP CODE
We utilize the same weighted land values from zip code 95050 and apply any differences in value between the 95054 and 95050 zip codes.
95051 ZIP CODE LAND USE VALUES & AVERAGE VALUE PER ACRE Land Use
95050 Average Adjustment 95051 Average
X = Price/ Acre Weighted Factor Price per Acre
Very Low Density Residential $2,380,010 X 110.0% = $2,618,011 Low Density Residential $219,194 X 110.0% = $241,113
Medium Density Residential $460,865 X 110.0% = $506,952 High Density Residential $449,343 X 110.0% = $494,277
Commercial $465,548 X 85.0% = $395,716
Industrial $1,741,877 X 100.0% = $1,741,877
TOTAL AVERAGE VALUE PER ACRE $5,997,946
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 69 Estimating Differences Between Zip Codes
For 95054 value conclusions, we applied the same methodology used above to estimate the value differences between the 95050 and 95051 zip codes.

Residential Difference
Median and average selling prices provided support that the residential prices in the 95054 zip code were generally similar or a little inferior when compared to the 95050 zip code. Brokers active in the market reported a range of opinions, that generally these two zip codes are not much different, but that 95054 tends to rate a little inferior. The 95054 zip code is affected by airport noise and has a higher concentration of higher-density housing units; there is less single-family selection and therefore fewer traditional residential neighborhoods with detached units. Recent yearly-summary median prices/SF for the 95050 and 95054 zip codes, as reported by CoreLogic, indicated the following:

The median selling prices/SF has been historically higher in the 95050 zip code. The CoreLogic data indicated that the aggregate median price in 95054 was 5.0% lower in 2019 and about 2.1% $1,000
S900
S800
$700
$600
$500
$400
5300
S200
SlOO
so
2019
95050
2020
950 1 95054
2021
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 70 lower in 2020. In 2021 the difference was about 2.7% lower. This data supports the opinions of market participants that 95054 generally rates inferior to 95050.

The next table is the same MLS data displayed above. In this data set the median price in 95050 ranged from about 12.1% more in 2020 and about 15% less in 2021 than in 95054 in the most recent year. However this appears to be an anomaly in the zip code 95050 as the fourth quarter had some of the lowest median selling prices reported in 2021. Again, unlike CoreLogic which reports all recorded sales transaction, MLS only reports listings marketed on MLS, which often does not include all new construction.

Based on market data, the opinions of market participants, and giving more weight to the CoreLogic price differences, which includes new and resale residential construction, we concluded that residential land prices in zip code 95054 were lower than zip code 95050, on the order of 5%.

Commercial Difference
Most of the new commercial planned or proposed for the 95054 zip code comprises office and hotel uses, however, there are several mixed-use projects in process, notably Related Santa Clara. This area of Silicon Valley includes the Golden Triangle and has historically supported higher intensity uses and properties offering freeway visibility (U.S. 101 and CA-237). The addition of Levi’s Stadium and the draw of Great America theme park and the Santa Clara Convention Center create additional synergies for this zip code. The greatest concentration of Class A office is located within this zip code and more is planned. As noted above, there are several mixed-use projects in process, which if built-out, will add both retail and new residential customers.

A comparison of the 3-year average rental rate (2018-2020) compiled by CoStar, revealed that the average rents between these zip codes was slightly lower in 95054, $4.33/SF vs. $4.53/SF in 95050, a difference of about 4.4% based on office and retail uses. The 4Q 2021 average rents for office only between these zip codes were lower in 95054, $4.27/SF vs. $4.78/SF in 95050. As before, the 95050 rental rate is influenced by newer retail construction which typically commands higher rental rates. A comparison of office rents indicates that the 3-year average Housing Type Zip Code December-18 December-19 December-20 95050 $1,074,000 $1,210,000 $1,265,000
95051 $1,275,000 $1,425,000 $1,415,000
95054 $1,025,000 $1,202,500 $1,128,000
Source Local MLS
SFR, Condo, &
Townhouse I I I I
I I I
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 71 (2018-2020) of $4.35/SF/Month in 95054 is about 14.9% higher than the $3.70/SF/Month in 95050. And the average selling price per square foot in the 95054 zip code was 15.5% higher over the last three years (2018-2020) compared to 95050 ($451 in 95050 vs $521 in 95054) for office and retail sales. Based on the data, including broker estimates and rental rate differences in each zip code, and considering that there is a greater proportion of office uses compared to retail uses, we concluded that an upward adjustment of 10% was warranted for 95054 for higher commercial land value.

Industrial Difference
Among industrial properties, much of the product in the 95054 zip code is built as, or allows for R&D and higher intensity office uses, rating superior to 95050. This also allows for greater floor area ratios in 95054. Most market participants reported higher prices in 95054 due primarily to superior freeway access and fewer heavy-industrial uses. A comparison of the average rental rate per SF, as compiled by CoStar, showed that the average rental rates were slightly lower in 95054 during 2021 ($2.21/SF in 95050 vs. $2.16/SF in 95054). The average selling price per square foot in the 95054 zip code was about 26% higher over the prior three years compared to 95050 ($325 in 95050 vs $410 in 95054) based on industrial sales reported by CoStar. 2021 average selling prices were ($725 in 95050 vs $229 in 95054), these numbers do not appear to be representative of the market as 95050 had a 525,000 square foot building that sold for $1,027 per square foot. Again, the difference in rental rates and selling prices is partly explained by the type of product within each zip code, with 95050 having older and generally lower quality finishes/build-out compared to 95054. After consideration for differences in asking rents, sale prices, and the opinions of the market, we concluded that industrial land prices rated about equal the 95054 zip code compared to 95050.

Conclusion of Value in 95054 Zip Code
Based on the above data and analysis, the adjusted price per acre for each land use in the 95054 zip code was adjusted and the appropriate weighted values are summed to produce the average value of a hypothetical 1-acre lot in the 95054 zip code:

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 72

Average Value of a Hypothetical 1-Acre
Lot in the 95054 Zip Code: $5,495,000 (Rounded)

RECONCILIATION AND OPINION OF AVERAGE VALUES
The sales comparison approach was the appropriate value approach for each land use. Total sales statistics revealed that about 42% of the total sales in the city by land area were commercial and industrial transactions and the other 58% were residential. This represents a slightly greater percentage of residential sales than in 2020. Because residential unit values are greater than commercial and industrial, this resulted in higher concluded values for each zip code in 2021 compared to 2020. Industrial sales in 2021 comprised 30.76% of the total land sold, much higher than the 15.59% reported in 2020 by Old Republic Title Company. Additionally, industrial land values are much higher in 2021 due in part to the influence of data center land sales. All these factors resulted in higher 2021 values for the hypothetical one-acre lots.

We concluded to the following average value for each zip code on December 31, 2021, the effective date of value opinion:

Opinion of Average Value of a 1-Acre
Lot in the 95050 Zip Code: $5,715,000
(Five Million Seven Hundred Fifteen Thousand Dollars)
Opinion of Average Value of a 1-Acre
Lot in the 95051 Zip Code: $6,000,000
(Six Million Dollars)
95054 ZIP CODE LAND USE VALUES & AVERAGE VALUE PER ACRE Land Use
95050 Average Adjustment 95054 Average X = Price/ Acre Weighted Factor Price per Acre Very Low Density Residential $2,380,010 X 95.0% = $2,261,010 Low Density Residential $219,194 X 95.0% = $208,234
High Density Residential $460,865 X 95.0% = $437,822
Medium Density Residential $449,343 X 95.0% = $426,876
Commercial $465,548 X 90.0% = $418,993
Industrial $1,741,877 X 100.0% = $1,741,877
TOTAL AVERAGE VALUE PER ACRE $5,494,812
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 73 Opinion of Average Value of a 1-Acre
Lot in the 95054 Zip Code: $5,495,000
(Five Million Four Hundred Ninety Five Thousand Dollars)

ADDENDA
 Old Republic Title Company 2021 Sales data in City of Santa Clara (on file)  City of Santa Clara Supplemental Instructions for the Appraisal of the Fair Market Value of Land
 Maps of the Sale Comparables
 Land Sale Comparable Parcel Maps
 Brokerage Reports (on file)
 Qualifications of Appraiser

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 74 Attachment A
Supplemental Instructions
for the Appraisal of the Fair Market Value of Land
The following information and instructions will be used by the City when setting the land value used in the formula for determining the impact fees due in lieu of park and recreational land dedication pursuant to Santa Clara City Code 17.35. (Approved by Santa Clara City Council—June 7, 2016) Background.

On July 15, 2014, Council added Chapter 17.35 “Park and Recreational Land” to the Santa Clara City Code to ensure that new residential development provides adequate community and neighborhood park land for active recreational uses and/or pays a fee in-lieu of parkland dedication to mitigate the impacts of the new growth pursuant to the California Quimby Act and/or Mitigation Fee Act.

17.35.040 Formula for calculation of fee in lieu of land dedication. (a) When a fee is required to be paid in lieu of parkland dedication, the maximum amount of such fee shall be determined by the fair market value of the amount of land that would otherwise be required to be dedicated pursuant to SCCC 17.35.030, as set forth below. The date of valuation of the property for in-lieu fee purposes shall be the date that the City determines that the developer’s application for a parcel map or tentative subdivision map, or application for projects not involving a subdivision, is complete. (b) Fair Market Value.
(1) The City shall determine the fair market value of the property by using the average per acre land value for property in the City of Santa Clara, based upon a survey of land values and sale records in the City. The City Council shall set a minimum of three such average values, one for each of the three existing Zip Codes in the City (95050, 95051, 95054). The City Council may, at its discretion, set average values for additional subregions of the City. The City Council shall review the fair market values not less than annually and set the values in a Council resolution. (2) If the developer objects to this determination of fair market value, the developer may elect to have the value established by appraisal. If the developer chooses this option, the developer shall deposit with the City an amount sufficient to cover the cost of an appraisal, which the City shall conduct. The appraisal shall be completed prior to approval of the tentative or parcel map or, for developments not involving a subdivision, prior to the issuance of a building permit. (c) Based on the determination of fair market value set forth in subsection (b)(1) of this section, for each of the dwelling unit categories, the City Council shall set the amount of fees to be paid in lieu of parkland dedication in a Council resolution, which the Council shall review annually. (Ord. 1928 § 3, 7-15-14).

Attachment A—Supplemental Instructions for Appraisal Page 1 of 3 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 75 Guidelines for Appraiser:
a. Appraiser is to provide a “Fair Market Value” for an average acre of land (hypothetical, rectangular, useable site) for property in each of the three existing City of Santa Clara Zip Codes 95050, 95051, 95054. The opinion will conform to Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. b. Valuation Date: December 31 of each year.
c. Location & Property Sales Data Set Boundaries: Data set will begin with sales data from within Santa Clara City limits.
d. Data Set Date Range: Use data from January 1st to December 31st of each year. Example: January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 for “December 31, 2015 Valuation Date.” See contingencies below. e. Property Types: Use all of the following property types: Single Family (low and very low density), High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Lots and Land. f. Contingencies for Limited Data Set of each Property Type: If there are insufficient, credible data points or sales of a particular property type, then appraiser will explore and use comparable sales from the local competitive market area, adjacent to City of Santa Clara. A fixed distance from City of Santa Clara city limit is not given, however a compelling, rational basis for the selection of the competitive market area must be given by the appraiser in the report. Preference is for closer, more recent, and comparable; discretion is given to the appraiser.
g. Sales Transactions Data not to be used: Do not use transactions if they are not an arms-length transaction, have encumbered/clouded title, are environmentally impaired site, or are more than three (3) years old. h. Inflation factors for Comparable between 1 and 3 years: An inflation factor will be computed and applied to comparable sales over one year based on reasonable and rational considerations such as sales and rental trends or other appropriate methods.
i. Sales Transactions Data that may be included: May use real estate sales transactions by the City of Santa Clara for additional neighborhood or community parkland. j. Data Values excluded: No values or set of values at the high or low end of the data set are to be excluded from consideration in the average values on the sole basis of being relatively high or low; however, a check for consistency among comparable values will be done, and a rational basis should be provided for credible comparable transactions if not used.

Attachment A—Supplemental Instructions for Appraisal Page 2 of 3

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 76 k. Research Factors to be considered for Comparable sales: The factors to be used to compare property values include, but are not limited to physical factors, economic factors, market conditions verification to parcel maps, public records, CoStar data bank. Additional factors may be used provided there is a rational basis for doing so. l. Reconciliation of value differences: The approach will be comparative, iterative, qualitative and quantitative, and will be made at the appraiser’s discretion. m. Weight to be applied to Property Types: The weighted average of each property type will be based on the percentage of land area in the sales transactions, for example, if 25% of total acreage is high density residential, then the relative weight of that property type will be 25%. (The weight will not be done by the quantity of sales of each type or the percent of value of sales of each type). n. Reporting: A draft valuation report will be generated by March 15. City will provide for a two week circulation and comment period. The valuations included the final valuation report will be used in the calculation formula for fees prepared by staff to be reviewed by Council as part of the annual City budget process and Municipal Fee Schedule adoption by June 30. Fees will be implemented on or after July 1 depending upon Quimby Act or Mitigation Fee Act provisions of the Council resolution.

Attachment A-Supplemental Instructions for Parkland Dedication In Lieu Fee Process and Schedule 2016 Attachment A—Supplemental Instructions for Appraisal Page 3 of 3

Real Estate Appraised: Three
Frank Schmidt & Associates

VERY LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SALE
Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected]

DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SALE COMPARABLE LOCATION MAP
Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA
[email protected] 77

COMPARABLE LOCATION MAP
Rancho San Antonio
Open Space
Moffett Federal
Air Field
Fremont Older
Open Space
Alum Rock Park
Real Estate Appraised: Three
Frank Schmidt & Associates

HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SALE COMPARABLE LOCATION MAP
Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected]

DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SALE COMPARABLE LOCATION MAP
Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA
78 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SALE COMPARABLE LOCATION MAP
Moffett Federal
Air Field
reek Blvd
°Cupertino
HD-2
160 I Civic Center Dr
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Sierra R.d
Real Estate Appraised: Three
Frank Schmidt & Associates

COMMERCIAL SALE COMPARABLE LOCATION MAP
Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected]

COMMERCIAL SALE COMPARABLE LOCATION MAP
Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA
[email protected] 79
:uesta Dr
C-4
855 E Homestead Rd
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Real Estate Appraised: Three
Frank Schmidt & Associates

INDUSTRIAL SALE COMPARABLE LOCATION MAP
Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected]

INDUSTRIAL SALE COMPARABLE LOCATION MAP

Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA
[email protected] 80
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 81

COMPARABLE LAND SALE PARCEL MAPS
Very Low Density Land Comparable Sale VLD 1
Very Low Density Land Comparable Sale VLD 2
I
0 ..
0 a:

I
· ;l,O 1• A.I I UI I ~ I
I A. .A 2.
"~ "·_J•:1.'
' I
.A I
o I I I
I I : &l : I - --+--- : Ii- ' • : 1; I o I
I O '
: ~ ~~i~. '
...
w
...
a:
....
.,
~ r,c. • ,;o -
' I I I I I
I I I I :.
~ w: t2_<f : 1_!._5 : 1_2._6 :f1
: : i : ;7,_ ~ I 1 I IP :
: ;r !Iii' 0 ~
: • I
., I t I l''~ 'l 1Z : 1§ : jj H. : 1.J<s!~
I IN :
.,. i : ~ ,_y Ll>'--.:IL.~..,___...,,__.__,,':,~.,,i.' _,,.,,,...,---""'--"' ~- -"<r. I
. .
w
::,
@ ~
DAV IS
HAROI..D
I
I
,i ~i l
I
a I 1• - Ql"r.: _ _ _ , _ ___ _
i
I " I
11 ~ I
I
~ i ,~
_ff ~ Z I _§
I I I IJ _ _ : _ _ " __ 1_ fl __ 1 __ "_ 3,1, : 9 : Y2 I ~ I ; ! ~ JI I U I .l/
' I i I
:::

II

CO II NT Y,
I
I
I
-~ !! :

I
., ,, I ---·----- " ,.
.,
"
_,....-- -------
l~DIJI
~ !!
Di~"' ' If
--:---I---~:- -- 'l
~ ~I » ~ f I '
-.
\
J
~ TOII.O.S EXsPRESSWAY
---------- -- Ll"Mut1 L !SIO<L • .,,,~~WI
~IUM 1111 II" ..::ieJllltl aQUJ • · ~~:!":!.~~ ~
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 82

COMPARABLE LAND SALE PARCEL MAPS
Very Low Density Land Comparable Sale VLD 3
Very Low Density Land Comparable Sale VLD 4
0 ff I CE
.i.. .,J. ..t. ..:i: ..IL ..z.
~! ,u
~ ~ @Ma fil MM~ ll Ma a , n
~ ·; Ji 40 , 41 ~2 , 4J. , 44 , 4:lo , '4¢ , H , ~ , 4~ 5; 1 M ~ 67 J ss e.5 l &t 1 83 1 e 2 1 s 1 1 ao 1 79 : 7S 1";7 1 a1u ~ ~!~!~!~!~ iu!~i .., I ff) I I I I I I I 1
---FRESNO--------__._ - --- ----ST.---
@

COUNT 'I',
@ TRACT No. 2656 121-f.l-:Z,
_ ftAINBOW _ _
.. j
~ : ti ~~ 1:~1 :~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~11 ~{! ~ r --""r, :--~--~--r.> ; .. a ~·~··o : ·•·-~--" ~ lil __ l __ r ! ~--!--•~---J ~;--r--~-: .)2:.n:J(l:;"9 : 2Jl. ' 27 ' 211 1 25 2111: 2J : :22 : "i 1 I ·• .ll'I ~ Jl ~ J§ ~ J.1 ~ .H ~ .IJ , JZ I! ,n ~ Jl.'I! U ~ .Z 5 Z§ ;/: , '--~~c..:.·~~!,--s-r~-.... •'"-:!~~·~,~,-"""'-:!:w~A~·~-.l1r,k~o~·OK~,--ii"r '-;;~~·....:....~•a.--·~;~R-•~~·~ia-- ~ '~··~-- j __ l
52 . I
~' ,, " 1~ @ 19
M " I I
h - .,,,..,_-..,...,...'!r--s,--'f!.'---,---\,1'--:- , , 'jj'--,--'i'-.,.....,--.. t" - 100'
I :H 1.§ • .tq ia ~ .1,Hj zd
I
I 1 - "'IA I-_ J3 : ,Y.j ! J7 : 38 :
' 1----'"'---"--;I ..... ~ · __:Ji_J_ .. __ _ ,__., I ~~ » ~·t _____ ,
ZJ l ~
T
, ·,o ---t-----· .J.. ... ~: 1 .l,.
____ "! __ ~----"· ----
..§. 3 iil B ..J.
"' ••••••••••I • • •••- -
~ ! L ••! • ..!
ai tu·---+----!,.
~ ' ' I, .!I_ 1 ~ 10 -2.
• DIAL- ---iL-- wAV-_,:_ ti _
~I ' I TRAC1
~:J!.:·_;:1a
I
I
w
i
I
!0
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
z
~
f
T No. 8709 6@- 2Ei U<'MIUf~ L Uo:.t.•L ., ,11,1 :J..:~ t ~lnMnol ll"--1.)l')IU:1•,
~:!1:.t!. .. ~-::a
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 83

COMPARABLE LAND SALE PARCEL MAPS
Very Low Density Land Comparable Sale VLD 5
(§ 3
or C OU 'II 1" 'T
WEST
I,
I !H
'
I
' ~~ » ' ~·t _____ ,
~
...

I ~
,.
◄ ' §1 J ~~, · ----..;Ji, ~ 5.P~
: fil} 2~·---1 ~
• DIACT ~ 8709 6@-2Ei
@ TRACT No. 2$56
., '
'
!§ ~ .111j ZQ ~ .Y.! ! J7 : 38 :
·-------··
F'Jo.aFIC BE...L
S.D.£. 2n-11- (W)~M ,U.f
C l A II Ii
T

CO U NT Y,
u ~ z.d :1 -0 : I ] 42
1;i,...!..........c;a'"
1fJ ~ ~ 6 .1.

IDilluul
t" - IOO'
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 84

COMPARABLE LAND SALE PARCEL MAPS
High Density Land Comparable Sale HD 1
High Density Land Comparable Sale HD 2
I BEIHON --.--- ii I N,lt G-,,--- -
I • ,...,
J.I/ I 1--
~I ..1.

I
I ~
I .I.
@) I ., a
t- ''" .,..
>' FRANKLIN
I"
z
0 "' a::
i
- ow•4
/
®

C OU N T -V,
_ _ "id"",!it_ B,1.,N.lt!i TRACT w. N0.9~79 _ r-....,...•- STR~c-EJ;:'f R,1,N-R.T::4.Yt-::::::.._...._. - -t :j ; ··1 ,. ~ ' .~
..
--,1.J ... -
Q :,,;i ,JI » JI

0.2"5 111C ~
;. ) :fl
·~
Pl t.. sue U)T l "'
i!j l
"' 51
"
~, P.M.442-"'4 -2.i!I
STREET
J 1~ -!
I
I
J
1/1 .. <\l•C !';IQ'" - ~"'it~IU
-:1<1- n,pb•ftnn:1111~"~
>-lll!i:l 111tloo llt f \(...i.. t'!C. J <7 l~MY..,. Jl'IJIO-~ CO UN l l',
® ti'~- ,~:!r-t~=
---,;,, ,~ I "
:; I ~ ;
" d .. -'
: 0 ~ \." ·------"" ---· i« ,"t.,ti<' , ' t
"AC rol I @· , t!I i 69
:""'···-,, .{ ~,.;~·.,
1''-1. ,? '
l,l lh
~
I ..

Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 85

COMPARABLE LAND SALE PARCEL MAPS
High Density Land Comparable Sale HD 3
High Density Land Comparable Sale HD 4
a r r , c c ..

G f' r I (: E
0 --.. -~" ' ... .J •------,a,,,r ---·
11 LOT A
..... ~
C'O U N f y , C ,\ l 11' O R ti 1 ~
~
~
11 97 11 :=u
®
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 86

COMPARABLE LAND SALE PARCEL MAPS
High Density Land Comparable Sale HD 5
I
I \---
JJ
CALLE
P~. PO.. 27 1.:u AC.1'€r
..... 1.,L"III. .. ~iii{ •• •.
28 1.~.,1¢.JIE"f
~
1Z
A.
.. , '
26 ,_ 'iJ IG.Nff __ ____ _ i,._ r _ ___ _
i
--DELDE '.~;;lr IJ, W, .t K - M
Ill
.11ft.1 - 4 ---~ ----
Zl
7 \_(:')',c._~f
------~ ------·- ,. 1,~JIC..llllil
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 87

COMPARABLE LAND SALE PARCEL MAPS
Commercial Land Comparable Sale C 1
Commercial Land Comparable Sale C 2
I
I
I
@ I
<
::;; ~ !> ~ ! ,. ,q
~ I
I
I"
.u ~ f '11
,U Z2
lk.tr.c J '"'=1 .1111 • • ,~ ." ~
~L .lt.lAL
u
zz

EL CAMINO
0 CL Ai;- ,o.
~ ,::i~ ..,
lf.0.::J. SJ'/"
:..:.:.....J.(Fl,LY'. SAN l='Rk«:lSCO AVE..)
!L I ~
. I . ':,':..~ -.;;.·
~ '~_j_ _;_ ,.c : 13
·!l .l! ..l...
'
JI
, ' ' ------4------ 12 : l l
CA I. IF C> IIN'P
A'lf..
m ~ u ~ u ~
1~ : 16 : '1 I 18 : 1'11 • 20 1 ~
.----;----•--•H- ~·~ •-~ --~ .. 1.63 K.. FIET
REAL
SENTER TRACT - LOT 2 @ Bwl,';-.J 8
290
il'SSf&SOF -- ;.,"''" CO UN l 'Y,
EL CAI.IINO REAL
tQ,J
,· • 100'
0 Ii 2stko I~
, .. • 100·
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 88

COMPARABLE LAND SALE PARCEL MAPS
Commercial Land Comparable Sale C 3
Commercial Land Comparable Sale C 4
@J
0 f' FI CE COUNTY ASS [ S SOR -- SANTA
.L

SAN JOSE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
R.0.S. 804/~-« -~-~;.,{~E!~.,~::~N·::~~G-~:ii6 A:• · · · - -r-~-- ,,,_r- __ ...,,.., _ _ _ I
DET.-N.T,S. R.~.~~ @fr· --;;;;E;@l
liJf:' (: U U II l Y CO UN 1 Y.
e e
1 111,(.,, P\,·' 6 )t! •p_.:.-:• N.!,'!,-1) I HAC; T N~ l ltlo LI" .. Ji)l"lo"<IC:, - i:;,;:.·1 Jll r ,4 L t\.O\.",'tU:. m,i," fJUT u• Z I 11,m,,·1,; 1 ~ )"A~f: UN I! !j1 1 ~~ _J[_ ' ' ·-i-DRIVE -:;•
I
I
I
'

NOTE ' -
SEE DETAIL ON PAGE 415A .
~ - • 1
~rTf Of ; l'Jt/1 • 0-.?~ A.C
U,'lll!Dla:[.STOOE-ASS£SSOR
c-v.1..,..1cr_lfll'PC90NJ. ~~:.:~~321.
,.,
"-
..J
0 3:
~ ..... : ~,..I
1---f"""'-:,:--..,,,;;;,,;,,...;.._-=,::;...,,-l~~ "i
ROAO --· -'l.-----1-
U'/t1it.M; L a, St:N. - Jo!S..~
Wl°Jffll O!(I •a-ti '.IP'IL'ff • · ee.,ll od Jrdrl. i f. Cok.~?n. ~11111--~ Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 89

COMPARABLE LAND SALE PARCEL MAPS
Commercial Land Comparable Sale C 5
,~, 0 U it T 'f ,._ S ~ Q S S :::, R -- S A Iii T A C L "' R " C O U N ~JVl , _?.,"'.~--1 . ~-- ~ F l'l I "' \23] P-W. ~M-17 \:::.JI
<.G~= ~...t
~-4!1 A-o.
~ .~~_z--
.~IL,_ : 1,1 1
I ·,,., ~~ ' r,
P.N, Jlil5--!lf.-1S
1M
. P.lit lli6-M- ~
----- --LAWRENCE ___ __ _
@
l'tL
"' ~
P.M. 37~- M- 43
fUJ.S.~/ 19
3,.12 !"lit JIJ'2- W- 2l
)(l'R£SSWAY ~. ----_,"-"'-"'.J"-------
5 U.,11111:NC!: It. ~IOI: - ~Zin
% o,,.,-.i .. 1~--1p.q-. .. .,.
"' Co)"t) -,...W R. t·, c,n.590.~, , ..... ,lo!, AM .,._ 11(,1:»-,cQI Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 90

COMPARABLE LAND SALE PARCEL MAPS
Industrial Land Comparable Sale I 1
Industrial Land Comparable Sale I 2
i:;r, .,1: ■ r ■■ •r•
liC. ~ \ - wi:i ..
~) '" l 'v ~ ~ /.
:_A· •, 1J~· 4 1 #""' . ··..-: p.:i_
ll"
.,. "
or, .,1 ■ r El .. r. II 11.11.4.i:I - . .. . ru11 .:. Ii ■ o,llilil 11 L1r ■■ il ■ .... DI' ..... Dr•= :t
t
;\
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 91

COMPARABLE LAND SALE PARCEL MAPS
Industrial Land Comparable Sale I 3
Industrial Land Comparable Sale I 4
l)FrlCE 0' C.01J,. T y ... s st s s I) R:
0 P.~,L29S.-M0 , '
i
'
~
PARK '11 ""•o•r,~~~~."'- §
~
0 < L,l,l!I A
,c L 4 II A CO U Ill T 'I' C ,. l t r O fl Ill I "'
,
• 085-M-JO
J.9---M-2
©
lRACT KQ.. JJ-I ;l:
1~1- M- ll
0 !..
©
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 92

COMPARABLE LAND SALE PARCEL MAPS
Industrial Land Comparable Sale I 5
J 1 # i. .! ! ~ I!? " II
l,1 ,;:;f.,; IIE1
I 2 I , I I IM,!;f r· M'l L 1t1,Jr 1
I
I
u l (,' iy Et l! !P !!
I -; a i,m ... -,..;:.~;,-•,i;
I i"CL.. I
. R.os "'..,..,.,-,..:_ ';'1 CH Ai ~ -- ' ---------- AVE~UE • @)
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 93 FRANK E. SCHMIDT, MAI, SRA
CURRICULUM VITAE, January 2022
Valuation Consulting, Forensic and General Appraisal, Expert Testimony MAI and SRA MEMBER of the APPRAISAL INSTITUTE, No. 11933 [email protected] (510) 468-9219
San Francisco Bay Area
For more than four decades, Mr. Schmidt has been a real estate appraiser and consultant with a practice primarily in Northern California and the San Francisco Bay Area. He began his career as a residential appraiser, earning the coveted SRA designation from the Appraisal Institute in 1989, and the prestigious MAI designation in 2002. In 1995, he partnered with Wayne Prescott to form the Schmidt-Prescott Group, a commercial appraisal firm of which he was president until its dissolution in 2017.

During his career, Mr. Schmidt has appraised a wide variety of real estate including residential, commercial, industrial, raw land, and special purpose properties for various property rights. His experience includes litigation support and testifying as an expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants. Mr. Schmidt’s client list includes attorneys, municipalities, private entities, lenders, and publicly traded companies. He was engaged as a diminution in value consultant on PG&E cases involving the destruction of thirty-eight homes in the 2010 San Bruno gas-line rupture fires.

Mr. Schmidt was recently retained by the City of Santa Clara as an expert to assist the city’s task force in the process of setting Parkland Dedication fees.

Mr. Schmidt has served on several professional committees throughout his career, including the International Right-ofWay Association and the Appraisal Institute. He currently serves on the Santa Clara County Assessment Appeals Board, of which he was elected Chairperson in 2017.

Expert Witness Testimony
U.S. District Court, Santa Clara County Superior Court, San Joaquin County Superior Court, San Francisco County Superior Court, Public Utility Commission of the State of CA, American Arbitration Association, Standard of Care, Eminent Domain Professional Affiliations
Membership in: Appraisal Institute [MAI (2002) and SRA Member (1989)] Work Experience
1/2019 to Present: Frank Schmidt & Associates, President San Francisco Bay Area
2018 Carneghi-Nakasako, Appraiser Consultant
San Jose, CA
2/95 to 12/2017: The Schmidt-Prescott Group, President
San Jose, California
4/78 to 2/95: Schmidt & Associates, Inc., President
San Jose and Fremont, CA
6/76 to 4/78: Senior Supervising Appraiser, Mercury Savings & Loan Cupertino, CA
1/76 to 6/76: Staff Appraiser, American Savings & Loan
San Jose, CA
2/75 to 12/75: Real Estate Appraiser and Consultant,
B.A. Ericson Appraisal Co., San Jose, CA
Formal Education
B.S. Business Management, 1997 University of Phoenix
Graduated with Honors San Jose, CA
Real Estate Appraised: Three Hypothetical One-Acre Lots, One for Each Zip Code, Santa Clara, CA Frank Schmidt & Associates Phone: 510-468-9219 [email protected] 1 Erratum: The following corrections to errors in the document are hereby made and appended to the Report.
• Page 25 – the word should be "unemployment" and not "employment." “At the end of 2021, Silicon Valley recorded an [un]employment rate of 4.5% down from

6.2 % one year ago. Increasing population, job growth, high incomes and strong consumer spending continued to strengthen the performance of retail sector in Silicon Valley. At the end of 2021, the vacancy rate for Silicon Valley’s shopping centers remained the lowest in the Bay Area at 5.2%, with approximately 1.9 million square feet of vacant retail space. Santa Clara continued to record the lowest vacancy rate in the region at 3.9%. The quarterly net absorption continued in the positive territory. There was no new retail space completed in the fourth quarter of 2021 and the total retail inventory remained at 37.4 million square feet.”
• Page 36 -- the CoreLogic table below was referenced in the narrative but not visible in the blank space at the top of page 36.
• Page 39 – the word should be "while" and not "with".
• Page 39 – the word "following" should be removed.
2018 Year End Summary Sales
Community Zip Sales %Chg Median Price %Chg High Price $/Sqft %Chg Sa nta Cla ra 95050 380 -0.5% $1,184,500 24.4% $2,609,000 $959 20.3% Santa Clara 95051 484 -16.6% $1,358,000 17.0% $2,800,000 $1,043 13.2% Santa Clara 95054 185 -25.4% $1,250,000 23.3% $2,400,000 $823 14.5% 2019 Year End Summary Sales
Community Zip Sales %Chg Median Price %Chg High Price $/SqFt %Chg Santa Clara 95050 332 -12.6% $1,200,000 1.3% $2,350,000 $910 -5.1% Santa Clara 95051 461 -4.8% $1,300,000 -4.3% $2,400,000 $973 -6.7% Santa Cla ra 95054 162 -12.4% $1,140,000 -8.8% $2,450,000 $782 -5 .0"lo 2020 Year End Summary Sales
Community Zip Sales %Chg Median Price %Chg High Price $/SqFt %Chg Sa nta Clara 95050 301 -9.3% $1,200,000 0.0% $2,780,000 $834 0.9% Santa Clara 95051 614 33.2% $1,400,000 7.7% $2,200,000 $869 2.3% Santa Clara 95054 160 -1.2% $1,175,000 3.1% $2,090,000 $774 3.5% 2021 Year End Summary Sales
Community Zip Sales %Chg Median Price %Chg High Price $/SqFt %Chg Santa Clara 95050 441 46.5% $1,289,500 7.5% $3,218,500 $858 2.9% Santa Clara 95051 855 39.3% $1,490,000 6.4% $3,180,000 $912 5.0% Santa Clara 95054 242 51.3% $1,255,000 6.8% $2,900,000 $794 2.6% Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2022/23 Page 1 of 5 Rev: 4/19/2022
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

TO ESTABLISH THE AVERAGE PER-ACRE LAND VALUES IN

ORDER TO SET THE PARKLAND IN LIEU FEE SCHEDULE FOR

NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CHAPTER 17.35 (“PARK AND RECREATIONAL LAND”) OF
TITLE 17 (“DEVELOPMENT”) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF

SANTA CLARA
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara is the Government entity responsible for providing public parks, recreation and open space facilities within the City of Santa Clara; and, WHEREAS, the 2010-2035 General Plan includes a goal that new parks, open space and recreation be provided with new development so that existing facilities are not over-burdened; and,
WHEREAS, the report entitled “Public Facilities Impact Fee Study” dated June 25, 2014 (“Nexus Study”), was prepared by Willdan Financial Services, Inc. and approved by Council in June 2014; and,
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1928, which added Chapter 17.35 to the City Code, and requires new residential development to provide adequate community and neighborhood park land for active recreational uses, and/or under certain conditions to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication; and, WHEREAS, on February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1937, adding duplex dwellings to the types of developments subject to the parkland dedication requirement, and removing the one (1) acre minimum parkland dedication prior to a developer being able to receive financial credit for private recreational amenities and open space; and, WHEREAS, on August 27, 2019, Council approved Resolution No. 19-8749 which included the statutory findings required pursuant to the California Quimby Act (Quimby) and Mitigation Fee Act (MFA), including the report entitled “Santa Clara Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Update Study” dated April 9, 2019 (“Nexus Study Update”) prepared by Willdan Financial Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2022/23 Page 2 of 5 Rev: 4/19/2022
Services, Inc., and the professional land valuation appraisal report with a valuation date of December 31, 2017, and the park improvements replacement costs with values as of 2017; and,
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2019 Council approved Resolution No. 19-8769 to establish the Parkland In Lieu Fee Schedule for New Residential Development in Accordance with Chapter 17.35 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara, and directed staff to phase in the 2018 Park Improvement Costs over four years and to use the annual Land Valuation Appraisal Report at 100% of cost recovery in the calculation of annual fees; and,
WHEREAS, in 2020, due to the global COVID19 pandemic, and through the regular adoption of the Municipal Fee Schedule process, only the Park Improvement Cost portion of the Parkland In Lieu Fees were raised using 50% of the Park Improvement Costs and the City continued to use the Land Valuation Appraisal Report with a valuation date of December 31, 2018 in the calculation of annual fees; and,
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2021, Council approved Resolution No. 21-8970 to establish the Parkland In Lieu Fee Schedule for New Residential Development in Accordance with Chapter

17.35 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara, which used 75% of the Park Improvement Costs and used the annual Land Valuation Appraisal Report with a valuation date of December 31, 2020 at 100% of cost recovery in the calculation of annual fees; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Chapter 17.35, the City has surveyed land values and sales records, and has conducted a professional appraisal with a valuation date of December 31, 2021 to determine the fair market value of property in the City, and the City posted the Appraisal Report on the City website from April 4, 2022 to April 18, 2021 for public review and comment, the Council now wishes to use the applicable values for calculating the fees due in lieu of parkland dedication and to adopt the updated fee schedule for parkland in lieu fees; and, WHEREAS, on April 4, 2022, a copy of the Annual Land Valuation Report was placed on the City website.

Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2022/23 Page 3 of 5 Rev: 4/19/2022

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. Findings and Purpose. That the City Council hereby finds and declares that the land valuation component will be subject to the updated annual land value appraisal report and supplemental instructions as adopted by Council June 7, 2016 with valuation dates of December 31 of each calendar year for use in calculating the following (next) fiscal year’s fee update.

2. Land Valuation Appraisal. An independent real estate appraisal firm, Frank Schmidt & Associates, was retained to provide a “Fair Market Value” opinion (valuation date of December 31, 2021) conforming to Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and using the City’s Supplemental Instructions for an average acre of land (hypothetical, rectangular, useable site) for property in each of the three existing City of Santa Clara Zip Codes 95050, 95051, 95054. The data set included all property types: Single Family (low and very low density), High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Commercial/Retail, Industrial, Lots and Land. Excluded were transactions considered not “arms-length”, having encumbered or clouded title, environmentally impaired sites, or more than three (3) years old. An inflation factor was computed and applied to comparable sales over one year old based on reasonable and rational considerations such as sales and rental trends or other appropriate methods. The weighted average of each property type was based on the percentage of land area in the sales transactions.

2. Land Valuation Appraisal Findings. Based on the findings of the Appraisal Report, the City Council hereby sets the average per acre land value for each ZIP Code area as of December 31, 2021, as: $5.715 million per acre ($131.20/sf) in 95050; $6.000 million per acre ($137.74/sf) in 95051; and, $5.495 million per acre ($126.15/sf) in 95054. If a developer objects to this determination of fair market value, the developer may elect to have the value established by appraisal, in conformance with City Code Section 17.35.040(b)(2).

Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2022/23 Page 4 of 5 Rev: 4/19/2022

4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ___ DAY OF _________, 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Santa Clara Land Valuation Appraisal Report 12-31-2021 S:\Attorney\RESOLUTIONS\Form Resolution-City.doc
Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2022/23 Page 5 of 5 Rev: 4/19/2022
Attachment 1
Santa Clara Land Valuation Appraisal Report 12-31-21
RESOLUTION NO. 19-8769

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
TO AMEND RESOLUTION No. 19-8749 TO ESTABLISH THE

PARKLAND IN LIEU FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 17.35
("PARK AND RECREATIONAL LAND") OF TITLE 17
("DEVELOPMENT") OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SANTA

CLARA AND TO DETERMINE THE PARK IMPROVEMENT COST

TO BE USED IN THE FEE CALCULATIONS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara is the Government entity responsible for providing public parks, recreation and open space facilities within the City of Santa Clara; and, WHEREAS, the 2010-2035 General Plan includes a goal that new parks, open space and recreation be provided with new development so that existing facilities are not overburdened; WHEREAS, the report entitled "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study" ("Nexus Study") dated June 25, 2014, prepared by Willdan Financial Services, Inc. was reviewed by Council in June 2014; WHEREAS, on July 15, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1928, which added Chapter 17.35 to the City Code, and requires new residential development to provide adequate community and neighborhood park land for active recreational uses, and/or under certain conditions to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication; WHEREAS, on February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1937, adding duplex dwellings to the types of developments subject to the parkland dedication requirement, and removing the one (1) acre minimum for a developer to receive credit for private open space; WHEREAS, on August 14, 2019 and on August 21, 2019, a notice of the August 27, 2019 public hearing to consider a Resolution to Establish the Parkland In Lieu Fee Schedule for New Residential Development in Accordance with Chapter 17 .35 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara was published in the Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation; WHEREAS, on August 27, 2019, Council approved Resolution No. 19-8749 which included the statutory findings required pursuant to the California Quimby Act (Quimby) and Mitigation Fee Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2019-20 Rev: 3/22/19

Act (MFA), and related information to be used in the calculation of the fees due in lieu of parkland dedication including the report entitled "Santa Clara Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Update Study" ("Nexus Study") dated April 9, 2019, prepared by Willdan Financial Services, Inc., the professional land valuation appraisal report with a valuation date of December 31, 2017, and the 2018 park improvements replacement costs data, as well as additional documents and public testimony;
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2019, Council voted not to include an implementation schedule in Resolution 19-87 49, and directed staff to provide additional policy alternatives for phasing in the increased cost of the park improvement portion of the in-lieu fee calculation to "longer than three years", and to provide pros and cons associated with these alternatives, and directed that all development project applications currently on file would be subject to the existing fees as adopted in FY2017-18 (Resolution No. 17-8427);
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2019 and on October 23, 2019, a notice of the October 29, 2019 public hearing to consider a Resolution to Amend Resolution No. 19-87 49 to establish the Parkland In Lieu Fee Schedule for New Residential Development in Accordance with Chapter 17.35 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara and to determine the Park Improvement Costs to be used in the Fee Calculations was published in the Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation; WHEREAS, the fees established by this resolution are derived from, are based upon, and do not exceed the costs of providing capital park and recreation land and facilities necessitated by the new residential development for which fees are levied; and WHEREAS, on October 29, 2019 the City Council held a public hearing to consider the proposed fee schedule and draft resolution, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. Findings and Purpose. That the City Council hereby finds and declares that:

Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2019-20 Rev: 3/22/19

A New residential subdivisions and new non-subdivided residential projects generate impacts and demands for public services, facilities, and neighborhood and community parkland, and have a significant effect on the use and availability of park and recreation space and facilities, and that the limited open space and recreation amenities provided by these residential developments are insufficient to meet the needs.

B. It is the City's intent and desire (General Plan Goals & Policies: 5.9.1-G3, -G4;

5.9.1-P14, -P18, -P20) to require that such developments contribute their fair share of land, facilities, or amenities or contribute public costs toward the purchase, development and/or improvement of park and recreational facilities.

C. The imposition of impact fees is one of the customary methods of ensuring that development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities necessary to accommodate such development in order to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare.

D. The provisions of this Resolution are enacted pursuant to the Charter, the City of Santa Clara General Plan and sections 66000-66025, 66477, and 66479 of the California Government Code (the "Mitigation Fee Act" and the "Quimby Act"), as may be applicable.

E. The report entitled "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study" ("Nexus Study") dated June 25, 2014, prepared by Willdan Financial Services, Inc. and reviewed by Council in June 2014, set forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for the determination of the impact of development on the need for and costs for additional capital parks and recreation facilities improvements in the City.

F. The report entitled "Santa Clara Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Update Study" ("Nexus Study Update") dated April 9, 2019, prepared by Willdan Financial Services, Inc. and reviewed by Council on May 21 and August 27, 2019, set forth a reasonable methodology and updated analysis for the determination of the impact of development on the Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2019-20 Rev: 3/22/19

need for and the costs for additional capital parks and recreation facilities improvements in the City.

G. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66016, the City made data available regarding the costs, or estimated costs, to provide services and proposed parkland dedication standards for the public facility impact fees by posting the draft Nexus Study Update prepared by Willdan Financial Services, Inc., on the City's Website on April 9, 2019 and previously provided the land valuation appraisal report and addenda prepared by the Schmidt-Prescott Group dated February 22, 2018 ("Appraisal Report") on the City's website on March 9, 2018, and the park improvement replacement costs contained in the Facility Condition Assessment Report ("Kitchell 2017") on the City Website in January 2018, which dates were all at least ten (10) days before the Council public hearing on August 27, 2019. In addition, a copy of a report analyzing the potential options for a gradual phase-in of the fees and the use of a cost escalator for parkland improvement costs was placed on file with the City Clerk on October 18, 2019, and a copy was posted on the City's website also on October 18, 2019, which dates were at least ten (10) days before the Council public hearing on October 29, 2019.

H. After careful consideration, including review of documentary evidence and additional information submitted in the administrative review process, the City Council finds the imposition of impact fees to finance major public park and recreational land acquisition, development and rehabilitation, as revised using the values set forth in the Nexus Study Update Report, is in the public interest and general welfare of the City and its residents, is equitable, and does not impose an undue burden on new development.

2. Calculation of Fees.

A. The Nexus Study Update calculates the parks fees that would fund the fair share cost to new development for additional capital parks and recreational facilities and improvements. The Nexus Study is based on the General Plan planning horizon of 2010-2035 and estimates the future Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2019-20 Rev: 3/22/19

residential population needs for parkland and recreational facilities. The Nexus Study Update determines a fair share of future planned public facilities using the "system plan" method to assure that new development doesn't pay for existing service deficiencies. The Nexus Study Update uses the "existing inventory demand standard" translated into facility costs per capita to determine new development's fair share of planned facility costs and to calculate the maximum parks fee. The cost standard provides a reasonable method for converting disparate types of facilities, in this case parkland and special use recreational facilities, into a single measure of demand (capital cost per capita). The cost standard is based on the existing inventory of parks and recreation facilities. New development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same rate that existing development has provided facilities. This method sets the fee that will fund the expansion of park facilities at the same standard that currently serves existing residents. The Nexus Study Update provides a reasonable methodology to determine the impacts and costs of new residential development. The City may adopt development impact fees up to the legally justified amounts in the Nexus Study Update (100% cost recovery).

8. Pursuant to Santa Clara City Code Chapter 17 .35, the maximum amount of the fees due in lieu of required parkland dedication shall be determined by the fair market value of the amount of land that would otherwise be required to be dedicated and using the average per acre land value for property in the City of Santa Clara for each of the three existing ZIP Codes in the City (95050, 95051, 95054), for each of the Dwelling Unit Categories (Single Family, Multi-family) on an annual basis in a Council resolution.

C. An independent real estate appraisal firm, The Schmidt-Prescott Group, was retained to provide a "Fair Market Value" opinion (valuation date of December 31, 2017) conforming to Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and using the City's supplemental instructions for an average acre of land (hypothetical, rectangular, useable site) for property in each of the three existing City of Santa Clara Zip Codes 95050, 95051, 95054. The data set included all property types: Single Family (low and very low density), High Density Residential, Medium Density Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2019-20 Rev: 3/22/19

Residential, Commercial/Retail, Industrial, Lots and Land. Excluded were transactions considered not "arms-length", having encumbered or clouded title, environmentally impaired sites, or more than three (3) years old. An inflation factor was computed and applied to comparable sales over one year old based on reasonable and rational considerations such as sales and rental trends or other appropriate methods. The weighted average of each property type was based on the percentage of land area in the sales transactions.

D. Based on the findings of the Appraisal Report, the average per acre land value for each ZIP Code area as of December 31, 2017, is: $3.738 million per acre ($85.81/sf) in 95050; $3.993 million per acre ($91.67/sf) in 95051; and, $4.035 million per acre ($92.63/sf) in 95054. If a developer objects to this determination of fair market value, the developer may elect to have the value established by appraisal, in conformance with City Code Section 17.35.040(b)(2).

E. Per acre Park Improvement Value. In 2017, an independent asset inventory evaluation firm, Kitchell CEM, was retained by the City to provide a complete asset inventory and facility condition assessment of all parks and recreation assets in the City for inclusion in the City's Enterprise Asset Management System and geo-database for lifecycle asset management (GIS-Lucity), and conforming to the industry standards used a reasonable methodology to determine the replacement cost for all existing assets and from which a condition index could be calculated (Kitchell Report dated February 21, 2018). The report was available on the City website, reported at the Parks & Recreation Commission, and noted and filed by the City Council on April 24, 2018. The total replacement cost of park assets inventoried in existing parks is the basis from which the system determines a reasonable estimate of the average per acre value of park improvements. The cost to provide an asset or set of assets in a park ("park improvements") is found to be the same as the current replacement cost of an asset such that a new park will provide the same level of service to new residents as received by existing residents in the park system as a whole, but no greater. Following stakeholder meetings on Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2019-20 Rev: 3/22/19

June 11, 2018 and June 27, 2018, adjustments were made (subtracted) in the inventory's costs for non-standard park facilities and buildings. The City then further reviewed actual construction bid prices for recent park construction projects in the City of Santa Clara, and contracted with an independent construction cost estimator to review the existing park inventory cost data. Based on these analyses and findings, the reasonable average cost per acre for park improvements was determined and found to be $1.335 million per acre ($3,471 per capita).

F. Impact of Future Park Improvement Cost Escalation. The average cost per acre for park improvements/construction of $1.335 million per acre is based on 2018 data and does not account for potential future annual construction cost escalation (increase/decrease). Over time, the actual costs of park development may exceed the 2018 cost per capita limit used to calculate annual fees and may impact the ability of the City to provide new parks at the same standard as provided in the existing park inventory. One objective, historical (retrospective), measure is provided by the California Department of Government Services annual (December through December) California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) and is based upon the Building Cost Index for the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas as produced by Engineering News Record (ENR BCI). Over the past eleven years, historical annual construction costs have typically increased on average 2.3%, and are documented to have been within a range of negative (decrease) 1.1 % to positive (increase) 6.8%. The application of a Construction Cost Index on an annual basis (whether increase or decrease) to the park improvement cost basis of $3,471 per capita (or, $1 .335 million per acre) would provide an additional reasonable cost adjustment and address the measurable annual changes, up or down, in park improvement/construction costs.

G. Parkland Dedication Standard. In calculation of parkland dedication orfees due in lieu thereof, new residential developments subject to the Mitigation Fee Act will use the existing parkland ratio of 2.6 acres per thousand residents; and, new residential subdivisions subject to the Quimby Act will use the City parkland standard of 3.0 acres of property for each one thousand residents for public park and recreational facilities.

Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2019-20 Rev: 3/22/19

H. Dwelling Unit Categories and Density. In calculation of parkland dedication or fees due in lieu thereof, the types of dwelling units and average density factors (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 American Community Survey) are: (1) Multiple Family Dwelling equals 2.40 persons per household; and, (2) Single-Family Dwelling equals 2.98 persons per household.

I. In conformance with City Code Section 17.35.050, in subdivisions of over fifty (50) parcels of land, in condominium developments of more than fifty (50) dwelling units, and in residential developments not involving a subdivision, a combination of land dedication and fee payment may be required. Developments of fifty (50) units or less will be required to pay an in-lieu fee.

J. In conformance with City Code Section 17.35.070, developers will submit a written request with the project application for any eligible credits requested against the amount of parkland dedication or the amount of the in-lieu fee. The developer will work with the Director of Parks & Recreation on the proposed credits and project's park, recreation and green space conditions. The Approving Authority must make findings that the on-site parks and recreation amenities meet the Code's standards. For housing developments of which 100% of the units are affordable or for senior citizens authorized by the California Civil Code or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Approving Authority must make findings that the development complies with all other provisions of the section and that providing the additional credit would serve the public interest.

3. Schedule of Fees.

A. Fee Policy History. On October 14, 2014, Council adopted Resolution No. 14-8174 that set fees due in lieu of parkland dedication at 100% cost recovery for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15 based on land valuation from calendar year 2013 and park improvement value from 2014. In FY2015-16, fees remained unchanged due to the recent adoption of the ordinance and fees. On June 7, 2016 Council reviewed and adopted supplemental land valuation instructions for use in the calculation of the fees. On August 23, 2016 Council adopted Resolution No. 16-8358 that set fees due in lieu of parkland dedication at 100% of cost recovery based upon land valuation date of Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2019-20 Rev: 3/22/19

December 31, 2015 for FY2016-2017 and park improvement value from 2014. On May 8, 2017, Council adopted Resolution No. 17-8427 that set fees due in lieu of parkland dedication at 100% of cost recovery based upon land valuation date of December 31, 2016 for FY2017-18 and park improvement value from 2014. In FY 2018~19, fees remained unchanged due to an extensive review and public comment periods. In FY2019-20, on August 27, 2019 Council adopted Resolution No. 19-8749 that made the statutory findings to be used in the calculation of fees due in lieu of parkland dedication at 100% cost recovery including, but not limited to the MFA parkland standard of 2.6 acres per thousand residents, the Quimby parkland standard of 3.0 acres per thousand residents, the Multiple Family Dwelling Unit average density of 2.40 persons per household, the Single-Family Dwelling unit average density of 2.98 persons per household, the average per acre land value for each ZIP Code area as of December 31, 2017 of $3.738 million per acre in 95050, $3.993 million per acre in 95051, and $4.035 million per acre in 95054 to be annually undated according to City Code 17.35; and the average per acre value for park improvements/construction as of February 2018 of $1.335 million per acre ($3,471 per capita).

However, Council requested additional policy alternatives to phase in the increase in park improvements cost to more than three years. Furthermore, Resolution No. 19-8749 maintained that for all development project applications currently on file, the existing.fees would apply as adopted in FY2017-18 (Resolution No. 17-8427), i.e. no change in fees.

8. Phase-In Policy. After considering the alternatives, Council has selected the following phase-in policy for the change in fees to achieve 100% cost recovery over an extended period of time:

Phase in the park improvement cost increase of $2,664 ($3,471 - $807) per capita over a four-year period increasing 25% ($666) per year and continue to adjust the land valuation (increase/decrease) fee component each year based on the annual land appraisal at 100% cost recovery.

C. Construction Cost Index. In order to continue to achieve, but not exceed, 100% cost recovery, the City shall in two years, revisit the use of the California Construction Cost Index (increase/decrease) to adjust the park improvement cost basis of $3,471 per capita in the Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2019-20 Rev: 3/22/19

calculation of future fees due in lieu of parkland dedication.

D. The land valuation component will be subject to the updated annual land value appraisal report and supplemental instructions as adopted by Council June 7, 2016 with valuation dates of December 31 of each calendar year for use in calculating the following (next) fiscal year's fee update. Pursuant to Ordinances Nos. 1928 and 1937, projects subject to the Quimby Act and the Mitigation Fee Act, will provide for parkland (and/or its corresponding fee calculated and due in lieu of land dedication) according to the Quimby Act or Mitigation Fee Act as appropriate, and will provide for park improvements (and/or its corresponding fee calculated and due in lieu of improvements) according to the Mitigation Fee Act or its corresponding fee due in lieu of improvements.

E. Pursuant to Ordinances Nos. 1928 and 1937, fees subject to the Quimby Act and the Mitigation Fee Act are calculated and provided for each Zip Code Area of the City (95050, 95051 , and 95054) in Attachment 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2019-20 Page 10 of 11 Rev: 3/22/19
F. Implementation Schedule. For development projects subject to the Quimby Act, the proposed fees will be imposed on development projects with applications deemed complete on or after October 29, 2019 (immediately). For development projects subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, the proposed fees will be imposed on development projects with applications deemed complete on or after December 28, 2019 (60 days after adoption of Resolution). For development project applications "deemed complete" prior to this date, the existing fees will apply as adopted in FY2017-18 (Resolution No. 17-8427).

4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 29rH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase-In (25% annually)
Chahal, Davis, Hardy, Mahan, O'Neill, and
Watanabe, and Mayor Gillmor
None
None
None
ATTEST: ~

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2019-20 Page 11 of 11 Rev: 3/22/19
;:o ;:o (I) (I)
< (J) .. 0
(,) - N-- --- s. NO
~~
co ""Tl
(I)
(I)
(J)
0 C
(I)
::J
r
ro·
C
s,
-0
e;
;,;-
ii>
::J

0. 0
(I)

0. ff
~
a·
::J
~
z
(I)
:::E
;:o
(I)
(J)
i:i
(I)
;:?.
~
0 CD
< (I)
0 "O
3 CD
;:?.
""Tl
-< N
0 -"-
co
N
0 -0
Cl
cc
(I)
-"-
0 -(,)
Table A
Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Schedule - Zip Code Area 95050 Year 1 2 3
201 9 2020 2021
park improvement value increase= 0.25 $3,471 $ 1,473 0.5 $3,471 $ 2,139 0.75 $3,471 $ 2,805 formula A B C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D Cost Per O ·t Admin Admin BaseFee Admin
Land Use C . ens1 y BaseFee Ch Total Fee BaseFee Ch Total Fee Ch Total Fee apIta arge arge arge Quimby Act
Single Famil'i.

Parkland $11,214 2.98 $33,418 $ 668 $34,086 $33,418 $ 668 $34,086 $ 33,418 $ 668 $34,086 lmprovernen1s $ 3,471 2.98 $ 4,390 $ 88 $ 4,477 $ 6,374 $ 127 $ 6,502 $ 8,359 $ 167 $ 8,526 Total $14,685 $37,807 $ 756 $ 38,563 $39,792 $ 796 $40,588 $ 41,777 $ 836 $42,612 Multi-Famil't.

Parkland $11,214 2.4 $26,914 $ 538 $ 27,452 $26,914 $ 538 $27,452 $ 26,914 $ 538 $27,452 lrnprovernen1s $ 3,471 2.4 $ 3,535 $ 71 $ 3,606 $ 5,134 $ 103 $ 5,236 $ 6,732 $ 135 $ 6,867 Total $14,685 $30,449 $ 609 $ 31 ,058 $32,047 $ 641 $32,688 $ 33,646 $ 673 ,-$34,319 Mitigation Fee Act
Single Famil'i_
Parkland $ 9,719 2.98 $28,963 $ 579 $29,542 $28,963 $ 579 $29,542 $ 28,963 $ 579 $29,542 lrnprovernen1s $ 3,471 2.98 $ 4,390 $ 88 $ 4,477 $ 6,374 $ 127 $ 6,502 $ 8,359 $ 167 $ 8,526 Total $13,190 $33,352 $ 667 $ 34,019 $35,337 $ 707 $36,044 $ 37,322 $ 746 $38,068 Mu/ti-Fami/'i_
Parkland $ 9,719 2.4 $23,326 $ 467 $ 23,792 $23,326 $ 467 $23,792 $ 23,326 $ 467 $23,792 lrnprovernen1s $ 3,471 2.4 $ 3,535 $ 71 $ 3,606 $ 5,134 $ 103 $ 5,236 $ 6,732 $ 135 $ 6,867 Total $13,190 $26,861 $ 537 $27,398 $28,459 $ 569 $29,028 $ 30,058 $ 601 ,-$ 30,659 4 2022
1 $3,471 $ 3,471
C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D
BaseFee Admin
Charge Total Fee "Tl
0 C:
""I
-< (I)
$33,418 $ 668 $34,086 ~
""I
$10,344 $ 207 $10,550
$43,761 $ 875 $44,637
$26,914 $ 538 $27,452
$ 8,330 $ 167 $ 8,497
$35,244 $ 705 $35,949
iJ )>
::::;
~ -..... en ~
(I) C')
.!... :T
::I 3
- (I)
I\) ::I
u,
?ft. -...:,,
~
::I
::I
C:
~
$28,963 $ 579 $29,542 '<
$10,344 $ 207 $10,550 - $39,306 $ 786 $40,092
$23,326 $ 467 $23,792
$ 8,330 $ 167 $ 8,497
$31,656 $ 633 $32,289
;;o ;;o CD CD < (J) . . 0
w-
--N C =: NO
-- :::J ....,. -- (0 "Tl
CD
CD
(J)
0 C
CD
:::J
C.

CD
C
0 -lJ
Ill
~
w
:::J

0..
0 CD

0..
o·
~
o·
:::J
Q
z
CD
::::
;;o
CD
(J)
a:

CD
;a.
!il:
0 CD
<
CD
0 "O
3 CD
;a.
"Tl
-< N
0 ....,.
(0
i(,
0 lJ
Ill
cc
CD
N
0 -(;)
Table B
Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Schedule - Zip Code Area 95051 Year 1 2 3
2019 2020 2021
park improvement value increase= 0.25 $3,471 $ 1,473 0.5 $3,471 $ 2,139 0.75 $3,471 $ 2,805 formula A B C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D Cost Per Density Admin Admin Admin BaseFee Ch Total Fee BaseFee Ch Total Fee BaseFee Ch Total Fee Land Use Capita arge arge arge
Quimby Act
Single Family_
Parkland $11,979 2.98 $35,697 $ 714 $36,411 $35,697 $ 714 $36,411 $ 35,697 $ 714 $36,411 Improvements $ 3,471 2.98 $ 4,390 $ 88 $ 4,477 $ 6,374 $ 127 $ 6,502 $ 8,359 $ 167 $ 8,526 Total $15,450 $40,087 $ 802 $ 40,889 $42,072 $ 841 $42,913 $ 44,056 $ 881 $44,937 Multi-Family_
Parkland $11 ,979 2.4 $28,750 $ 575 $ 29,325 $28,750 $ 575 $29,325 $ 28,750 $ 575 $29,325 Improvements $ 3,471 2.4 $ 3,535 $ 71 $ 3,606 $ 5,134 $ 103 $ 5,236 $ 6,732 $ 135 $ 6,867 Total $15,450 $32,285 $ 646 $ 32,930 $33,883 $ 678 $34,561 $ 35,482 $ 710 "$36,191 Mitigation Fee Act
Single Family_
Parkland $10,382 2.98 $30,938 $ 619 $ 31,557 $30,938 $ 619 $31,557 $ 30,938 $ 619 $31,557 Improvements $ 3,471 2.98 $ 4,390 $ 88 $ 4,477 $ 6,374 $ 127 $ 6,502 $ 8,359 $ 167 $ 8,526 Total $13,853 $35,328 $ 707 $ 36,034 $37,313 $ 746 $38,059 $ 39,297 $ 786 $40,083 Multi-Famil'f
Parkland $10,382 2.4 $24,917 $ 498 $ 25,415 $24,917 $ 498 $25,415 $ 24,917 $ 498 $25,415 Improvements $ 3,471 2.4 $ 3,535 $ 71 $ 3,606 $ 5,134 $ 103 $ 5,236 $ 6,732 $ 135 $ 6,867 Total $13,853 $28,452 $ 569 $ 29,021 $30,050 $ 601 $30,651 $ 31,649 $ 633 ,. $ 32,282 4 2022
1 $3,471 $ 3,471
C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D
BaseFee Admin Total Fee Charge
-n
0 C:
$35,697 $ 714 $36,411
$10,344 $ 207 $10,550
...
-< ►
I»
(I) --I» ... 0
.,, :::r
:::r 3
I» (I)
$46,041 $ 921 $46,962 t/1 :I
(I)
.!- -..... :I - $28,750 $ 575 $29,325 - 0
Iv 0
(11 :I
$ 8,330 $ 167 $ 8,497 ~ !:!: 0 :I
$37,080 $ 742 $37,822 I» C:
:I (I)
:I 0..

C:

I»
$30,938 $ 619 $31,557 $
$10,344 $ 207 $10,550
$41,282 $ 826 $42,108
$24,917 $ 498 $25,415
$ 8,330 $ 167 $ 8,497
$33,247 $ 665 $33,912
;;o ;;o CD CD < en .. 0
wN§:

NO
-- ::i ....>. -- co ""Tl
CD
CD
en
0 C
CD
::i
C:

CD
C
0 --0
Dl
~
oi"
::i
c..
0 CD
c..
o·
~
o·
::i
Q
z
~ ;;o
CD
en
a.:

CD
;:;.
~
0 CD
<
CD
0 "O
3 CD
;:;.
""Tl
-< N
0 ....>.
co
N
0 -0
Dl
(0
CD
(.,J
0 -(.,J
Table C
Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Schedule - Zip Code Area 95054 Year 1 2 3
2019 2020 2021
park improvement value increase= 0.25 $3,471 $ 1,473 0.5 $3,471 $ 2,139 0.75 $3,471 $ 2,805 formula A B C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D Cost Per O ·t Admin Admin BaseFee Admin
C . ensIy BaseFee Ch Total Fee BaseFee Ch Total Fee Ch Total Fee Land Use ap1ta arge arge arge
Quimby Act
Single Famil'f
Parkland $12,105 2.98 $36,073 $ 721 $ 36,794 $36,073 $ 721 $36,794 $ 36,073 $ 721 $ 36,794 Improvements $ 3,471 2.98 $ 4,390 $ 88 $ 4,477 $ 6,374 $ 127 $ 6,502 $ 8,359 $ 167 $ 8,526 Total $15,576 $40,462 $ 809 $ 41,272 $42,447 $ 849 $43,296 $ 44,432 $ 889 $45,320 Multi-Famil'f
Parkland $12,105 2.4 $29,052 $ 581 $ 29,633 $29,052 $ 581 $29,633 $ 29,052 $ 581 $29,633 Improvements $ 3,471 2.4 $ 3,535 $ 71 $ 3,606 $ 5,134 $ 103 $ 5,236 $ 6,732 $ 135 $ 6,867 Total $15,576 $32,587 $ 652 $ 33,239 $34,186 $ 684 $34,869 $ 35,784 $ 716 "$ 36,500 Mitigation Fee Act
Single Famil'f
Parkland $10,491 2.98 $31,263 $ 625 $ 31,888 $31,263 $ 625 $31,888 $ 31,263 $ 625 $31,888 Improvements $ 3,471 2.98 $ 4,390 $ 88 $ 4,477 $ 6,374 $ 127 $ 6,502 $ 8,359 $ 167 $ 8,526 Total $13,962 $35,653 $ 713 $ 36,366 $37,637 $ 753 $38,390 $ 39,622 $ 792 $40,415 Multi-Famil'f
Parkland $10,491 2.4 $25,178 $ 504 $ 25,682 $25,178 $ 504 $25,682 $ 25,178 $ 504 $25,682 Improvements $ 3,471 2.4 $ 3,535 $ 71 $ 3,606 $ 5,134 $ 103 $ 5,236 $ 6,732 $ 135 $ 6,867 Total $13,962 $28,714 $ 574 $ 29,288 $30,312 $ 606 $30,918 $ 31,910 $ 638 " $ 32,549 4 2022
1 $3,471 $ 3,471
C=AxB D=Cx0. 02 E=C+D
BaseFee Admin Total Fee Charge
-n
0 C:
$36,073 $ 721 $36,794
$10,344 $ 207 $10,550
$46,416 $ 928 $47,345
~
-< ►
SU
CD --
SU
~ C')
'1J ::r
::r 3
SU CD
C/1 ::l
CD
I -..... ::l - - C)
$29,052 $ 581 $29,633
$ 8,330 $ 167 $ 8,497
$37,382 $ 748 $38,130
t,.)
01 0
,ft.
::l
SU -
5·
::l C:
::l CD
C: C.

SU - $31 ,263 $ 625 $31,888 :$
$10,344 $ 207 $10,550
$41,607 $ 832 $42,439
$25,178 $ 504 $25,682
$ 8,330 $ 167 $ 8,497
$33,509 $ 670 $34,179
RESOLUTION NO. 21-8970

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

TO ESTABLISH THE PARKLAND IN LIEU FEE SCHEDULE FOR

NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CHAPTER 17.35 ("PARK AND RECREATIONAL LAND") OF
TITLE 17 ("DEVELOPMENT") OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF

SANTA CLARA
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara is the Government entity responsible for providing public parks, recreation and open space facilities within the City of Santa Clara; WHEREAS, the 2010-2035 General Plan includes a goal that new parks, open space and recreation be provided with new development so that existing facilities are not overburdened; WHEREAS, the report entitled "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study" dated June 25, 2014 ("Nexus Study"), was prepared by Willdan Financial Services, Inc. and approved by Council in June 2014;
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1928, which added Chapter 17.35 to the City Code, and requires new residential development to provide adequate community and neighborhood park land for active recreational uses, and/or under certain conditions to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication; WHEREAS, on February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1937, adding duplex dwellings to the types of developments subject to the parkland dedication requirement, and removing the one (1) acre minimum parkland dedication prior to a developer being able to receive financial credit for private recreational amenities and open space; II
II
II
II
II
Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2021/22 Rev: 11 /22/17

WHEREAS, on August 27, 2019, Council approved Resolution No. 19-87 49 which included the statutory findings required pursuant to the California Quimby Act (Quimby) and Mitigation Fee Act (MFA), including the report entitled "Santa Clara Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Update Study" dated April 9, 2019 ("Nexus Study Update") prepared by Willdan Financial Services, Inc., and the professional land valuation appraisal report with a valuation date of December 31, 2017, and the park improvements replacement costs with values as of 2017; WHEREAS, on October 29, 2019 Council approved Resolution No. 19-8769 to establish the Parkland In Lieu Fee Schedule for New Residential Development in Accordance with Chapter 17.35 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara, and directed staff to phase in the Park Improvement Costs over four years and to use the annual Land Valuation Appraisal Report in the calculation of annual fees;
WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Chapter 17.35, the City has surveyed land values and sales records, conducted a professional appraisal with a valuation date of December 31, 2020 to determine the fair market value of property in the City, and the City posted the Appraisal Report on the City website from March 30, 2021 to April 16, 2021 for public review and comment; the Council now wishes to use the applicable values for calculating the fees due in lieu of parkland dedication and to adopt the updated fee schedule for parkland in lieu fees; WHEREAS, on May 5, 2021 and on May 12, 2021, a notice of the May 25, 2021 public hearing to consider a Resolution to establish the Parkland In Lieu Fee Schedule for New Residential Development in Accordance with Chapter 17.35 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara was published in the Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation; WHEREAS, on May 21, 2021, a copy of the Report supporting this resolution and all supporting data were placed on file at the City Clerk's Office and the City website; WHEREAS, the fees established by this resolution are derived from, are based upon, and do not exceed the costs of providing capital park and recreation land and facilities necessitated by the new residential development for which fees are levied; Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2021/22 Rev: 11/22/17

WHEREAS, on May 25, 2021, the City Council opened a public hearing to consider the proposed fee schedule and draft resolution, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence, both in support of and in opposition to the proposed resolution. After one comment was received, and due to the lateness of the hour, the Public hearing was continued to the City Council Meeting of June 8, 2021 and, WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, the City Council continued its public hearing from the May 25, 2021 Council Meeting to consider the proposed fee schedule and draft resolution, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence, both in support of and in opposition to the proposed resolution.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. Findings and Purpose. That the City Council hereby finds and declares that:

A. New residential subdivisions and new non-subdivided residential projects generate impacts and demands for public services, facilities, and neighborhood and community parkland, and have a significant effect on the use and availability of park and recreation space and facilities, and that the limited open space and recreation amenities provided by these residential developments are insufficient to meet demands.

B. It is the City's intent and desire (General Plan Goals & Policies: 5.9.1-G3, -G4;

5.9.1-P14, -P18, -P20) to require that such developments contribute their fair share of land, facilities, or amenities or contribute public costs toward the purchase, development and/or improvement of park and recreational facilities.

C. The imposition of impact fees is one of the customary methods of ensuring that development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities necessary to accommodate such development in order to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare.

II
Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2021/22 Rev: 11 /22/17

D. The provisions of this Resolution are enacted pursuant to the Charter, the City of Santa Clara General Plan and sections 66000-66025, 66477, and 66479 of the California Government Code (the "Mitigation Fee Act" and the "Quimby Act"), as may be applicable.

E. The report entitled "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study" ("Nexus Study") dated June 25, 2014, prepared by Willdan Financial Services, Inc. and reviewed by Council in June 2014, set forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for the determination of the impact of development on the need for and costs for additional capital parks and recreation facilities improvements in the City.

F. The report entitled "Santa Clara Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Update Study" ("Nexus Study Update") dated April 9, 2019, prepared by Willdan Financial Services, Inc. and reviewed by Council on May 21 and August 27, 2019, set forth a reasonable methodology and updated analysis for the determination of the impact of development on the need for and the costs for additional capital parks and recreation facilities improvements in the City.

G. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66016, the City made data available regarding the costs, or estimated costs, to provide services and proposed parkland dedication standards for the public facility impact fees by posting the Nexus Study Update prepared by Willdan Financial Services, Inc., on the City's Website on April 9, 2019 and the park improvement replacement costs contained in the Facility Condition Assessment Report ("Kitchell 2017") on the City Website in January 2018, and provided the land valuation Appraisal Report prepared by Frank Schmidt & Associates dated December 31, 2020 ("Appraisal Report") on the City's website on March 30, 2021, all of which dates were all at least ten (10) days before the Council public hearing on May 25, 2021, and the continued Council public hearing on June 8, 2021.

II
Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2021/22 Rev: 11/22/17

H. After careful consideration, including review of documentary evidence and additional information submitted in the administrative review process, the City Council finds the imposition of impact fees to finance major public park and recreational land acquisition, development and rehabilitation, as revised using the values set forth in the Nexus Study Update Report, is in the public interest and general welfare of the City and its residents, is equitable, and does not impose an undue burden on new development.

2. Calculation of Fees.

A The Nexus Study Update calculates the parks fees that would fund the fair share cost to new development for additional capital parks and recreational facilities and improvements. The Nexus Study is based on the General Plan planning horizon of 2010-2035 and estimates the future residential population needs for parkland and recreational facilities. The Nexus Study Update determines a fair share of future planned public facilities using the "system plan" method to assure that new development doesn't pay for existing service deficiencies. The Nexus Study Update uses the "existing inventory demand standard" translated into facility costs per capita to determine new development's fair share of planned facility costs and to calculate the maximum parks fee. The cost standard provides a reasonable method for converting disparate types of facilities, in this case parkland and special use recreational facilities, into a single measure of demand (capital cost per capita). The cost standard is based on the existing inventory of parks and recreation facilities. New development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same rate that existing development has provided facilities. This method sets the fee that will fund the expansion of park facilities at the same standard that currently serves existing residents. The Nexus Study Update provides a reasonable methodology to determine the impacts and costs of new residential development. The City may adopt development impact fees up to the legally justified amounts in the Nexus Study Update (100% cost recovery).

II
Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2021/22 Rev: 11 /22/17

8. Pursuant to Ordinances Nos. 1928 and 1937, projects subject to the Quimby Act and the Mitigation Fee Act, will provide for parkland (and/or its corresponding fee calculated and due in lieu of land dedication) according to the Quimby Act and/or Mitigation Fee Act as appropriate, and will provide for park improvements (and/or its corresponding fee calculated and due in lieu of improvements) according to the Mitigation Fee Act or its corresponding fee due in lieu of improvements.

C. Pursuant to Santa Clara City Code Chapter 17.35, the maximum amount of the fees due in lieu of required parkland dedication shall be determined by the fair market value of the amount of land that would otherwise be required to be dedicated and using the average per acre land value for property in the City of Santa Clara for each of the three existing ZIP Codes in the City (95050, 95051, 95054), for each of the Dwelling Unit Categories (Single Family, Multi-family) on an annual basis in a Council resolution.

D. Parkland Dedication Standard. In calculation of parkland dedication or fees due in lieu thereof, new residential developments subject to the Mitigation Fee Act will use the existing parkland ratio of 2.6 acres per thousand residents; and, new residential subdivisions subject to the Quimby Act will use the City parkland standard of 3.0 acres of property for each one thousand residents for public park and recreational facilities.

E. Dwelling Unit Categories and Density. In calculation of parkland dedication orfees due in lieu thereof, the types of dwelling units and average density factors (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 American Community Survey) are: (1) Multiple Family Dwelling equals 2.40 persons per household; and, (2) Single-Family Dwelling equals 2.98 persons per household.

F. In conformance with City Code Section 17.35.050, in subdivisions of over fifty (50) parcels of land, in condominium developments of more than fifty (50) dwelling units, and in residential developments not involving a subdivision, a combination of land dedication and fee payment may be required. Developments of fifty (50) units or less will be required to pay an in-lieu fee.

II
Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2021/22 Rev: 11 /22/17

G. In conformance with City Code Section 17.35.070, developers will submit a written request with the project application for any eligible credits requested against the amount of parkland dedication or the amount of the in-lieu fee. The developer will work with the Director of Parks & Recreation on the proposed credits and project's park, recreation and green space conditions. The Approving Authority must make findings that the on-site parks and recreation amenities meet the Code's standards. For housing developments of which 100% of the units are affordable or for senior citizens authorized by the California Civil Code or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Approving Authority must make findings that the development complies with all other provisions of the section and that providing the additional credit would serve the public interest.

H. The land valuation component will be subject to the updated annual land value appraisal report and supplemental instructions as adopted by Council June 7, 2016 with valuation dates of December 31 of each calendar year for use in calculating the following (next) fiscal year's fee update.

1. Land Valuation Appraisal. An independent real estate appraisal firm, Frank Schmidt & Associates, was retained to provide a "Fair Market Value" opinion (valuation date of December 31, 2020) conforming to Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and using the City's Supplemental Instructions for an average acre of land (hypothetical, rectangular, useable site) for property in each of the three existing City of Santa Clara Zip Codes 95050, 95051, 95054.

The data set included all property types: Single Family (low and very low density), High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Commercial/Retail, Industrial, Lots and Land. Excluded were transactions considered not "arms-length", having encumbered or clouded title, environmentally impaired sites, or more than three (3) years old. An inflation factor was computed and applied to comparable sales over one year old based on reasonable and rational considerations such as sales and rental trends or other appropriate methods. The weighted average of each property type was based on the percentage of land area in the sales transactions.

Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2021/22 Rev: 11/22/17

2. Land Valuation Appraisal Findings. Based on the findings of the Appraisal Report, the average per acre land value for each ZIP Code area as of December 31, 2020, is:
$4.720 million per acre ($108.36/sf) in 95050; $5.120 million per acre ($117.54/sf) in 95051; and, $4.495 million per acre ($110.88/sf) in 95054. If a developer objects to this determination of fair market value, the developer may elect to have the value established by appraisal, in conformance with City Code Section 17.35.040(b)(2).

3. Park Improvement Value Findings. In 2017, an independent asset inventory evaluation firm, Kitchell CEM, was retained by the City to provide a complete asset inventory and facility condition assessment of all parks and recreation assets in the City for inclusion in the City's Enterprise Asset Management System and gee-database for lifecycle asset management (GIS-Lucity), and conforming to the industry standards used a reasonable methodology to determine the replacement cost for all existing assets and from which a condition index could be calculated (Kitchell Report dated February 21, 2018). The report was available on the City website, reported at the Parks & Recreation Commission, and noted and filed by the City Council on April 24, 2018. The total replacement cost of park assets inventoried in existing parks is the basis from which the system determines a reasonable estimate of the average per acre value of existing park improvements. The cost to provide an asset or set of assets in a park ("park improvements") is found to be the same as the current replacement cost of an asset such that a new park will provide the same level of service to new residents as received by existing residents in the park system as a whole, but no greater. Following stakeholder meetings on June 11, 2018 and June 27, 2018, adjustments were made (subtracted) in the inventory's costs for non-standard park facilities and buildings. The City then further reviewed actual construction bid prices for recent park construction projects in the City of Santa Clara, and the City contracted with an independent construction cost estimator to review the existing park inventory cost data. Based on these analyses and findings, the reasonable Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2021/22 Rev: 11 /22/17

average cost per acre for park improvements was determined and found to be $1.335 million per acre ($3,471 per capita).

4. Park Improvement Value Phase-in & Fee Direction. On October 29, 2019, Council adopted Resolution No. 19-8769 which directed staff to "phase in" the 2018 per capita improvement value over four years (i.e. for FY2019/20 use $1,473 per capita, for FY2020/21 use $2,139 per capita, for FY2021/22 use $2,805 per capita, and for FY2022/23 use $3,471 per capita).

In the Resolution No 19-8769, Council also directed staff to use 100% of the land valuations from December 31, 2017. Council also directed staff to revisit the use of the California Construction Cost Index (increase/decrease) to adjust the park improvement cost basis of $3,471 per capita in the calculation of fees due in lieu of parkland dedication.

3. Schedule of Fees.

A. Fee Policy History. On October 14, 2014, Council adopted Resolution No. 14-8174 that set fees due in lieu of parkland dedication for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014/15 at 100% cost recovery based on land valuation from calendar year 2013 and park improvement value as of 2014. In FY2015/16, fees remained unchanged due to the recent adoption of the ordinance and fees. On June 7, 2016, Council adopted supplemental instructions for land valuation to be used in the land appraisal process. On August 23, 2016, Council adopted Resolution No. 16-8358 that set fees due in lieu of parkland dedication for FY2016/17 at 100% of cost recovery based upon the land valuation date of December 31, 2015 and park improvement value as of 2014. On May 8, 2017, Council adopted Resolution No. 17-8427 that set fees due in lieu of parkland dedication for FY2017/18 at 100% of cost recovery based upon the land valuation date of December 31, 2016 and park improvement value as of 2014. In FY 2018/19, fees remained unchanged due to an extensive review and public comment periods regarding the Nexus Study Update. On October 29, 2019, Council adopted Resolution No. 19-8769 that set fees due in lieu of parkland dedication for FY2019/20 at less than 100% cost recovery based on the land valuation date of December 31, 2017 and the use of the park improvement value as of 2014 plus 25% ($666) of 2018 park Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2021/22 Rev: 11 /22/17

improvement value increase. On April 28, 2020 Council adopted Resolution No. 20-8839 which set fees for FY2020/21 at less than 100% cost recovery based on the use of the land valuation date of December 31, 2017 and the park improvement value as of 2014 plus 50% ($1,332) of the 2018 improvement value increase; due to impacts of the COVID19 global pandemic the land valuation appraisal was not available for use in the fee calculation at that time. Council direction in 2019 was to adjust the land valuation (increase/decrease) fee component each year based on the annual land appraisal at 100% cost recovery.

B. Pursuant to Ordinances Nos. 1928 and 1937, fees subject to the Quimby Act and the Mitigation Fee Act are calculated and provided for each Zip Code Area of the City (95050, 95051, and 95054) in Attachment 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The fees in this resolution are calculated using 100% cost recovery for the average per acre land value for each ZIP Code area as of December 31, 2020 (i.e.: $4.720 million per acre ($108.36/sf) in 95050; $5.120 million per acre ($117.54/sf) in 95051; and, $4.830 million per acre ($110.88/sf) in 95054) and 75% of the 2018 per capita improvement value (i.e. for FY2021/22 use $2,805 per capita) in conformance with previous Council direction on October 29, 2019.

C. Implementation Schedule. For development projects subject to the Quimby Act, the proposed fees will be imposed on development projects with applications deemed complete on or after June 11, 2021 (immediately). For development projects subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, the proposed fees will be imposed on development projects with applications deemed complete on or after August 9, 2021 (60 days after adoption of this Resolution). For development project applications "deemed complete" prior to this date, the existing fees will apply as adopted in Resolution No. 20-8839.

II
II
II
II
Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2021/22 Rev: 11 /22/17

4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 10m DAY OF JUNE, 2021, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Fee Schedule - Fiscal Year 2021/22
Becker, Chahal, Jain and Watanabe
Hardy, and Park, and Mayor Gillmor
None
None ~
ATTEST ASSISTANT CITY ilCLERK ✓ CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution/ Fees Due In Lieu of Parkland Dedication for New Residential Development FY2021/22 Rev: 11/22/17

Attachment 1
Table A
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee Schedule - FY2021/22
95050
Applicable Fee Type Calculation MFA Quimby
$/Acre (12-31-2020) A $4,720,000 $4,720,000
Park Acres/1000 Pop. LOS Standard B 2.6 3
Total Cost per 1,000 C=AxB $12,272,000 $14,160,000
Cost per capita D = C/1000 $12,272 $14,160
Density Single Family (Census) Dx 2.98 $36,570 $42,197
Improvements (@75%) $2,805 X 2.98 $8,359 $8,359
Admin Charge 0.02 $899 $1,011
Total Single Family (SF) Dwelling Fee $45,828 $51,567
Density Multi Family (Census) Dx2.4 $29,452 $33,984
Improvements (@75%) $2805 X 2.4 $6,732 $6,732
Admin Charge 0.02 $724 $814
Total Multi Family (MF) Dwelling Fee $36,908 $41,530
Attachment to Resolution No. 21-8970 Page 1 of 3
Attachment 1 (continued)
Table B
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee Schedule - FY2021/22
95051
Applicable Fee Type Calculation MFA Quimby
$/Acre (12-31-2020) A $5,120,000 $5,120,000
Park Acres/I 000 Pop. LOS Standard B 2.6 3
Total Cost per 1,000 C=AxB $13,312,000 $15,360,000
Cost per capita D = C/1000 $13,312 $15,360
Density Single Family (Census) Dx 2.98 $39,669 $45,772
Improvements (@75%) $2,805 X 2.98 $8,359 $8,359
Admin Charge 0.02 $961 $1,083
Total Single Family (SF) Dwelling Fee $48,989 $55,214
Density Multi Family (Census) Dx 2.4 $31,948 $36,864
Improvements (@75%) $2,805 X 2.4 $6,732 $6,732
Admin Charge 0.02 $774 $872
Total Multi Family (MF) Dwelling Fee $39,454 $44,468
Attachment to Resolution No. 21-8970 Page 2 of 3
Attachment 1 (Continued)
Table C
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee Schedule - FY2021/22
95054
Applicable Fee Type Calculation MFA Quimby
$/Acre (12-31-2020) A $4,830,000 $4,830,000
Park Acres/1000 Pop. LOS Standard B 2.6 3
Total Cost per 1,000 C=AxB $12,558,000 $14,490,000
Cost per capita D = C/1000 $12,558 $14,490
Density Single Family (Census) Dx 2.98 $37,422 $43,180
Improvements (@75%) $2,805 X 2.98 $8,359 $8,359
Admin Charge 0.02 $916 $1,031
Total Single Family (SF) Dwelling Fee $46,697 $52,570
Density Multi Family (Census) Dx 2.4 $30,139 $34,776
Improvements (@75%) $2,805 X 2.4 $6,732 $6,732
Admin Charge 0.02 $738 $830
Total Multi Family (MF) Dwelling Fee $37,609 $42,338
Attachment to Resolution No. 21-8970 Page 3 of 3
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Action on the Adoption of the Proposed FY 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule and Parks & Recreation Cost Recovery Policy

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Santa Clara Municipal Fee Schedule provides a detailed list of fees charged by the City for specific services. The purpose of these fees is to recover costs related to providing the services, with varying levels of cost-recovery. City staff review the fee schedule on an annual basis.

Periodically, a cost of service study is performed to identify the City’s full costs of providing feerelated services. This fiscal year’s proposed fee schedule reflects a comprehensive fee study that was performed by the third-party consultant, ClearSource Financial Consulting, in coordination with City departments. The intent of this study was to review all the costs of services provided and to adjust fees as necessary to obtain a reasonable level of cost recovery.

Additionally, the City’s consultant, alongside the Parks & Recreation Department, developed a Cost Recovery Policy for Parks & Recreation services. A community survey was conducted and a joint meeting with the Parks & Recreation Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, and Youth Commission took place to get community input on what residents/interested parties felt were reasonable levels of cost recovery for Parks & Recreation services offered.

On April 5, 2022, a study session was held to review the Proposed FY 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule and Parks & Recreation Cost Recovery Policy with the City Council and the public.

Responses to City Council and general public questions and/or comments are included in this report.

In addition, a revision to the Parks & Recreation Cost Recovery Policy is recommended in this report incorporating the feedback received from the study session.

BACKGROUND
User and regulatory fees are established by the City Council. The City of Santa Clara’s Proposed FY 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule (Fee Schedule) is a compilation of fees for City services provided to members of the public. The advantages of updating the City’s user fees include ensuring that fees are set based on current costs and approved cost recovery objectives while providing transparency in the fee structure for the City’s development-related and other municipal fees. These fees cover the costs for specific City services, except those mandated by or set by another Council action or document (e.g., Electric Rate Schedule, Water & Sewer Utilities Rate Schedule, and Santa Clara Recreation Activity Guide).

Proposition 218 and California Government Code Section 66014 enable local agencies to set fees at City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
Proposition 218 and California Government Code Section 66014 enable local agencies to set fees at rates that obtain fair and reasonable recovery of costs incurred in providing these services, thereby minimizing or eliminating the use of limited general tax revenues to fund these services. To the extent that a fee has been set based upon a presumption of 100% cost recovery, the City cannot waive the fee unless it does so out of another permissible funding source such as the General Fund.

California Government Code Section 66016(a) states that prior to levying a new fee or service charge, or prior to approving an increase in an existing fee or service charge, a local agency shall hold at least one open and public meeting at which oral or written presentations can be made as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Further, pursuant to Government Code section 66018, notices for this public hearing have been published in the Santa Clara Weekly on March 30 and April 6, 2022.

Staff has also notified all interested parties that have requested to be notified regarding proposed fee updates. This item and staff’s recommendations are intended to be considered upon completion of the public hearing. The public hearing provides all interested parties with an opportunity to comment or request clarification regarding any of the fees proposed for update.

The City’s Municipal Fee Schedule is reviewed annually by City staff as part of the normal course of operations. Periodically, a cost of service study is performed to identify the City’s full costs of providing fee-related services. Incremental updates typically occur in the years in between comprehensive studies, which was the case last fiscal year.

As part of the adoption of the FY 2021/22 Biennial Operating Budget on June 21, 2021, the Council directed staff to bring forward a Parks & Recreation Cost Recovery Policy as part of the comprehensive review of fees. The budget was also balanced with the assumption that additional revenues of $0.7 million would be generated as a result of the cost recovery policy.

The FY 2022/23 fee schedule update was influenced by a comprehensive cost of service study completed in calendar year 2021 by ClearSource Financial Consulting. Results of the comprehensive study are included as Attachment 1. This study also includes an evaluation of Parks and Recreation fees and the results of a community survey that was administered in order to get input for the development of the new cost recovery policy. The presentation that was provided to members of the Parks & Recreation Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, Youth Commission, and general public is also included in Appendix A of Attachment 1.

A Study Session was held on April 5, 2022 on the Proposed FY 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule and the Parks & Recreation Cost Recovery Policy. Reponses to the City Council as well as public feedback and questions are included in the discussion section below.

DISCUSSION
The City’s Municipal Fee Schedule (Attachment 2) identifies fees for services and activities provided at the request of, or on behalf of, a single party as opposed to the public at large. These fees are commonly referred to as “user and regulatory fees.” Examples of user and regulatory fees collected by the City of Santa Clara and municipalities throughout California include, but are not limited to:
· Planning Fees, for services such as entitlement review and review for compliance with the zoning code
· Building Fees, for services such as permitting of new construction or modifications to existing City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
structures
· Engineering Fees, for services such as map review, encroachment permitting, and public improvement review
· Utility Fees, for services such as requests for sewer lateral inspections, and restoration of discontinued service
· Police Fees, for services such as vehicle impound and false alarm response · Fire Fees, for services such as annual inspections and construction review to ensure compliance with the fire code
· Recreation Fees, for services such as program participation fees, and facility rental fees · Park Fees due in lieu of parkland dedication, for residential development pursuant to Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act
· Cemetery Fees, for services such as interment rights, components of burial, and endowed care
· Administrative Fees, for services such as requests for public records User and regulatory fees specifically exclude:
· Taxes
· Assessments
· Franchise Fees
· Development Impact Fees
· Fines or Penalties
· Utility Rates and Services Charges
As mentioned, a comprehensive fee study was done in preparation of the FY 2022/23 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. As part of this study, over 1,000 individual fees were reviewed, and the following reflects the changes recommended as part of the proposed fee schedule:

Fees Proposed to Decrease and Minor Adjustments
· Eighty-seven percent (87%) of fees are proposed to either decrease, remain unchanged, or City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
Fees Proposed to Decrease 82 8% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------+-------! Fees Proposed to Remain Unchanged or Minor Adjustments
U to 10% or $10 Chan e
851 79% I-----'------~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fees Proposed to Increase by More than 10%
New Fees Proposed
Total Fees Examined
118
25 1,076
11%
2%
100%
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
reflect only minor adjustments (i.e., up to 10% or $10 change).

Fees Proposed to Increase by More than Ten Percent (11%) · Fee changes greater than 10% are the result of:
o A recalibration in the cost of service.
o Recent significant increases in the costs of materials and supplies included in service fees (e.g., increase in the cost of utility meters).
· A multi-year phase-in pattern is recommended for more than half of the fees proposed to increase by more than 10%. Immediate adjustment is primarily targeted only for new, discretionary activities.

New Fees Proposed
· 25 new fees are proposed
· The fees will allow the City to recover the costs of services or materials that are being requested of staff and for which corresponding fees or rates are not readily portrayed in the City’s fee schedule. These changes include:

City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
# Action Fee Oescriotion
Fire Fees
1 Establish New Fee for Review of Knox Box Installation Service
2 Establish New Fee for Operational Permit - Additive Manufacturing Service
3 Establish New Fee for Operational Permit - Lith ium Battery Storage Service - Greater than 1 000 pounds
4 Establish New Fee for Operational Permit - Update of Emergency Service Contact Information
5 Establish New Fee for Operational Permit - Smoke Control and Service Evacuation Systems
Plannini:i Fees
6 Establish New Fee for Establish fee to comply with State Legislation Service - AB32 Tribal Consultation Fee
7 Establish New Fee for Establish fee to comply with State Legislation Service - SB9 Review Fee
8 Establish New Fee for Establish fee to comply with State Legislation Service - SB35 Review Fee
9 Establish New Fee for Zoning Clearance Review - For Home Service Occupancy
10 Establish New Fee for Zoning Clearance Review for Live Service Entertainment and Outdoor Dining (up to 24
seats
11 Establish New Fee for Zoning Clearance Review - Other Non-Single Service Family
12 Establish New Fee for Tree Removal Permit - Single Family Service Residence
13 Establish New Fee for Tree Removal Permit - All Others Service
14 Establish New Fee for Establish fee for Code Enforcement ReService Inspections Proposed Initial Cost
Fee Recovery_
$349 87%
$267 100%
$267 100%
$25 37%
$697 87%
$846 100%
$1,692 100%
$22,560 100%
$282 100%
$282 100%
$1 ,128 100%
$282 50%
$564 100%
$266 100%
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
Establishment of a Cost Recovery Policy for Parks & Recreation Services As part of the fee study process, City staff conducted community outreach to assist with cost recovery policy development for parks and recreation programs and services. Appendix A of the User and Regulatory Fee Study Report (Attachment 1) includes the presentation provided to members of the Parks & Recreation Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, Youth Commission, and the general public.

Additionally, commission members and the general public were asked to participate in a survey about the amount of individual and/or community benefit the parks and recreation program areas provide and how much cost should be recovered from the participants (resident and non-resident) and organizations (non-profit and for profit) (Attachment 3). The survey was available from March 2, 2022 through March 17, 2022. The City received 234 total responses. Response summaries are illustrated in Appendix B of the User and Regulatory Fee Study Report. It should be noted, by a wide margin, survey respondents thought most programs and services provide a “Balanced Individual and Community Benefit with a cost recovery target of 41-70%.” By a smaller margin, survey respondents thought that programs and services provide “Considerable Community Benefit with a cost recovery target of 21-40%”. In summary, the community supports an amount of cost recovery from users of Parks & Recreation programs, facilities, and services above current cost recovery levels. While there is a recognition that there is shared individual and community benefit, the amount of program subsidy should be balanced based on the level of community and/or individual benefit.

The proposed policy is consistent with a foundational and widely used cost recovery tool that aligns cost recovery and program pricing to individual and community benefit. This concept is illustrated City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
# Action Fee Description
Building Fees
15 ! Establish New Fee for Alternate Materials & Methods Review (per j Service hour)
Water Fees
16 Establish New Fee for Engineering Plan Check for SFH Remodel Service
17 Establish New Fee for Water and Fire Service Tap (10" and 12") Service
18 Establish New Fee for Insertion Valve Installation (4" through 12" Service valves - excavation included)
19 Establish New Fee for Development Impact Analysis
Service
Sewer Fees
20 Establish New Fee for Establish fee for Plan Review of Fats, Oils, Service and Grease Collection S stems
21 Establish New Fee for Establish fee for Permit Inspection of Fats, Service Oils and Grease Collection S stems
22 Establish New Fee for Establish fee for Issuance of Temporary Service Waste Discharge Permit
Electric Fees
Proposed
Fee
$220
$620
$1,588
Varies depending
on size
$2,783
$1,248
$1,248
Varies depending
on quantity
23 ! Establish New Fee for i Project Clearance Committee I Subcommittee ! $801 j Service l Review j
Initial Cost
Recoverv
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
PW Engineering~F_e_e_s ___________________ -+-----------------f 24 ! Establish New Fee for i Permit Extensions for Permit Requests for all ! $436 100% j Service i Pro·ects j
Parks & Recreation Fees
25 , Establish New Fee for j Parking at Parks and Recreation Facilities (fee j $5 - $500 per ! Service i for reserved arking event
varies
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
cost recovery and program pricing to individual and community benefit. This concept is illustrated below.

Department staff initially used the findings of the survey, without deviation, to inform the proposed cost-recovery policy for City Council consideration that was presented at the April 5, 2022 study session. Based on feedback from the study session, staff has revised the policy. The users of programs and services are now placed into three categories: residents, non-profit organizations serving Santa Clara, and everyone else (for profit businesses, non-residents). Changes were also made to where programs were placed in terms of percentage of cost recovery. For example:
· Competitions, meets, and tournaments that include competitors from other Cities were moved from the 71-90% cost recovery target to a lower 41-70% cost recovery target to recognize the value of access to high level competitions for participants and attendees. · In recognition of non-profit organizations’ and community groups’ service to the City of Santa Clara, such organizations were moved from 41-70% cost recovery to the lower level of 1-20% cost recovery for facility use such as meeting rooms or social gatherings, and even the nonprofit event fee was moved to this level. · Programs providing considerable individual benefit such as a learn to dance class, pottery, keyboard, are now placed into the 71-90% cost recovery target due to their considerable individual benefit.

The higher levels of cost recovery in program and service areas are desired to help minimize the cuts to existing programs, facilities, and staffing that provide these programs and maintain facilities for public use. The proposed cost recovery policy is included as Attachment 4. Excerpts from that Cost Recovery Policy are included below.

Targeted Cost Recovery in Fees
Once the full cost of service is established for each activity, the City will apply a consistent set of guidelines for determining the amount of cost to be recovered in the final fee amount. A cost recovery percentage will be applied to the full cost of service to calculate the fee. Figure 1 describes the general criteria for assigning Departmental programming, facility use, and services to cost recovery tiers. The cost recovery threshold assigned City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™

PROGRAM

BENEFICIARY
6-Exclusive
Individual Benefit
5-Considerable
Individual Benefit

COST RECOVERY

TARGETED
100%+ indicates minor exceptions whe re premiums above cost may be justified, such as market-based rents. 22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
Departmental programming, facility use, and services to cost recovery tiers. The cost recovery threshold assigned to each fee-related service and program area will be identified in the periodic analysis and documentation supporting the ongoing and seasonally managed calculation of the City’s Parks and Recreation fees.

The following shall serve as guidelines for categorizing Recreation Programs and services based on types of programs, target populations, and level of community benefit to determine appropriate subsidy Level:

Ü Programs with the highest level of community benefit will have the lowest level of cost recovery.

Ü Programs that have the greatest level of individual or group benefit will target the highest level City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
FIGURE 1 I COST RIECOVERY-GlJIIDELINIES- PARKS A D RECREATION SEIRVIOES BEl'J EFIT-llAS ED

RECOVERY TIER
0% COST RECOVERY
Ent irely Commu11ity
Benefit
1-20%COSJ

RECOVERY
Mostly Commun· y
Benefit
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' t--·

DESCRIPTION
Programs, ·aa lities, and s.ervicfi th at benefit the
community as a whole. The mmmunity generally
expects t he Ciity t o offer th ese services and
:supports. paying forthese t hroL.tgfl taxes.

Programs, ·aa lities, and s.ervices. th at provide
be11e it to tile individual us.er, but have more
fundamental goa l o,f:
•
•
Seeking t o engage communitv witlh high
participation levels desira ble
Commu11it\• pmblem solving (e.g., services
•
•
•
•
•
•

FIEE RASED PROGRAM AREA
General, 110 ll-eKCI usive parik_,
playgrnund, ,open space, t ra1ils,
restrooms., and facility
vi1s.it:ati on a11d use
Non-Profit facility use serving
t he City of Sa1nta Clara
Special Events
Resident Senior Center Use
Senior utJritio n Program
Afterschool Program for vulneirab le or underserved populatiom) ~lfJlfJfJfJllfJllfJllfJlfJfJ~.:-.:-.:,nnHHfJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJllfJllfJllfJlfJfJfJfJfJfJfJ~::~ fJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJfJllfJllfJllfJlfJfJfJI~ i lll-40% COST Programs, ·aa lities, and services. which promote • Ear1y Learners !:::::::::, ffl:COVERY individual phy.sical and mental w elll-being, and ■ Therapeuti c Recreation Consideirable provide recreation sli1II de\o\elopment. They may Community B e,ne l t have ,a community lbenefit but to a s.mal le.- gro up of til e community. Generally, c,osts. of se.rvice are
offset by both a tax s.ubsi dy o accou rrr for
community bene,fit and palrl:icip.ant fees to
account for i11dividual benefit.
,,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.:-:.:-jnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn1nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn1,.:-.:-:,nnnnnnnn1nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnc 41l-70% COST Programs, ·aa lities, and s.ervices. which promote • Competiti on, Meets_, and !RECOVERY individual phys:ical and mental w elll-being, and Toumaments t hait include Balanc,ed Individ ual
and Community
Benefit
provide recreaition s.ki1II de\o\elopment. Program,
facility, and service use that benefits individuals
primarily, but th e commun ity receives som e
be11efit.
• Services which are sped a11ized and/ or similar
to priva e sector
• Comparable «market rates" fur :similar
services affect ability to recoveir a gireater
•
•
•
•
compet it,ors from other citJies
Drop-in
Fitness/Recreation/Swimm ing
Youth Theater Programs
Resident ·aa lity use
City provided p r-ogra ms
percentage of costs
sn11n11n11n11n11n11n1t .:-.:-.:-,nnnnnnnnnnnnnn11n11n11n11n11n11n11n1nnnt .:-.:-.:,nnnnnnnnn11n11n11n11n11n11n1nn, i 71l-90% COST i i Benefi s individuals signifi ca1nt ly more tlhain th e i i • Programs providing individual i i RECOVERY i i community; Private se,ct,or or public agencies i i be11etit i I I I I I I i ColliSiderable i i offer si milar services; Dem and f,or s.-ervice, facility i i i ' ' ' d at· I I I i I ndivid ua I Bmefit i i or program excee s capa V i i i ~111111111111111111111111111 11f:::~111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~::::)11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ~ i 91l-100% COST i i Benefi individuals; Commercial nature of i i • Non-res.ide,nt & Commercial i i !RECOVERY i i :services.; Enterprise funds expected to operate i i us.-e of ·acmt ie-s i ! ! ! v.iithout General Fund supp on ! ! ! , Ellicl us.ively , , , , , I I I I I I : Individual Ben efit : : : : : I I I I I I I ____________________________ I ___ I ________________________________________________________________ I ___ I _______________________________________________ I 22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
Ü Programs that have the greatest level of individual or group benefit will target the highest level of cost recovery.

Ü Pricing of programs and services takes into account market rates and the impact on demand which may override cost-recovery target considerations.

Ü Non-resident fees are priced higher than resident fees.

Ü Fees will be periodically reviewed to keep pace with changes in the cost of living, market demands, and/or to promote identified Recreation Programs.

Ü Staff will adjust fees to meet minimum cost-recovery rates and to be consistent with market demand for services.

Ü The City will continue to offer a grant program to offset the cost of programs for eligible lowincome participants identified through its established procedures Staff will seek to enhance and refine this policy over time.

Feedback from the April 5, 2022 Study Session
During the Study Session, the City Council and the public had questions and comments regarding the fee schedule and Parks and Recreation Cost Recovery Policy. Following are responses to the feedback received.

Library and Parks & Recreation Community Room Rentals

1. Question: Are there exemptions for non-profits and is there a policy to define non-profits for fee purposes?
Response: Yes, non-profit educational and service organizations include those that are incorporated in the State of California and have a recognized tax status through an IRS determination letter and category such as 509, 501c3 etc. (these would include Sierra Club, Rotary Club, Kiwanis, Veterans Post 419, Santa Clara Swim Club, Scouting, etc.). In addition, casual groups, such as craft clubs, mom & tot, and book clubs, may be grouped into the same category. Recognizing that these groups may not have non-profit status, official boards, or capacity to provide insurance, they would simply provide a membership roster showing members are City of Santa Clara residents. Since non-profit organizations and community groups are providing services to residents which is seen as a high community benefit, they would receive a higher level of subsidy and pay a lower level of cost recovery.

2. Question: The community room rental fees and technology fees seem excessive. The fees for community rooms may discourage individuals from using them when they should be available to all. The community room rental fees should be minimized and aligned to the “mostly community benefit” category in the Parks & Recreation Cost Recovery Policy. Can the community room fees be updated to be consistent with Senior Center charges? Response: The community room rental fee for community/non-profit organizations is in the 1- 20% cost recovery range, and now is proposed at $20 per meeting. This fee should be reviewed annually to understand whether it has the desired effects on use, cost recovery, and community satisfaction.

City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
The Library community room fee is currently suspended, and no change is included in the Proposed FY 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule. Proposed changes to the Library community rooms rental fees will be brought forward to the Board of Library Trustees with a special meeting called by April 22, 2022 to discuss how the Library will proceed. It is anticipated that a proposed fee change will be brought forward during the upcoming budget process at the end of the fiscal year.

The following two changes will be recommended to the Board of Library Trustees:
· A proposed flat fee of $20/hr. with no minimum time requirement will be charged for Library community room use. This would make non-profit usage in line with Parks and Recreation spaces. This would be a change from past fees of $50/hr. with a 2-hour minimum and a $50 processing fee.
· Technology fees for Library community room rentals will no longer be charged. If groups require staff assistance throughout their reservation, they will be charged a staffing fee to offset the loss of staff time available for Library services.

3. Question: To avoid calling staff, can we use a system to help with scheduling the community rooms?
Response: The Department uses Active.net which is a system for facility reservation. The Department has a fillable pdf on-line and accepts use requests by email or fax. Even with online booking, there is an application review process and staff scheduling that requires communication between two separate divisions prior to confirmation with the applicant. There would still be a need to interact with recreation staff to ensure the facility is ready for use. Even when staff have cleaned a facility, there are outside factors that may impact a use and therefore communication with staff remains necessary. Separately, staff have been working on access improvements related to locking and unlocking the community rooms.

Parks and Recreation Fees and Cost Recovery Policy

4. Question: For Parks & Recreation, the current fees recover approximately 11% of the $24.8 million in costs. Is this subsidy level consistent with other cities? Response: Each year the National Recreation and Park Association publishes an Agency Performance Review. The Agency Performance Review contains data from 1,000 unique park and recreation agencies across the United States, as reported between 2018 and 2020 and is widely considered to comprise the most comprehensive collection of park and recreation-related benchmarks and insights that inform professionals, key stakeholders and the public about the state of the park and recreation field.

The following table compares information generated in the Agency Performance Review to the City of Santa Clara. The findings indicate that the City of Santa Clara uses a greater share of its General Fund Tax Support and other dedicated revenues to meet annual operating expenses than the nationwide average. The City of Santa Clara is also approximately 50% under the national average for percentage of operating expenditures paid from earned/generated revenues (e.g., user and regulatory fees).

City of Santa Clara Page 9 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022

5. Question: How can we ensure all services are available to all individuals, regardless of income level?
Response: The establishment of a grant program for persons with economic need is the preferred best practice to ensure access to the City’s programs. This would allow targeted subsidies to those in need. Conversely, the provision of 100% subsidy, i.e. “free” programs for all, would require an additional $2-3 million in annual funds to offset the loss in current revenue.

Given there is no source of funding to cover this loss and the General Fund has a structural deficit, this would result in an additional reduction in staff and maintenance, materials, supplies and utilities costs, which means that services would be reduced and/or eliminated.

6. Question: For low-income individuals taking children’s classes, how are we subsidizing access? Is this funded by the General Fund and/or Art & Wine Festival proceeds? Response: The Parks and Recreation Department has received approximately $25,000 annually from the Santa Clara Friends of Parks & Recreation, a non-profit organization which is no longer raising funds; but funds collected in the past can provide funding for the next few years. These funds are used to support individuals who cannot afford summer camp and recreation programs.

7. Question: What is the revenue generated from Program Beneficiaries 5 and 6, compared to Program Beneficiaries 1 through 4 in the Parks and Recreation Cost Recovery Policy? Response: The vast majority of revenue generated by the Department is generated from participants in Tiers 1 through 4 of the cost recovery policy (0% - 70% cost recovery). While an exact figure is not available, estimated revenue generated from Tiers 5 & 6 (71% - 100% cost recovery) are approximated to represent less than 5% of current revenue generated. This is driven by the fact that most of the Department’s programming provides both individual and community benefits. Additionally, this indicates that for the Department to materially enhance cost recovery, adjustments will be required to fees and charges for programming within Tiers 1 through 4 of the cost recovery policy due to the high number of participant activities occurring within these tiers. The City provides a wide range of programs and services with a focus on delivering programs with the greatest community benefit and filling gaps in service that the market cannot address. To continue to help support this programming, it is important to judiciously recover costs across the Tiers.

8. Question: How were the Program Beneficiaries determined? What standards were used to City of Santa Clara Page 10 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
National City of
Average Santa Clara
Description (1) (2)
Operating Expenditures Paid from General 77% 89%
Fund Tax Support and Other Dedicated
Revenues
Operating Expenditures Paid from Earned/ 23% 11%
Generated Revenue
(1) Source: National Recreation and Park Association, 2021 NRPA Agency Performance Review, Figure 19.
(2) Source: FY 2021/22 Adopted Budget
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
differentiate the tiers between how much community benefit? Response: In general, program beneficiaries were determined based on community feedback, department staff recommendations, and feedback provided by the City Council. The cost recovery tiers align to generally accepted cost recovery policy framing used with the parks and recreation industry. As part of the initial process, survey respondents were shown differentiated levels of benefit and asked whether the parks and recreation program areas provided greater or lesser levels of community and individual benefit or balanced (see survey - Attachment 3). This approach is similar to crowd sourcing/crowd wisdom which has at is foundation a belief that the collective knowledge and opinions of a group are better at decision-making, problem-solving, and innovating than an individual. In utilizing this approach, the intent is to develop a cost recovery policy that is directly informed by Santa Clarans, reflecting the values of our community.

9. Feedback: Charges should be proportional to where money is coming from.

Response: The fees included within the fee schedule are based on the cost to provide the service to users and the determination of the cost-recovery level. The fees are generally set proportionally to the costs.

10. Feedback: Parks services should not be full cost recovery.

Response: Parks & Recreation Services are not full cost recovery. Overall, the current cost recovery rate is well below the national average at only 11%, resulting in a General Fund subsidy of 89%. This negatively impacts the City's ability to continue support of General Fund programs across the City. The proposal is to enhance cost recovery to better support staffing for the program and maintenance of the facilities and avoid reductions in these areas. Overall, the fees would remain well below 100% cost recovery.

Other Fee Comments/Questions

11. Feedback: In the Fire Department fee section, there is a proposed First Tent, Canopy, or Air Supported Structure fee of $932.67. There is not a clear definition of the canopy.

Response: The California Fire Code (CFC) does not require permits to be obtained from the fire department for small tents and canopies at parks, single-family dwellings, public & private schools, or for funeral services, to name a few.

The CFC requires that tents and membrane structures over 400 square feet are not erected, operated, or maintained without first obtaining a permit from the fire department. The permit threshold for canopies (tents without sides) is over 700 square feet if the following conditions are met:

1. Multiple canopies placed side-by-side don’t exceed 700 squares without a 12-foot fire break; and

2. A minimum clearance of 12 feet to all structures and other tents is provided.

The CFC provisions regulate elements like location, fire department access, seismic anchorage, exiting, and State Fire Marshal certification. Typical events where large tents and canopies are utilized include concerts, conferences, weddings, skating rinks, cooking operations, fairs, carnivals, worship, competitions, or other assembly events.

12. Question: There was a question from the public regarding the new SB35 review fee of $22,560 City of Santa Clara Page 11 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
in the Community Development/Planning section of the fee schedule.

Response: This new fee was added to address residential projects that would be going through an SB 35 site and architectural review process. This would differentiate from the standard charge for the review of this type of new development - non-single-family residence - that is proposed at a higher rate of $33,840.

13. Question: There was a question from the public regarding the new Development Impact Analysis Fee in the Water & Sewer/Water section of fee schedule.

Response: The new Development Impact Analysis fee is a hydraulic modeling fee specifically for larger developments like Specific Plans where there is an Environmental Impact Review or Water Supply Assessments.

14. Feedback: There was a comment from a member of the Board of Library Trustees regarding input on changes to library fees.

Response: The proposed library fees reflect no increases from prior year levels, with one fee reflecting a significant decrease. As discussed above, Library staff will be meeting with the Board of Library Trustees to discuss the community room rental fee, and it is anticipated that a proposed fee change will be brought forward during the upcoming budget process at the end of the fiscal year.

General Comments/Questions

15. Question: Can we quantify the amount of revenue for the fees? Response: The estimated revenue impact of the proposed fee adjustments equates to approximately $1.4 million and recovers increasing costs in the General Fund as well as other funds. These increases are factored into the annual budget. Using the fee adjustments from the cost recovery policy, some inflationary adjustments for Recreation classes and programs, and assuming increased participation levels, the estimated revenue for Parks & Recreation is approximately $0.6 million. It should be noted that the FY2021/22 & FY2022/23 Biennial Operating Budget assumed $0.7 million additional revenue from the Parks & Recreation Cost Recovery Policy development. Revenues will be adjusted annually as part of the budget process.

16. Question: How does the City of Santa Clara compare to other jurisdictions? Is the City an outlier in any category? Are we charging more anywhere or less anywhere compared to other cities? Response: The vast majority of fees (87%) are proposed to either decrease, remain unchanged, or reflect only minor adjustment for FY 2022/23. The underlying cost of service calculations are consistent with amounts calculated for other regional agencies. Thus, the fee amounts are not considered to be regional outliers.

However, as discussed earlier in this report, when compared to national trends, the City’s parks fees recover a lower percentage of costs (11% versus 23%). As an example, the City does not currently collect fees for reserved sports field use by non-profit groups. While amounts collected vary among municipalities, most communities the consultant works with, including Santa Clara neighboring communities, collect fees for reserved field use. The following provides a sample of reserved field use fees for non-profit groups using natural grass fields without requests for field City of Santa Clara Page 12 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
reserved field use fees for non-profit groups using natural grass fields without requests for field lighting.
· City of Campbell: $20-$30 per hour with discount based on percentage of resident participation
· City of Mountain View: $8 per hour
· City of Novato: $9 - $15 per hour
· City of Palo Alto: $9 - $30 per hour
· City of San Rafael: $20 - $25 per hour
· City of Santa Clara: Currently, no charge; proposed non-profit fee of $14 per hour · City of Sunnyvale: $25 per hour or $175 per day
It is important to note that while comparisons to other jurisdictions may provide an insight about whether a particular fee amount is higher or lower, it does not provide an indication about the drivers of costs (such as labor, supplies, utilities), the level of cost recovery, and funding sources for any subsidies

17. Feedback: Fees should be lower for residents (little to no fees).

Response: The proposed Parks and Recreation Cost Recovery Policy incorporates a fee setting consideration to establish a higher fee for non-resident participants. The Policy has specific categories for resident and non-profit organizations serving Santa Clara. In addition, individuals who are lower income and economically challenged have access to grant programs (Wade Brummal Youth Sports Grant, Recreation youth summer camp program grants to provide financial support for their participation in recreation programs).

18. Feedback: Adjusting the fee schedule seems to be a good way to recover costs in order to alleviate deficit and to avoid cutting programs and staff.

Response: Staff agrees that the judicious use of fees to recover city costs is an important strategy to help address the immediate General Fund shortfall as well as to better position the City long-term to deliver services. Based on the latest forecast, the City faces an ongoing General Fund deficit of $19.6 million. A balanced approach that uses a combination of revenue solutions, use of reserves and expenditure reductions will be necessary to bring the budget into balance. Failure to reduce the current level of subsidy will result in the need to make additional cuts to valued Parks and Recreation programs in the near future in order to balance the City’s budget.

Changes to the FY 2022/23 Proposed Fee Schedule from Study Session Since the April 5, 2022 study session, the following changes have been incorporated into the Proposed FY 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule:

Electric Utility Department
· Removal of “commercial” to reflect Facilities < 12kV under the Load Development fee.

City of Santa Clara Page 13 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022
Parks and Recreation
· Update to In-Lieu Fees for Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act (see separate report on this agenda (RTC 22-302) for land valuation data and calculations). · Update to the Cost Recovery Policy to reflect feedback from the April 5, 2022 Study Session. · Update to Recreation Fees based on the revised Cost Recovery Policy.

Police Department
· Addition of clarifying language to the Residential Parking Permit fee; this specifies the type of parking pass.

Public Works - Engineering Division
· Addition of the Engineering Department - Justification for Increase in Fees, Rates, and Charges; this page was inadvertently excluded from the original proposed document. The sewer conveyance fee funds improvements needed per the sanitary sewer master plan and the current fee is sufficient to support all the identified improvements. No changes are necessary.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The changes incorporated into the Proposed FY 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule are intended to offset the cost of providing these services.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
On March 30 and April 6, 2022, notices of the public hearing were published in the Santa Clara Weekly in the manner set forth in Government Code Sections 6062a and 66018. Additionally, the City notified all interested parties that had requested to be notified regarding proposed fee updates.

Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt a resolution for the “City of Santa Clara 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule” which (1) sets new fees, rates and charges (collectively “fees”); (2) amends existing fees; (3) deletes certain fees; and (4) retains unchanged fees for various City departments effective on July 1, 2022.

2. Adopt a resolution approving the Parks & Recreation Cost Recovery Policy used to set fees for the Parks and Recreation Department.

3. Take any other action the Council deems appropriate.

City of Santa Clara Page 14 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-99 Agenda Date: 4/19/2022

RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1 and 2:

1. Adopt a resolution for the “City of Santa Clara 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule” which (1) sets new fees, rates and charges (collectively “fees”); (2) amends existing fees; (3) deletes certain fees; and (4) retains unchanged fees for various City departments effective on July 1, 2022; and

2. Adopt a resolution approving the Parks & Recreation Cost Recovery Policy used to set fees for the Parks and Recreation Department.

Reviewed by: Kenn Lee, Director of Finance
Approved by: Office of the City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. User and Regulatory Fee Study

2. Proposed FY 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule

3. Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Commission Survey Questions

4. Parks and Recreation Cost Recovery Policy

5. Resolution on the City of Santa Clara 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule

6. Resolution on the Parks & Recreation Cost Recovery Policy City of Santa Clara Page 15 of 15 Printed on 4/14/2022
powered by Legistar™
User and Regulatory Fee Study

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
APRIL 2022
7960 B Soquel Drive, Suite 363 | Aptos, California 95003 www.clearsourcefinancial.com

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA

CONTENTS

REPORTING
1 TRANSMITTAL
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Overall Findings
7 PROJECT ORIENTATION | Scope, Guidance, Methods

APPENDICES

A PARKS AND RECREATION COST RECOVERY POLICY PRESENTATION

B PROPOSED PARKS AND RECREATION COST RECOVERY POLICY

C PARKS AND RECREATION COST RECOVERY PRACTICES SURVEY RESPONSES

D COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
7960 B SOQUEL DRIVE, SUITE 363 | APTOS, CALIFORNIA 95003 831.288.0608 | WWW.CLEARSOURCEFINANCIAL.COM
April 2022

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attn: Kenn Lee, Director of Finance
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Dear Kenn:

ClearSource Financial Consulting submits the following report describing the findings of our preparation of a User and Regulatory Fee Study for the City of Santa Clara.

Please refer to the Executive Summary for the key findings of the analysis. The balance of the report and its appendices provide the necessary documentation to support those outcomes.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City on this topic. We are happy to continue discussion on this study as the need arises or consult with you on additional topics.

Sincerely,
TERRY MADSEN, PRESIDENT | CLEARSOURCE FINANCIAL CONSULTING PHONE NUMBER: 831.288.0608
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
C1earSource Financial Consulting
CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STUDY OVERVIEW
The City of Santa Clara has completed a User and Regulatory Fee Study. California cities regularly conduct these studies to justify fee amounts imposed and to optimize the overall portfolio of revenues available to the municipality to fund its services.

Industry practice and fiscal conditions in the state have led most cities to link cost recovery for services of individual action, cause, or benefit to that same individual through user fee revenue, relieving the agency’s general revenues as much as possible for use toward services of broader community benefit.

USER AND REGULATORY FEES
Cities derive annual revenue from a number of sources. These include, but are not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes, license fees, franchise fees, fines, rents, and user and regulatory fees. User and regulatory fees are intended to cover all, or a portion of, the costs incurred by the City for providing fee-related services and activities that are not otherwise provided to those not paying the fee.

California law provides guidance regarding the amounts the City may charge for fee-related services and activities. Specifically, in order to avoid being considered taxes, the fees charged shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services, activities, or materials for which fees are charged.

At its conclusion, this study proposes for City Council review and consideration at public hearing a new Schedule of User Fees and Charges for application in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and continued update in subsequent years.

COST RECOVERY POLICY AND PRACTICE
Recovering the costs of providing fee-related services directly influences the City’s fiscal health and increases the City’s ability to meet the service level expectations of fee payers.

The services for which the City imposes a user or regulatory fee typically derive from an individual person or entity’s action, request, or behavior. Therefore, except in cases where there is an overwhelming public benefit generated by the City’s involvement in the individual action, a fee for service ensures that the individual bears most, if not all, of the cost incurred by the City to provide that service. When a fee targets “100% or full cost recovery,” the individual is bearing the entirety of the cost. When a fee targets less than full cost recovery, another City revenue source – in most cases, the General Fund – subsidizes the individualized activity.

Generally, fees for service are targeted to full cost recovery, inclusive of operating, direct, indirect, and capital costs, except in cases where the City Council cites a public interest in lower fees. The City may also be influenced by market conditions, comparing to municipalities of similar size and service profile.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FINDINGS AND PROPOSED ACTION
The City’s current Master Fee Schedule includes over 1,000 individual fees. This is common amongst similar California municipalities because it allows for scaling of fees for the various services required. In other words, the City maintains numerous fee categories to account for the varied service needs of the community. The following provides a brief summary of primary changes the City Council is being asked to consider:

Summary of Changes to Fees Examined
Description Count * Percentage *
Fees Proposed to Decrease 82 8%
Fees Proposed to Remain Unchanged or Minor Adjustments
Up to 10% or $10 Change 851 79%
Fees Proposed to Increase by More than 10% 118 11%
New Fees Proposed 25 2%
Total Fees Examined 1,076 100%
* Amounts in the percentage column are rounded for illustrative purposes.

Fees Proposed to Decrease and Minor Adjustments
• Eighty-seven percent (87%) of fees are proposed to either decrease, remain unchanged, or reflect only minor adjustments (i.e., up to 10% or $10 change).

Fees Proposed to Increase by More than Ten Percent (10%) • Fee changes greater than 10% are the result of:
o A recalibration in the cost of service.
o Recent significant increases in the costs of materials and supplies included in service fees (e.g., increase in the cost of utility meters).
• A multi-year phase-in pattern is recommended for more than half of the fees proposed to increase by more than 10%. Immediate adjustment is primarily targeted only for new, discretionary activities.

New Fees Proposed
• 24 new fees are proposed
• The fees will allow the City to recover the costs of services or materials that are being requested of staff and for which corresponding fees or rates are not readily portrayed in the City’s fee schedule. These proposed fees are highlighted on the following page:

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
# Action Fee Description Proposed
Fee
Initial Cost
Recovery
Fire Fees
1 Establish New
Fee for Service
Review of Knox Box Installation $349 87%
2 Establish New
Fee for Service
Operational Permit – Additive Manufacturing $267 100%
3 Establish New
Fee for Service
Operational Permit – Lithium Battery Storage –
Greater than 1,000 pounds
$267 100%
4 Establish New
Fee for Service
Operational Permit – Update of Emergency Contact
Information
$25 37%
5 Establish New
Fee for Service
Operational Permit – Smoke Control and
Evacuation Systems
$697 87%
Planning Fees
6 Establish New
Fee for Service
Establish fee to comply with State Legislation -
AB32 Tribal Consultation Fee
$846 100%
7 Establish New
Fee for Service
Establish fee to comply with State Legislation – SB9
Review Fee
$1,692 100%
8 Establish New
Fee for Service
Establish fee to comply with State Legislation –
SB35 Review Fee
$22,560 100%
9 Establish New
Fee for Service
Zoning Clearance Review – For Home Occupancy $282 100%
10 Establish New
Fee for Service
Zoning Clearance Review for Live Entertainment
and Outdoor Dining (up to 24 seats)
$282 100%
11 Establish New
Fee for Service
Zoning Clearance Review - Other Non-Single Family $1,128 100% 12 Establish New
Fee for Service
Tree Removal Permit – Single Family Residence $282 50%
13 Establish New
Fee for Service
Tree Removal Permit – All Others $564 100%
14 Establish New
Fee for Service
Establish fee for Code Enforcement Re-Inspections $266 100% Building Fees
15 Establish New
Fee for Service
Alternate Materials & Methods Review (per hour) $220 100% Water Fees
16 Establish New
Fee for Service
Engineering Plan Check for SFH Remodel $620 100%
17 Establish New
Fee for Service
Water and Fire Service Tap (10” and 12”) $1,588 100%
18 Establish New
Fee for Service
Insertion Valve Installation (4” through 12” valves –
excavation included)
$varies
depending on
size
100%
19 Establish New
Fee for Service
Development Impact Fee Analysis $2,783 100%
CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Sewer Fees
20 Establish New
Fee for Service
Establish fee for Plan Review of Fats, Oils, and
Grease Collection Systems
$1,248 100%
21 Establish New
Fee for Service
Establish fee for Permit Inspection of Fats, Oils, and
Grease Collection Systems
$1,248 100%
22 Establish New
Fee for Service
Establish fee for Issuance of Temporary Waste
Discharge Permit
Varies depending
on discharge
quantity
100%
Electric Fees
23 Establish New
Fee for Service
Project Clearance Committee / Subcommittee
Review
$801 100%
PW Engineering Fees
24 Establish New
Fee for Service
Permit Extension Request $436 100%
Parks and Recreation Fees
25 Establish New
Fee for Service
Parking at Parks and Recreation Facilities (fee for
reserved parking)
$5 - $500
per event
varies
Establishment of a Cost Recovery Policy for Parks and Recreation Services As part of the fee study process City staff conducted community outreach to assist with recommending cost recovery policy for parks and recreation fee-based programming. Appendix A of this report includes the presentation provided to members of the Parks & Recreation Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, Youth Commission, and the general public.

Establishing a cost recovery policy provides the City’s Parks and Recreation Department with a tool for evaluating services and establishing appropriate fees for services. Standardizing how prices are set enhances the Department’s ability to accomplish broad citywide goals and objectives. Establishing a reasonable, transparent, and consistently applied cost recovery policy is intended to:
 Stretch taxpayer investment in parks and recreation services to optimize value received  Promote program respect and ownership
 Allow prices to reflect users’ investment in themselves based on individual benefit  Develop deeper commitment to the programming users help support A proposed cost recovery policy is included in Appendix B of this report.

On March 2, 2022, a joint commission meeting was held with members of the Parks & Recreation Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, Youth Commission, and the general public. During the meeting, attendees were asked to complete a survey linked to cost recovery policy for parks and recreation fee-based programming. The survey was available to be completed from March 2, 2022, through March 17, 2022. The City received 234 total responses. Response summaries are provided in Appendix C of this report.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Parks and Recreation Department will use the consistent community sentiment expressed to inform cost recovery targets.

Adoption of Updated User and Regulatory Fees
Similar fees are collected by communities throughout the region and the State. The proposed fee amounts do not exceed the City’s cost of service and are in-range of amounts charged by other jurisdictions.

Additional revenues expected from the Proposed Master Fee Schedule are intended to offset the cost of providing existing services associated with those fee-related regulatory functions and other programs. Additional fee revenue is not intended to fund new services.

Fairly allocating costs to the services provided and recovering some, or all, of these costs from service recipients creates value and predictability for City customers and reimburses the City for services provided to a single party, as compared to the public at large. Collecting fees for services:
 Increases the availability of General Fund revenues to be used for services and activities available to all residents and businesses, such as public safety and public works services.  Helps meet fee-payer service level expectations by collecting fees to fund the existing level of services provided.

Please continue to the following technical report and appendices for further discussion of this Comprehensive User Fee Study.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA 7

PROJECT ORIENTATION

SCOPE OF STUDY
The City of Santa Clara has completed a User and Regulatory Fee Study, which represents an external review of prevailing practices and development of a new Schedule of User Fees and Charges. ClearSource Financial Consulting has prepared this analysis during Fiscal Year 2021/22 and will be available to answer questions as the City proceeds in implementing findings as it chooses.

Key tasks expected by the City from this study included the following:
 Review eligible fee-related services citywide to establish the reasonable relationship between current fees for service and the underlying costs of service.
 Calculate the full cost of service, including estimated citywide overhead costs.  Recommend fees to be charged for each service.
 Recommend cost recovery strategies and best practices in setting fees, while considering the complexities and demands of responsible programs or departments.  Identify underlying billable rates for cost recovery opportunities and as the basis for user fees.  Maintain a thoroughly documented analysis to ensure compliance with Proposition 26, and other statutes, as applicable.

DIRECT SERVICES UNDER REVIEW
Fee Categories
City fees under review in this project focused on direct services eligible for user fee methodology, aslisted in the City’s published fee schedules. Additionally, the project was tasked with identifying any relevant additions for services performed without a fee or for under-quantified or ineffectively structured fees.

Current services shown in the City’s various prevailing fee schedules and addressed in this study are summarized as follows:
 Administration – Records management and billing activities  Building – Services include building permits for construction and sub-trades  Planning – Services include development review/current planning, other community permitting  Fire – Services include annual inspections, and development review  Police – Services include specialized response, and permit reviews  Public Works – Services include engineering plan review and inspection and encroachments permits  Recreation Programming and Facility Rental Fees – Services include fees for exclusive use of facilities, fields, and picnic areas.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA 8

PROJECT ORIENTATION

REASON FOR STUDY
Cities derive annual revenue from a number of sources. These include, but are not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes, franchise fees, fines, rents, and user and regulatory fees. User and regulatory fees are intended to cover all, or a portion of, the costs incurred by a city for providing fee-related services and activities that are not otherwise provided to those not paying the fee.

California cities regularly conduct fee studies to justify fee amounts imposed and to optimize the overall body of revenues available to the municipality to fund its services. Widespread industry practice and fiscal conditions in the state have led most cities to link cost recovery for services of individual action, cause, or benefit to that individual through user fee revenue, relieving the agency’s general revenues for services of broader community benefit.

PREVAILING GUIDANCE
The objectives of this study, the methodology used to complete the study, and the formulation of outcomes and recommendations for future consideration were significantly influenced by Article 13C of the California Constitution and Section 66014 of the California Government Code.

Article 13C states that the local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payer bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payer’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. Additionally, Article 13C identifies the following as items that are not defined as taxes:
 A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.  A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.
 A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.  A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.
 A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation of law.
 A charge imposed as a condition of property development.  Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA 9

PROJECT ORIENTATION
Section 66014(a) of the California Government Code includes the following, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use permits; building inspections; building permits; …the processing of maps under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act…; or planning services…; those fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.

The outcomes and recommendations of the study are intended to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws including providing confirmation that the proposed fees (“charges”) recommended as a result of this study are not taxes as defined in Article 13C of the California Constitution and that the proposed fees are no more than necessary to the cover the reasonable costs of the City’s activities and services addressed in the fees. Additionally, this report is intended to show that the manner in which the costs are allocated to a payer bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer’s burdens on, or benefits received from the activities and services provided by the City.

METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES
This study calculated the estimated reasonable cost of providing various fee-related services across the City organization. Generally, the estimated reasonable cost of providing the fee-related services and activities examined in this study can be calculated as the product of the composite fully-burdened hourly labor rate of the division responsible for providing services and the estimated labor time required to process a typical request for service.

The composite fully-burdened hourly rates calculated in this study are based on the estimated annual hours spent providing fee related services, and estimated labor, services and supplies, and citywide overhead expenditures, sourced as follows:
 Estimated annual hours spent providing fee related services were developed based on interviews with City staff and are in-line with typical direct service ratios experienced by the consultant via studies of similar municipalities throughout California.
 Labor expenditures for in-house personnel were based on budgeted salary and benefits expenditures.  Contract service personnel related costs were based on current market rates for similar service in the southern California region.
 Citywide overhead cost allocations were developed to assign a reasonable share of central service support to the City’s direct service units.
 Estimated labor times were developed based on responses from the staff primarily responsible for the provision of services examined in the study. Commonly used industry data also aided in the development of time estimates and proposed fee structures.

Once cost of service levels are identified, the City may use this information to inform targeted cost recovery from fees. Fees set at the cost of service target full cost recovery. Fees set at any amount less than the cost of service target less than full cost recovery.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA 10

PROJECT ORIENTATION
An illustration of the methods used in this analysis is shown below.

EXHIBIT 2 | STEPS IN ANALYZING COSTS OF SERVICE AND USER FEES ----------------------------------------------- COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS I Process and Methods 2 I ANNUAL

EXPEND ITU RES
3 I FULLY BURDENED

HOURLY RATES
4 I SERVICE/ACTIVITY

LABOR TIME
Identify annual hours spent providing fee services for each participating division
Information is developed and tested using a combination of interviews, questionnaires, historical project information, and historical revenue information
:l Identify annual cost of providing fee servic,es for each participating division :l Information is developed and tested using a combination of information found in the City's adopted budget, expenditure history, and the overhead cost plan.

Calculate the estimated fully burdened hourly rate using information from Steps 1 and 2
Annual Cost +Annual Hours= Hourly Rate
:l Estimate labor time required to process individual request for service :l Information is developed and tested using a combination of interviews, questionnaires, commonly used measures, and information developed in Step 1
Calculate the estimated cost of service using information from Steps 3 and 4 Test to confirm forecast revenue from fees will not exceed program costs Use historical permit volume and proposed fees to forecast anticipated revenue from fees
Fore casted revenues should not exceed program costs
CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA 11

PROJECT ORIENTATION

CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
If the City decides to adopt or otherwise utilize outcomes generated through this study, it should:
 Update Systems for Fee Outcomes – Ensure that City staff begin using updated fees and associated outcomes once the updated schedule of fees becomes effective. Values should be included in all official fee schedules used throughout the City (e.g., departmental pamphlets, counter schedules, and online information). Additionally, ensure collections processes are updated, which may include coding in billing systems and training for personnel who handle fees directly with the public.  Actively Monitor the Use of Fees – In order to recover accurate and eligible amounts expected, the City should be diligent about tracking time to projects and ensuring fees are applied in the correct amount and using the correct and intended basis.
 Monitor Feedback and Permit Statistics – Monitor permit and application volume and applicant feedback to determine if fee modifications are resulting in any unanticipated changes in project frequency and to increase the level of detail available for revenue forecasting.  Annually Review and Adjust Fee Values – In order to generally maintain pace with regional cost inflation and/or the City’s salary cost inflation, the City should adjust its fees on an annual basis. A commonly used, reasonable inflation index is the annual change in the all-urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) representative of the region.
 Periodically Perform Comprehensive Analysis – A comprehensive fee study should be conducted periodically (e.g., every three to five years) to ensure fee levels remain at or below legal limits and are consistent with evolving service practices and local conditions.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA

APPENDIX A

PARKS AND RECREATION COST RECOVERY POLICY

PRESENTATION
As part of the fee study process City staff have conducted community outreach to assist with recommending cost recovery practices for parks and recreation fee-based programming. This appendix includes the presentation provided to members of the Parks & Recreation Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, Youth Commission, and the general public.
#FQVLC
3>KQ>#I>O>
Parks and Recreation Fee-Based
Cost Recovery Policy Development
Joint Commission Meeting | March 2, 2022
Parks & Recreation Commission
Senior Advisory Commission

FINANCIAL CONSULTING
Welcome from the
Parks & Recreation Director

JAMES TEIXEIRA

FINANCIAL CONSULTING
Foundation

FINANCIAL CONSULTING
• Establish a common understanding for evaluating
Parks and Recreation financial needs and user fees
• Receive Commission and public input on cost
recovery policy affecting program pricing decisions
• Advance overall City goals for improved cost recovery through the City’s locally controlled fee sources
• Lead to a funding framework that can sustain Parks
and Recreation programs long-term

GOALS FOR JOINT COMMISSION MEETING
4 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Part I
• Foundation
• Industry Practices
• Program Areas: Services and Typical Users
Part II
• Survey Window Open and Completed (Surveys Submitted)
Part III
• Survey Wrap-Up and Next Steps
• Public Input on this Topic

PRESENTATION AND SURVEY OUTLINE
5 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
“Full Cost of Service”
• The estimated total cost of a program, inclusive
of direct labor, services, and supplies expenses,
and associated overhead expenses
“Cost Recovery”
• The amount of a program’s full cost of service
that is supported by the program’s own fee
revenues
“Subsidy”
• The amount of a program’s full cost of service
that is supported by other City revenue sources

TERMINOLOGY
These terms of art have
specific meaning
across California
municipalities and
within the City of
Santa Clara itself (other
departments and their
program fees or rates)
6 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
• Parks and Recreation programs are budgeted in the
General Fund
• Tax revenue sources in the General Fund which are
collected from the community at-large pay for program
costs that are not recovered from user fees
• The General Fund has a projected deficit the City must address through revenue and/or cost decisions
• City departments in the General Fund are tasked with
closing the deficit to varying degrees

FINANCIAL STRUCTURE OF PARKS & RECREATION
7 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
PARKS & RECREATION | TOTAL DEPARTMENT
• $24.8 million
full cost of service
• $2.7 million
revenue from
user fees
• $22.1 million subsidy
• 11% current
cost recovery
achievement
8 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
$24.8 MILLION $24.8 MILLION
FULL

COST OF

SERVICE

GENERAL
FUND

REVENUE

USER FEES
100% MAXIMUM

COST RECOVERY
0% MINIMUM

COST RECOVERY
11% ACHIEVED

COST RECOVERY
Identify $700,000 in new revenue possible from Parks
and Recreation sources
• Improve overall cost recovery for the Department from 11% to 14%
• Avoid comparable reductions to services and program
offerings by identifying revenue solutions
• Establish a framework for managing sustainable funding sources for valued programs, services, and facilities
managed by Parks and Recreation

PRESCRIBED GOAL FOR PARKS & RECREATION
9 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Industry Practices

FINANCIAL CONSULTING
• User fees must be linked to and not exceed
the estimated reasonable cost of service
• The full cost of service sets the maximum
limit of a cost-based fee
• Direct program costs for labor, services, and supplies • Facilities overhead
• Departmental administration
• Citywide administration and central support services
• Generally, fees from users of one program
may not be used to pay for costs incurred to
serve discounted users or users of a different
program

MUNICIPAL FEES IN CALIFORNIA
• The California State
Constitution,
amended by
successive ballot
measures, establishes
requirements for
governmental
service fees
• Common practices
among California
cities provide widely
accepted standards
for meeting
Constitutional
obligations
11 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
• Parks and recreation program fees imposed by California cities are considered governmental service fees (except rents, which can be market-based)
• Most program fees are managed dynamically by departments as offerings, demand, and other market conditions change seasonally • It is impractical for governing bodies to revise and adopt program fees as frequently as programs change through the year
• Cost recovery policy for the agency’s parks and recreation programs is defined by its governing body (council)
• Adopted cost recovery policy creates the boundaries for program fees set and managed by the department on a continual basis

MUNICIPAL PARKS & RECREATION FEES IN CALIFORNIA
12 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Exclusively individual benefit
Considerable individual benefit
Balanced individual and
community benefit
Considerable community benefit
Mostly community benefit
Entirely community-wide benefit

COST RECOVERY POLICY FRAMEWORK
Cost recovery
policy reflects
local values
regarding the
presumed
beneficiaries for
each program area,
ranging from broad
community benefit
to narrow
individual benefit
13 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
100%
0%Cost Recovery Targeted
14 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
100%+ indicates minor exceptions where premiums above cost may be justified, such as market-based rents. 0%
1-20%
21-40%
41-70%
71-90%
91-100%+*
1-Entirely Community Benefit
2-Mostly Community Benefit
3-Considerable Community Benefit
4-Balanced Individual
& Community Benefit
5-Considerable
Individual Benefit
6-Exclusive
Individual Benefit

PROGRAM

BENEFICIARY

COST RECOVERY

TARGETED

COST RECOVERY BENEFIT TIERS
• The Department conducts a cost of service analysis
• Outreach is done to receive community input on benefit of broad program areas within Parks and Recreation
• Programs are targeted for revised cost recovery based on benefit categorization accomplished through outreach
• Proposed cost recovery policy and estimated revenue changes by program area are submitted to City Council for consideration and action • Within the boundaries of City Council policy, the Department sets prices for seasonally managed offerings under each program area, taking into account market conditions at the time of offering • City conducts biennial Citywide fee studies, enabling regular comprehensive review of performance and update of driving policies affecting fees based on recent experience and prevailing conditions

POLICY-DRIVEN BENEFIT TIERS AFFECT FEE DECISONS
15 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
• Concern for small subsets of vulnerable users
should not drive the placement of program cost
recovery policy impacting all users of the program
• Commission can advise and Council can direct
policy on lower cost recovery goals, fee
discounts, or fee waivers for defined users, such
as low-income populations
• Department establishes practices for identifying
and supporting users targeted by adopted policy
• All discounts and fee waivers are subsidized by
the General Fund

PROVIDING ACCESSIBILITY TO VULNERABLE USERS
Community values
have repeatedly
emphasized
ensuring access to
programs by lowincome users who
might otherwise
be excluded or
negatively impacted
by overall cost
recovery policies
16 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Parks and Recreation
Program Areas
Not inclusive of all services / Only areas in which
public input is expected to significantly
influence Cost Recovery Policy

FINANCIAL CONSULTING
Types of Services
• Learn to swim and lifeguarding
• Open swim with lifeguards onsite
Types of Users
• Youth
• Adult
• Senior
18 Lessons and
recreational swim

CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA

AQUATICS
Types of Activities
• Sports and Fitness
• Arts and Dance
• STEM, etc.

Types of Users
• Youth
• Adult
• Senior
19 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Participation in
seasonal program
offerings

RECREATION

CLASSES
Types of Services or Access
• Senior Center
• After-School Program
• Activity Pass
• Community Garden
Types of Users
• Youth
• Adult
• Senior
• Persons with Special Needs
20 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Regular access to
City facilities and
ongoing programs

MEMBERSHIPS
Types of Facilities or Uses
• Aquatics and Athletic Fields
• Meeting Rooms, Party, and Picnic Spaces
Types of Users
• Private Groups and Private Individuals
• Non-Profit Organizations
• Community Groups
• Commercial Organizations
• Competitions and Tournaments
21 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Reserved and/or
exclusive permitted
use of City facilities

FACI LITY

RENTALS
Survey:

Benefit / Cost Recovery Tiers

FINANCIAL CONSULTING
• Commission members are asked to assign each program area to a benefit tier corresponding to cost recovery policy
• Program areas may ask about specific user types and whether benefit tier placement would vary
• Achievement of cost recovery can be targeted over time; immediate feasibility should not drive benefit tier assignment
• Survey results will be summarized and reported in total for all participating Commission members, not listed by individual respondent • Program areas with clear consensus will be used to inform a proposed Cost Recovery Policy framework to City Council
• Program areas showing wide dissent also will be reported to City Council

USE OF SURVEY OUTCOMES FROM COMMISSIONS
23 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
24 The online
questionnaire
uses a simple
Google Form
accessible in
a web browser

CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA

ORIENTATION
TO SURVEY c1/3)
Benefit Tiers for a Parks and Recreation
Cost Recovery Policy
Ass ign each program and user type to a benefit tier which will frame a Cost Recovery Policy for Santa Clara Parks and Recreation. During the live survey event with City commissions on March 2, 2022, definitions for benef it tiers and other terminology will be broadcast on the con ference screen for reference.

Sign in to Google to save your progress. Learn more
* Required
Name of Survey Respondent *
Survey results will be summarized and pres ented iI1 total for all res pondent s as a group, not by individual.

Ident ification here is Intended only for use by survey moderators to ensure quality control of the su rvey. 25 Most questions
require a single
checkbox response
for programs and
user types

CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
ORIENTATION Aquatics / Lessons
TO SURVEY (2/3)
Learn to swim and lifeguarding -- Put a cllecl< in the box to match how the pl.lib lie benefit s from this progra m.

Balanced
Entirely Mostly Considerable lndividual Considerable Exclusive Comrn t.mit y Community Community and Individual Individual Benefit Benefit Benefit Community Benefit Benefit
Benefit
Youth
Users □ □ □ □ □ □
Adult
Users □ □ □ □ □ □
Senior
Users □ □ □ □ □ □
26 Before closing
your browser, you
must click the

SUBMIT BUTTON
at the bottom for
your answers to
be received

CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA

ORIENTATION
TO SURVEY c213> Submit Completed Questionnaire *
Do not close your browser before clicking th e ' Submit' button at the end of this f orm. Your response wi ll not be sa ved and received if you do not click the "Submit' button. 0 In order for my response to be received, I must click the "Submit " button at the end of this form .

Submit Clear form
Never submit passwords t hrough Google Forms.

This content rs nerther created nor 1=11dorsed by Goo{l e. Re i:iort Abuse- Terms of Service - Prri,acY. Porte):

Google Forms

COMMISSION SURVEY PROCEDURE
Questionnaire for
Commission members
to complete during live
event window:
forms.gle/GYpk
74KqtKXsRfx16
Open internet browser
and type link into the
address bar, or
Hyperlink is also available
in Zoom Chat
27 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
• Moderator will mute the Zoom Gallery
• For technical issues in the survey, use the Zoom Chat to ask for help
• Commission members will work on and complete the
questionnaire during the live survey event window
• Moderator will unmute at 3- to 5-minute intervals to ask for questions
• Answers will be provided for all survey participants to hear during the live event window
• Complete surveys within 30 minutes of start.
• Moderator will announce time remaining or end survey
window early if all Commission submissions are
received before time ends
28 CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
100%+ indicates minor exceptions where premiums above cost may be justified, such as market-based rents. 0%
1-20%
21-40%
41-70%
71-90%
91-100%+*
1-Entirely Community Benefit
2-Mostly Community Benefit
3-Considerable Community Benefit
4-Balanced Individual
& Community Benefit
5-Considerable
Individual Benefit
6-Exclusive
Individual Benefit

PROGRAM

BENEFICIARY

COST RECOVERY

TARGETED

ASSIGN BENEFIT TIER TO EACH PROGRAM QUESTION
Live Survey Window Closed
THANK YOU!

FINANCIAL CONSULTING
• Review and summarize
survey responses
• Provide summary of survey results
to Commissions and City Council
at future meetings
• Use survey results to help frame
a proposed Cost Recovery
Policy for City Council
consideration
30 An update of the
Citywide Master
Fee Schedule is in
progress and
expected to be
presented to City
Council during
April 2022

CLEARSOURCE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
NEXT
STEPS
Public Input on this Topic

FINANCIAL CONSULTING

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA

APPENDIX B

PROPOSED PARKS AND RECREATION COST RECOVERY POLICY

PARKS AND RECREATION COST RECOVERY POLICY
Purpose
Establishing a cost recovery policy provides the City’s Parks and Recreation Department with a tool for evaluating services and establishing appropriate fees for services. Standardizing cost recovery objectives enhances the Department’s ability to accomplish broad citywide goals and objectives. Establishing a reasonable, transparent, and consistently applied policy is intended to:
 Stretch taxpayer investment in parks and recreation services to optimize value received  Promote program respect and ownership
 Allow prices to reflect users’ investment in themselves based on individual benefit  Develop deeper commitment to the programming users help support Costs Considered When Evaluating Cost Recovery
To evaluate cost recovery, the Department will calculate the “full cost of service,” for programming, facility use, and services provided. The full cost of service will include components for:
 The direct costs of service:
- The labor associated with the performance of service from all personnel involved in the activity - The services, supplies, and/or materials required to complete the activity  A reasonable share of the indirect costs of service:
- The services, supplies, and materials which support the personnel involved in the activity - The maintenance of any facilities required to support the provision of service - The indirect management, administration, and support services associated with the City functions involved in the activity
- The central services, City management and administration, and governmental oversight associated with the functions involved in the activity
Targeted Cost Recovery in Fees
Once the full cost of service is established for each activity, the City will apply a consistent set of guidelines for determining the amount of cost to be recovered in the final fee amount. A cost recovery percentage will be applied to the full cost of service to calculate the fee. Figure 1 describes the general criteria for assigning Departmental programming, facility use, and services to cost recovery tiers. The cost recovery threshold assigned to each fee-related service and program area will be identified in the periodic analysis and documentation supporting the ongoing and seasonally managed calculation of the City’s Parks and Recreation fees.

FIGURE 1 | COST RECOVERY GUIDELINES – PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES

BENEFIT-BASED

RECOVERY TIER

DESCRIPTION FEE BASED PROGRAM AREA
0% COST RECOVERY
Entirely Community
Benefit
Programs, facilities, and services that benefit the
community as a whole. The community generally
expects the City to offer these services and
supports paying for these through taxes.
• General, non-exclusive park,
playground, open space, trails,
restrooms, and facility
visitation and use
1-20% COST

RECOVERY
Mostly Community
Benefit
Programs, facilities, and services that provide
benefit to the individual user, but have more
fundamental goal of:
• Seeking to engage community with high
participation levels desirable
• Community problem solving (e.g., services
for vulnerable or underserved populations)
• Non-Profit facility use serving
the City of Santa Clara
• Special Events
• Resident Senior Center Use
• Senior Nutrition Program
• Afterschool Program
21-40% COST

RECOVERY
Considerable
Community Benefit
Programs, facilities, and services which promote
individual physical and mental well-being, and
provide recreation skill development. They may
have a community benefit but to a smaller group
of the community. Generally, costs of service are
offset by both a tax subsidy to account for
community benefit and participant fees to
account for individual benefit.
• Early Learners
• Therapeutic Recreation
41-70% COST

RECOVERY
Balanced Individual
and Community
Benefit
Programs, facilities, and services which promote
individual physical and mental well-being, and
provide recreation skill development. Program,
facility, and service use that benefits individuals
primarily, but the community receives some
benefit.
• Services which are specialized and/or similar
to private sector
• Comparable “market rates” for similar
services affect ability to recover a greater
percentage of costs
• Competition, Meets, and
Tournaments that include
competitors from other cities
• Drop-in
Fitness/Recreation/Swimming
• Youth Theater Programs
• Resident facility use
• City provided programs
71-90% COST

RECOVERY
Considerable
Individual Benefit
Benefits individuals significantly more than the
community; Private sector or public agencies
offer similar services; Demand for service, facility
or program exceeds capacity
• Programs providing individual
benefit
91-100% COST

RECOVERY
Exclusively
Individual Benefit
Benefit individuals; Commercial nature of
services; Enterprise funds expected to operate
without General Fund support
• Non-resident & Commercial
use of facilities
The following shall serve as guidelines for categorizing Recreation Programs and services based on types of programs, target populations, and level of community benefit to determine appropriate subsidy Level:
 Programs with the highest level of community benefit will have the lowest level of cost recovery.  Programs that have the greatest level of individual or group benefit will target the highest level of cost recovery.
 Pricing of programs and services takes into account market rates and the impact on demand which may override cost-recovery target considerations.
 Non-resident fees are priced higher than resident fees.  Fees will be periodically reviewed to keep pace with changes in the cost of living, market demands, and/or to promote identified Recreation Programs.
 Staff will adjust fees to meet minimum cost-recovery rates and to be consistent with market demand for services.
 The City will continue to offer a grant program to offset the cost of programs for eligible low-income participants identified through its established procedures Staff will seek to enhance and refine this policy over time. *100%+ indicates minor exceptions where premiums above cost may be justified, such as market-based rents.

Parks and Recreation Fee Management
Most fees for Parks and Recreation services and programs will fluctuate seasonally as the Department manages offerings and provisions of service dynamically in line with capabilities and market conditions at

PROGRAM

BENEFICIARY

COST RECOVERY

TARGETED
the time schedules are developed. As such, establishing static fees within the Municipal Fee Schedule similar to most other City services is burdensome procedurally. The Cost Recovery Policy is intended to establish general targets for the Department within which it can set most fees on that fluctuating basis within its periodic service catalogs.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA

APPENDIX C

PARKS AND RECREATION FEE BASED COST RECOVERY

PRACTICES SURVEY RESPONSES
On March 2, 2022, a joint commission meeting was held with members of the Parks & Recreation Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, Youth Commission, and the general public. During the meeting, attendees were asked to complete a survey linked to cost recovery practices for parks and recreation fee-based programming. The survey was available to be completed from March 2, 2022, through March 17, 2022. The City received 234 total responses. Response summaries are provided in the charts on the following pages.

The Parks and Recreation Department will use the consistent community sentiment expressed to inform cost recovery targets.
4 4
5 221
Total Responses Received
Member of Parks &
Recreation
Commission
Member of Senior
Advisory Commission
Member of Youth
Commission
General Public or User
of Parks & Recreation
Services
■
■
■
■

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA

APPENDIX C
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Youth Users Adult Users Senior Users
Number of Responses
Aquatics / Lessons
Entirely Community Benefit
Mostly Community Benefit
Considerable Community Benefit
Balanced Individual and
Community Benefit
Considerable Individual Benefit
Exclusive Individual Benefit
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Youth Users Adult Users Senior Users
Number of Responses
Aquatics / Recreational Swim
Entirely Community Benefit
Mostly Community Benefit
Considerable Community Benefit
Balanced Individual and Community Benefit
Considerable Individual Benefit
Exclusive Individual Benefit
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■ I II II II 1111

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA

APPENDIX C
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Youth Users Adult Users Senior Users
Number of Responses
Recreation Classes
Entirely Community Benefit
Mostly Community Benefit
Considerable Community Benefit
Balanced Individual and Community Benefit
Considerable Individual Benefit
Exclusive Individual Benefit
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Senior Members
Number of Responses
Memberships / Senior Center
Entirely Community Benefit
Mostly Community Benefit
Considerable Community Benefit
Balanced Individual and Community Benefit
Considerable Individual Benefit
Exclusive Individual Benefit
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA

APPENDIX C
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Youth Members
Number of Responses
Memberships / After-School Program
Entirely Community Benefit
Mostly Community Benefit
Considerable Community Benefit
Balanced Individual and Community Benefit
Considerable Individual Benefit
Exclusive Individual Benefit
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Youth Users Adult Users Senior Users
Number of Responses
Memberships / Activity Pass
Entirely Community Benefit
Mostly Community Benefit
Considerable Community Benefit
Balanced Individual and Community Benefit
Considerable Individual Benefit
Exclusive Individual Benefit
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1111

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA

APPENDIX C
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Adult Users Senior Users Persons with Special
Needs
Number of Responses
Memberships / Activity Pass
Entirely Community Benefit
Mostly Community Benefit
Considerable Community Benefit
Balanced Individual and Community Benefit
Considerable Individual Benefit
Exclusive Individual Benefit
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Private Groups Non-Profit
Organizations
Commercial
Organizations
Comp's, Tourneys,
Meets
Number of Responses
Facility Rentals / Aquatics
Entirely Community Benefit
Mostly Community Benefit
Considerable Community Benefit
Balanced Individual and Community Benefit
Considerable Individual Benefit
Exclusive Individual Benefit
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA

APPENDIX C
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Private
Groups
Non-Profit
Youth
Organizations
Non-Profit
Adult
Organizations
Non-Profit
Senior
Organizations
Commercial
Organizations
Competitions,
Tournaments
Number of Responses
Facility Rentals / Athletic Fields
Entirely Community Benefit
Mostly Community Benefit
Considerable Community Benefit
Balanced Individual and Community Benefit
Considerable Individual Benefit
Exclusive Individual Benefit
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Non-Profit Youth
Organizations
Non-Profit Adult
Organizations
Non-Profit Senior
Organizations
Community Groups
Number of Responses
Facility Rentals / Meeting Rooms
Entirely Community Benefit
Mostly Community Benefit
Considerable Community Benefit
Balanced Individual and Community Benefit
Considerable Individual Benefit
Exclusive Individual Benefit
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA

APPENDIX C
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Private
Individuals
Non-Profit
Youth
Organizations
Non-Profit
Adult
Organizations
Non-Profit
Senior
Organizations
Commercial
Groups
Number of Responses
Facility Rentals / Parties and Picnics
Entirely Community Benefit
Mostly Community Benefit
Considerable Community Benefit
Balanced Individual and Community Benefit
Considerable Individual Benefit
Exclusive Individual Benefit 94%
6%
Should the practice of charging a higher fee for
Non-Residents be continued when it is feasible?
Yes
No
■
■
~ 1 •• I 11111 111 11 111 11 •• ~I
■
■

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA

APPENDIX C
84%
16%
Should the City provide discounted
fees for low-income individuals?
Yes
No
■
■

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA

APPENDIX D

COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR USER AND REGULATORY FEES
User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Analysis
1 City .of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Fee Type Page
Assistant City Clerk's Office Fees 3
City Manager's Office Fees 9
Community Development Fees 15
Building 16
Planning 28
Housing and Community Services 35
Electric (SVP) Fees 40
Finance - Municipal Services Division Fees 54
Fire Department Fees 69
Community Risk Reduction Fees 72
Training and Resources Fees 93
Police Department Fees 105
Public Works Fees 118
Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees 119
Streets, Storm Drain, and Solid Waste Fees 146
Water and Sewer Fees 161
City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Analysis
2 Assistant City Clerk's Office Fees
3 City .of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Assistant City Clerk Position [a] FTE [a]
Total Hours
Per FTE [b]
Less:

Holiday &
Leave [c]
Productive
Hours Per
FTE
Total
Productive
Hours
Indirect
[d] Direct [d] Total
Total
Indirect
Hours
Total
Direct
Hours
Total
Hours
Total Salary
Top Step [e] Annual Salary
Assistant City Clerk 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 25% 75% 100% 466 1,398 1,864 $80 $165,630 Deputy City Clerk 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 25% 75% 100% 466 1,398 1,864 $67 $139,402 Staff Aide I 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 25% 75% 100% 932 2,796 3,728 $48 $197,683 Office Records Specialist 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 25% 75% 100% 466 1,398 1,864 $42 $87,734 Total 5.00 9,320 2,330 6,990 9,320 $590,450
Total 25% 75% 100%
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Based on 40 hour week * 52 weeks per year.
[e] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. [c] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount assumes twelve days holiday, ten days vacation/personal leave, five days sick leave. [d] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates developed for purposes of this analysis. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount based on position and consultant experience working with similar municipalities.
4 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Assistant City Clerk's Office FY 22/23 Forecast Expenses [a] Program 2311 2312 2313
Fund # Fund Desc Account Desc Council Admin Public Info Political
Reform Subtotal Adjust Total Notes
001 General Fund 87010 - Salary And Wages - Regular $69,931 $354,869 $185,767 $610,567 $0 $610,567 001 General Fund 87017 - Premium Pay $435 $255 $180 $870 $0 $870 001 General Fund 87020 - Salary And Wages - As Needed $48,543 $0 $48,543 $0 $48,543 001 General Fund 87030 - S & W - O.T. Vacation Relief $1,035 $1,035 $0 $1,035 001 General Fund 87110 - Contra 870x0-Reimbd Sal & Wage ($25,414) ($25,414) $25,414 $0 001 General Fund 1 Salary Accounts $94,530 $355,124 $185,947 $635,601 $25,414 $661,015 001 General Fund 87212 - PERS - Misc $53,084 $124,187 $65,026 $242,297 $0 $242,297 001 General Fund 87221 - Medicare $1,084 $5,280 $2,784 $9,148 $0 $9,148 001 General Fund 87222 - Social Security $2,994 $21,356 $10,551 $34,901 $0 $34,901 001 General Fund 87223 - Social Security - OT $321 $321 $0 $321 001 General Fund 87224 - Medicare OT $76 $76 $0 $76
001 General Fund 87230 - Health Allocation $5,789 $40,742 $18,176 $64,707 $0 $64,707 001 General Fund 87241 - Dental - City Paid $136 $850 $384 $1,370 $0 $1,370 001 General Fund 87242 - Long Term Disability-City Paid $448 $1,244 $570 $2,262 $0 $2,262 001 General Fund 87243 - Vision- City Paid $60 $368 $165 $593 $0 $593 001 General Fund 87250 - Basic Life Insurance ($15) $241 $122 $348 $0 $348 001 General Fund 87271 - VEBA $300 $1,860 $840 $3,000 $0 $3,000 001 General Fund 87272 - EAP $24 $151 $69 $244 $0 $244
001 General Fund 87274 - Auto Allowance ($420) $4,080 $2,340 $6,000 $0 $6,000 001 General Fund 87275 - Mobile Phone Allowance ($384) $1,488 $816 $1,920 $0 $1,920 001 General Fund 87390 - OPEB $1,771 $10,983 $4,961 $17,715 $0 $17,715 001 General Fund 2 Benefit Accounts $65,268 $212,830 $106,804 $384,902 $0 $384,902 001 General Fund 87500 - Operating Supplies $0 $1,193 $530 $1,723 $0 $1,723 001 General Fund 87825 - Conference, Travel and Training $4,187 ($1) $1,592 $5,778 $0 $5,778 001 General Fund 87870 - Contractual Serv Not Class $1,209 $207,917 $0 $209,126 ($209,126) $0 001 General Fund 3 Mat/Serv/Sup $5,396 $209,109 $2,122 $216,627 ($209,126) $7,501 001 General Fund 87650 - Technical Services Maintenance $39,541 $30,092 $39,327 $108,960 $0 $108,960 001 General Fund 87660 - Workers Comp Insurance $1,931 $9,223 $4,870 $16,024 $0 $16,024 001 General Fund 87680 - Unemployment Insurance $66 $313 $165 $544 $0 $544 001 General Fund 87840 - Insurance And Surety Bonds $2,444 $11,672 $6,163 $20,279 $0 $20,279 001 General Fund 5 Interfund Services $43,982 $51,300 $50,525 $145,807 $0 $145,807 Subtotal $209,176 $828,363 $345,398 $1,382,937 ($183,712) $1,199,225 5 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Assistant City Clerk's Office Adjustments for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Notes
Divisional Expenses $1,199,225
Productive Hours 6,990 [b]
Total $172
Full Cost Factors for Hourly Rate Buildup
Description Total Share Per Hour
Personnel $1,045,917 87% $150
Equipment $0 0% $0
Materials / Supplies $153,308 13% $22
Other Costs $0 0% $0
Overhead $0 0% $0
Total $1,199,225 100% $172
6 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Assistant City Clerk's Office Information Below is for Use if City Desires to Use Positional Hourly Billing Rates Scenario 1: Uniform Assignment of Materials and Overhead Costs Per Hour Calculate Benefit Ratio
Salary Accounts $661,015
Benefit Accounts $384,902
Total 0.58
Calculation of Direct Hours Ratio (Billing Factor)
Description
Base Hrs
Per FTE
Adjust for
Typical Leave
Productive
Hours Direct Hours %
Direct Hours
Per FTE Notes
Hours 2,080 (216) 1,864 75% 1,398
Direct Hours Bill Factor (For Every $ of Salary Add this amount to account for Direct Hrs v. Total Hrs.) 1.49 Position
Top Step Hrly
[c] Benefits
Subtotal Labor
Costs
Adjust for
Direct Hours
Total Labor
Rate
Add: M'tls /
Supplies
Add:

Overhead
Total
Hourly Rate
Assistant City Clerk $80 $46 $126 1.49 $187 $22 $0 $209 Deputy City Clerk $67 $39 $106 1.49 $158 $22 $0 $180
Staff Aide I $48 $28 $75 1.49 $112 $22 $0 $134
Office Records Specialist $42 $25 $67 1.49 $99 $22 $0 $121 Scenario 2: Assignment of a Common Indirect Rate Factor that Can Be Applied to Base Hourly Wage Rate to Calculate Fully-Burdened Hourly Billing Rate by Position Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Billing Factor (Apply Factor to Top Step Salary for Positional Rates) Description FTE Hours Per FTE Total Hours
Salaries and
Wages
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier Notes
Total 5.00 2,080 10,400 $590,450 $57 $172 3.02
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] See allocation of Annual Labor Effort, Assistant City Clerk. [c] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 7 ----------------
City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees City Clerk Fees
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost Recovery Information
Fee Description Labor Time Hourly Rate
Estimated
Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Unit Notes
Lobbying Activities
1 Annual Registration Fee 4.25 x $172 = $731 $757 104% $731 100% [a] 2 Prorated Registration Fee 2.00 x $172 = $344 $361 105% $344 100% [b] 3 Amended Registration Fee 1.00 x $172 = $172 $174 101% $172 100% [c] 4 Client Registration Fee 0.75 x $172 = $129 $130 101% $129 100% per client 5 Delinquent Fee $25 $25 per day [d]
[a] Annual registration is due by January 15th of a given year. [b] Persons registering for the first time after June 30th of a given year. [d] Up to a maximum of $500.00.
[c] Lobbyists with a change to registration information shall file an amended registration within fifteen (15) days of such change if he or she has accepted a new client for compensation in excess of five hundred dollars ($500.00).
8 City Manager's Office Fees
9 City .of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - City Manager
Position [a] FTE [a]
Total Hours
Per FTE [b]
Less:

Holiday &
Leave [c]
Productive
Hours Per
FTE
Total
Productive
Hours
Indirect
[d] Direct [d] Total
Total
Indirect
Hours
Total
Direct
Hours
Total
Hours
Total Salary
Top Step [e] Annual Salary
Assistant to the City Manager 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 0% 100% 100% - 3,728 3,728 $109 $454,854 Assistant City Manager 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 0% 100% 100% - 3,728 3,728 $161 $671,091 Chief Operating Officer 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 0% 100% 100% - 1,864 1,864 $186 $385,902 City Manager 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 0% 100% 100% - 1,864 1,864 $216 $448,490 Communications and Outreach Manager 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 0% 100% 100% - 1,864 1,864 $77 $160,701 Communications Coordinator 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 0% 100% 100% - 1,864 1,864 $58 $120,370 Executive Assistant to the City Manager 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 0% 100% 100% - 1,864 1,864 $66 $137,280 Management Analyst 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 0% 100% 100% - 1,864 1,864 $67 $139,402 Office Specialist III 0.50 2,080 216 1,864 932 0% 100% 100% - 932 932 $41 $42,765 Senior Management Analyst 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 0% 100% 100% - 1,864 1,864 $74 $153,338 Staff Aide I 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 0% 100% 100% - 1,864 1,864 $48 $98,842 Total 12.50 23,300 - 23,300 23,300 $2,813,034
Total 0% 100% 100%
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Based on 40 hour week * 52 weeks per year.
[d] Assume use of productive hours only.
[e] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. [c] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount assumes twelve days holiday, ten days vacation/personal leave, five days sick leave. 10 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - City Manager's Office
FY 22/23 Forecast Expenses [a] Program 1021 1022 1031 1032 1033 Fund # Fund Desc Account Desc Policy
Intergov'
Rel'tns
Day to Day
Ops Strat Planning
Outreach &
Engage Subtotal Adjust Total Notes
001 General Fund 87010 - Salary And Wages - Regular $637,328 $113,790 $822,512 $712,591 $511,857 $2,798,078 $0 $2,798,078 001 General Fund 87020 - Salary And Wages - As Needed $131,975 $131,975 $0 $131,975 001 General Fund 87110 - Contra 870x0-Reimbd Sal & Wage ($569,656) ($569,656) $569,656 $0 001 General Fund 1 Salary Accounts $637,328 $113,790 $384,831 $712,591 $511,857 $2,360,397 $569,656 $2,930,053 001 General Fund 87212 - PERS - Misc $180,727 $29,010 $337,263 $231,536 $169,481 $948,017 $0 $948,017 001 General Fund 87221 - Medicare $9,518 $1,696 $12,287 $10,659 $7,726 $41,886 $0 $41,886 001 General Fund 87222 - Social Security $20,947 $3,700 $29,567 $24,540 $22,336 $101,090 $0 $101,090 001 General Fund 87230 - Health Allocation $35,666 $6,409 $52,356 $41,890 $34,677 $170,998 $0 $170,998 001 General Fund 87241 - Dental - City Paid $1,263 $237 $1,715 $1,501 $964 $5,680 $0 $5,680 001 General Fund 87242 - Long Term Disability-City Paid $948 $162 $1,495 $1,132 $1,022 $4,759 $0 $4,759 001 General Fund 87243 - Vision- City Paid $374 $68 $530 $438 $350 $1,760 $0 $1,760 001 General Fund 87250 - Basic Life Insurance $277 $50 $364 $316 $282 $1,289 $0 $1,289 001 General Fund 87271 - VEBA $1,530 $270 $2,280 $1,800 $1,620 $7,500 $0 $7,500 001 General Fund 87272 - EAP $123 $19 $187 $144 $130 $603 $0 $603 001 General Fund 87274 - Auto Allowance $10,194 $1,866 $11,916 $11,052 $4,692 $39,720 $0 $39,720 001 General Fund 87275 - Mobile Phone Allowance $1,056 $192 $1,440 $1,344 $768 $4,800 $0 $4,800 001 General Fund 87279 - Misc. Other Benefits $18,960 $3,792 $22,752 $22,752 $7,584 $75,840 $0 $75,840 001 General Fund 87390 - OPEB $9,036 $1,593 $13,464 $10,631 $9,563 $44,287 $0 $44,287 001 General Fund 2 Benefit Accounts $290,619 $49,064 $487,616 $359,735 $261,195 $1,448,229 $0 $1,448,229 001 General Fund 87500 - Operating Supplies $18,157 $38,068 $0 $56,225 ($56,225) $0 001 General Fund 87600 - Maintenance $63,672 $63,672 ($63,672) $0 001 General Fund 87710 - Adver And Community Promotion $7,735 $162,651 $170,386 ($170,386) $0 001 General Fund 87800 - Miscellaneous Serv & Supplies $0 $0 $11,706 $11,706 ($11,706) $0 001 General Fund 87810 - Utilities Expenses $0 $0 $0
001 General Fund 87825 - Conference, Travel and Training $22,644 $22,644 ($22,644) $0 001 General Fund 87870 - Contractual Serv Not Class $32,104 $95,000 $374,575 $2,060 $233,214 $736,953 ($736,953) $0 001 General Fund 87930 - City Membership ($1,051) ($641) ($1,692) $1,692 $0 001 General Fund 87940 - Mandated Program Costs $40,347 $40,347 ($40,347) $0 001 General Fund 3 Mat/Serv/Sup $50,261 $93,949 $524,397 $24,063 $407,571 $1,100,241 ($1,100,241) $0 001 General Fund 87640 - Vehicle Equipment Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 001 General Fund 87650 - Technical Services Maintenance $137,255 $24,883 $166,971 $153,482 $101,779 $584,370 ($584,370) $0 001 General Fund 87660 - Workers Comp Insurance $16,720 $3,020 $16,504 $18,830 $12,788 $67,862 $0 $67,862 001 General Fund 87680 - Unemployment Insurance $628 $113 $620 $707 $480 $2,548 $0 $2,548 001 General Fund 87740 - Vehicle Equipment Amortization $0 $0 $0 $0 001 General Fund 87840 - Insurance And Surety Bonds $23,401 $4,227 $23,099 $26,357 $17,898 $94,982 $0 $94,982 001 General Fund 5 Interfund Services $178,004 $32,243 $207,194 $199,376 $132,945 $749,762 ($584,370) $165,392 Subtotal $1,156,212 $289,046 $1,604,038 $1,295,765 $1,313,568 $5,658,629 ($1,114,955) $4,543,674 11 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - City Manager's Office
Adjustments for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Notes
Divisional Expenses $4,543,674
Productive Hours 23,300 [b]
Total $195
Full Cost Factors for Hourly Rate Buildup
Description Total Share Per Hour
Personnel $4,378,282 96% $188
Equipment $0 0% $0
Materials / Supplies $165,392 4% $7
Other Costs $0 0% $0
Overhead $0 0% $0
Total $4,543,674 100% $195
12 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - City Manager's Office
Information Below is for Use if City Desires to Use Positional Hourly Billing Rates Scenario 1: Uniform Assignment of Materials and Overhead Costs Per Hour Calculate Benefit Ratio
Salary Accounts $2,930,053
Benefit Accounts $1,448,229
Total 0.49
Calculation of Direct Hours Ratio (Billing Factor)
Description
Base Hrs
Per FTE
Adjust for
Typical Leave
Productive
Hours Direct Hours %
Direct Hours
Per FTE Notes
Hours 2,080 (216) 1,864 100% 1,864
Direct Hours Bill Factor (For Every $ of Salary Add this amount to account for Direct Hrs v. Total Hrs.) 1.12 Position
Top Step Hrly
[c] Benefits
Subtotal Labor
Costs
Adjust for
Direct Hours
Total Labor
Rate
Add: M'tls /
Supplies
Add:

Overhead
Total
Hourly Rate
Assistant to the City Manager $109 $54 $163 1.12 $182 $7 $0 $189 Assistant City Manager $161 $80 $241 1.12 $269 $7 $0 $276 Chief Operating Officer $186 $92 $277 1.12 $309 $7 $0 $316 City Manager $216 $107 $322 1.12 $360 $7 $0 $367
Communications and Outreach Manager $77 $38 $115 1.12 $129 $7 $0 $136 Communications Coordinator $58 $29 $86 1.12 $96 $7 $0 $104 Executive Assistant to the City Manager $66 $33 $99 1.12 $110 $7 $0 $117 Management Analyst $67 $33 $100 1.12 $112 $7 $0 $119
Office Specialist III $41 $20 $61 1.12 $69 $7 $0 $76
Senior Management Analyst $74 $36 $110 1.12 $123 $7 $0 $130 Staff Aide I $48 $23 $71 1.12 $79 $7 $0 $86
Scenario 2: Assignment of a Common Indirect Rate Factor that Can Be Applied to Base Hourly Wage Rate to Calculate Fully-Burdened Hourly Billing Rate by Position Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Billing Factor (Apply Factor to Top Step Salary for Positional Rates) Description FTE Hours Per FTE Total Hours
Salaries and
Wages
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier Notes
Total 12.50 2,080 26,000 $2,813,034 $108 $195 1.80
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Based on productive hours.
[c] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 13 ----------------
City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees City Manager Fees
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost of Service $276 $119 Cost Recovery Information
Fee Description
Asst
CM
Mgmt
Analyst Total
Asst
CM
Mgmt
Analyst
Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Notes
1 No-Fee Parade Permit (For Santa Clara non-profit
organizations)

1.00 3.00 4.00 $276 $357 $633 no fee 0% no fee 0% [a]
[a] Pursuant to Resolution No. 18-8606, no fee is charged. 14 Community Development Fees
15 City .of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Building
Position [a] FTE [a]
Total Hours
Per FTE [b]
Less:

Holiday &
Leave [c]
Productive
Hours Per
FTE
Total
Productive
Hours
Indirect
[d] Direct [d] Total
Total
Indirect
Hours
Total
Direct
Hours
Total
Hours
Total Salary
Top Step [g]
Assistant Building Official 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 100% 0% 100% 1,864 - 1,864 $102 Associate Planner 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $64 Building Official 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 100% 0% 100% 1,864 - 1,864 $113 Combination Inspector 8.00 2,080 216 1,864 14,912 20% 80% 100% 2,982 11,930 14,912 $65 Code Enforcement Technician 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $46 Customer Service Representative 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 100% 0% 100% 1,864 - 1,864 $42 Inspection Manager 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 60% 40% 100% 1,118 746 1,864 $97 Office Assistant 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 100% 0% 100% 1,864 - 1,864 $36 Office Specialist II 3.00 2,080 216 1,864 5,592 100% 0% 100% 5,592 - 5,592 $41 Office Specialist III 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 100% 0% 100% 1,864 - 1,864 $45 Management Analyst 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 100% 0% 100% 1,864 - 1,864 $67 Permit Center Supervisor 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 60% 40% 100% 1,118 746 1,864 $69 Permit Technician 5.00 2,080 216 1,864 9,320 20% 80% 100% 1,864 7,456 9,320 $46 Plan Review Manager 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 60% 40% 100% 1,118 746 1,864 $98 Plans Examiner 5.00 2,080 216 1,864 9,320 20% 80% 100% 1,864 7,456 9,320 $69 Senior Inspector 7.00 2,080 216 1,864 13,048 20% 80% 100% 2,610 10,438 13,048 $69 Senior Permit Technician 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $51 Senior Plans Examiner 4.00 2,080 216 1,864 7,456 20% 80% 100% 1,491 5,965 7,456 $72 Staff Analyst I 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 100% 0% 100% 1,864 - 1,864 $58 Subtotal - Directly Budgeted FTE 45.00 83,880 33,925 49,955 83,880 Adjust for: Community Development Director 0.25 2,080 216 1,864 466 100% 0% 100% 466 - 466 $143 Adjust for: Building Plan Check 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $64 Subtotal - Non-directly Budgeted FTE 1.25 2,330 839 1,491 2,330 Contract Svcs [a],[e] 8,538 10% 90% 100% 854 7,684 8,538 $1,468,482 Total 92,418 35,617 59,130 92,418
Total 38% 62% 100%
Hrly Rate for Contract Plan Chk Svc Total [f]
Level II $165
Level III $179
Average $172
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Based on 40 hour week * 52 weeks per year.
[c] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount assumes twelve days holiday, ten days vacation/personal leave, five days sick leave. [d] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates developed for this analysis. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount based on position and consultant experience working with similar municipalities. [e] Total hours calculated as: forecast expenses / average hourly rate for contract plan review services. [f] Amount based on January 2021 contractual service agreement entered into for qualified plan check and inspection services list. [g] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 16 r:::::::::::r,
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Building
FY 22/23 Forecast Expenses [a] Program 5532 5533 5534
Fund # Fund Desc Account Desc
Plan Rvw &
Prmt Field Inspect
Housing
Inspect Subtotal Adjustment Total Notes
155 Building Inspection Fund 87010 - Salary And Wages - Regular $3,161,337 $2,185,731 $20,379 $5,367,447 $0 $5,367,447 155 Building Inspection Fund 87011 - Salary Attrition and VTO ($23,769) ($22,358) ($197) ($46,324) $0 ($46,324) 155 Building Inspection Fund 87017 - Premium Pay $100 $0 $0 $100 $0 $100 155 Building Inspection Fund 87020 - Salary And Wages - As Needed $391,748 $0 $0 $391,748 $0 $391,748 155 Building Inspection Fund 87030 - S & W - O.T. Vacation Relief $32,137 $0 $0 $32,137 $0 $32,137 155 Building Inspection Fund 1 Salary Accounts $3,561,553 $2,163,373 $20,182 $5,745,108 $0 $5,745,108 155 Building Inspection Fund 87212 - PERS - Misc $1,105,545 $764,347 $7,127 $1,877,019 $0 $1,877,019 155 Building Inspection Fund 87221 - Medicare $47,410 $32,954 $307 $80,671 $0 $80,671 155 Building Inspection Fund 87222 - Social Security $186,841 $129,325 $854 $317,020 $0 $317,020 155 Building Inspection Fund 87223 - Social Security - OT $1,992 $0 $0 $1,992 $0 $1,992 155 Building Inspection Fund 87224 - Medicare OT $466 $0 $0 $466 $0 $466 155 Building Inspection Fund 87230 - Health Allocation $340,062 $200,805 $1,235 $542,102 $0 $542,102 155 Building Inspection Fund 87241 - Dental - City Paid $7,337 $4,425 $28 $11,790 $0 $11,790 155 Building Inspection Fund 87242 - Long Term Disability-City Paid $13,350 $8,783 $38 $22,171 $0 $22,171 155 Building Inspection Fund 87243 - Vision- City Paid $3,180 $1,920 $12 $5,112 $0 $5,112 155 Building Inspection Fund 87250 - Basic Life Insurance $1,257 $699 $12 $1,968 $0 $1,968 155 Building Inspection Fund 87271 - VEBA $16,050 $9,690 $60 $25,800 $0 $25,800 155 Building Inspection Fund 87272 - EAP $1,307 $791 $4 $2,102 $0 $2,102 155 Building Inspection Fund 87274 - Auto Allowance $8,400 $1,080 $120 $9,600 $0 $9,600 155 Building Inspection Fund 87275 - Mobile Phone Allowance $3,360 $1,344 $96 $4,800 $0 $4,800 155 Building Inspection Fund 87279 - Misc. Other Benefits $90 $2,415 $0 $2,505 $0 $2,505 155 Building Inspection Fund 87390 - OPEB $94,781 $57,218 $354 $152,353 $0 $152,353 155 Building Inspection Fund 2 Benefit Accounts $1,831,428 $1,215,796 $10,247 $3,057,471 $0 $3,057,471 155 Building Inspection Fund 87500 - Operating Supplies $89,446 $23,920 $0 $113,366 $0 $113,366 155 Building Inspection Fund 87825 - Conference, Travel and Training $20,694 $14,857 $530 $36,081 $0 $36,081 155 Building Inspection Fund 87870 - Contractual Serv Not Class $1,462,646 $5,836 $0 $1,468,482 $0 $1,468,482 155 Building Inspection Fund 3 Mat/Serv/Sup $1,572,786 $44,613 $530 $1,617,929 $0 $1,617,929 155 Building Inspection Fund 87640 - Vehicle Equipment Maintenance $0 $40,450 $0 $40,450 $0 $40,450 155 Building Inspection Fund 87650 - Technical Services Maintenance $272,010 $218,980 $0 $490,990 $0 $490,990 155 Building Inspection Fund 87660 - Workers Comp Insurance $53,879 $38,658 $357 $92,894 $0 $92,894 155 Building Inspection Fund 87680 - Unemployment Insurance $2,723 $1,939 $18 $4,680 $0 $4,680 155 Building Inspection Fund 87740 - Vehicle Equipment Amortization $0 $40,940 $0 $40,940 $0 $40,940 155 Building Inspection Fund 87840 - Insurance And Surety Bonds $100,769 $72,301 $668 $173,738 $0 $173,738 155 Building Inspection Fund 87994 - Services from Other Funds-CAP $546,244 $535,595 $58,151 $1,139,990 $0 $1,139,990 155 Building Inspection Fund 5 Interfund Services $975,625 $948,863 $59,194 $1,983,682 $0 $1,983,682 155 Building Inspection Fund 89950 - Trs Out - Miscellaneous $7,000 $0 $0 $7,000 $0 $7,000 155 Building Inspection Fund 89952 - Trs Out - General Fund $168,845 $0 $0 $168,845 $0 $168,845 155 Building Inspection Fund 89990 - Intra Trs Out - Miscellaneous $1,737 $0 $0 $1,737 $0 $1,737 155 Building Inspection Fund 9 Other Expenditures $177,582 $0 $0 $177,582 $0 $177,582 Subtotal $8,118,974 $4,372,645 $90,153 $12,581,772 $0 $12,581,772 17 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Building
Adjustments for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Statistical Information
Description Total Notes
Benefit Accounts Share of Divisional Salaries 57% [b]
Interfund Services Share of Divisional Salaries 37% [b] Support Costs Not Included Above
Description
Salary and
Wages Per
Hour Est. Benefit
Est. Interfund
Svcs Total Per Hour
Share to
Building Total Per Year Notes
Community Development Director $143 $81 $53 $276 25% $143,746 [c] Building Plan Check (e.g., Associate Planner) $64 $36 $24 $124 100% $256,897 [c],[d] Subtotal $400,643
Total Divisional Costs
Total $12,982,415
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Notes
Divisional Expenses $12,982,415
Direct Hours 59,130 [e]
Total $220
Full Cost Factors for Hourly Rate Buildup
Description Total Share Per Hour
Personnel $10,271,061 79% $174
Equipment $0 0% $0
Materials / Supplies $993,139 8% $17
Other Costs $0 0% $0
Overhead $1,718,215 13% $29
Total $12,982,415 100% $220
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Benefit and Interfund totals divided by Account 87010 - Salaries and Wages - Regular. [c] To account for support provided but not directly budgeted to Building. [d] For building plan check (e.g. , building plan check by Associate Planner). [e] See worksheet labeled: Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Building. 18 ~
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Building
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current Fee
Structure
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Fee
Structure
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note

MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT FEES
(Permit Issuance Fee is Included in Permit Fee (i.e., no add'l permit issuance fee collected)
1 A/C and/or Furnace - New Location 2.09 x $220 = $460 varies $460 100% 2 A/C and/or Furnace - Same Location 1.42 x $220 = $312 varies $312 100% 3 Water Heater - New or Replacement 1.77 x $220 = $388 varies $388 100% 4 Water Softener 1.42 x $220 = $312 varies $312 100%
5 Bathroom Remodel (like for like) 1.42 x $220 = $312 varies $312 100% 6 Residential Voluntary Foundation Seismic Retrofit 1.92 x $220 = $422 varies $422 100% 7 Pool Demo 1.42 x $220 = $312 varies $312 100%
8 Residential Reroof 3.34 x $220 = $734 varies $734 100%

ALL OTHER PERMIT FEES
9 Permit Issuance 0.42 x $220 = $92 $87 95% $92 100% $5 10 Technology Fee 3.37% percent of Bldg,
MPE, Plan Check
& Sign Fee

3.37% percent of Bldg,
MPE, Plan Check
& Sign Fee
$0
11 General Plan / Advanced Planning Surcharge 12.39% percent of Bldg Permit & Plan
Check Fee

12.39% percent of Bldg
Permit & Plan
Check Fee
$0
12 Building Conformance Fee Valuation x
$0.00032
Valuation x
$0.00032
3-B ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
13 Minimum Permit Fee 1.00 x $220 = $220 $209 95% $220 100% $11

SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE
14 New Buildings or Alterations
a) Commercial Buildings 0.0014 x $220 = $0.31 $0.31 per sq ft 99% $0.31 per SF 100% $0.00 b) Residential Buildings 0.0010 x $220 = $0.22 $0.22 per sq ft 102% $0.22 per SF 100% ($0.00) c) New garages, carports and accessory buildings 0.0004 x $220 = $0.09 $0.08 per sq ft 92% $0.09 per SF 100% $0.01 15 Private Swimming Pools 1.50 x $220 = $330 $330 100% $330 100% $0 16 Outdoor Events
a) For electric generators and electrically driven rides 1.50 x $220 = $330 $330 100% $330 100% $0 b) For mechanically driven rides and walk-through attractions or displays having electric lighting

1.50 x $220 = $330 $330 100% $330 100% $0
c) For a system of area and booth lighting 1.50 x $220 = $330 $330 100% $330 100% $0 17 Temporary Power Service
a) For a temporary service power pole or pedestal-mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances

1.50 x $220 = $330 $330 100% $330 100% $0
b) For a temporary distribution system and temp lighting and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative lights, Christmas tree sales lots, fireworks stands, etc.

1.50 x $220 = $330 $330 100% $330 100% $0
19 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Building
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current Fee
Structure
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Fee
Structure
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note

UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
18 Receptacle, Switch and Lighting Outlets
a) First 20 0.02 x $220 = $4 $3.19 each 87% $4 100% $0
b) Additional fixtures 0.01 x $220 = $3 $3.19 each 116% $3 100% ($0) 19 Lighting Fixtures
a) First 20 fixtures 0.02 x $220 = $4 $3.19 each 87% $4 100% $0 b) Additional fixtures 0.01 x $220 = $3 $3.19 each 116% $3 100% ($0) c) For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures 0.03 x $220 = $7 $7.47 each 102% $7 95% ($0) d) For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies 0.03 x $220 = $7 $7.47 each 102% $7 95% ($0) 20 Residential Appliances
a) For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets 0.10 x $220 = $22 $22 each 100% $22 100% $0 21 Power Apparatus
a) Up to and including 1 0.17 x $220 = $37 $36 each 98% $37 100% $1 b) Over 1 and not over 10 0.25 x $220 = $55 $55 each 100% $55 100% $0 c) Over 10 and not over 50 0.42 x $220 = $92 $92 each 100% $92 100% $0 d) Over 50 and not over 100 0.50 x $220 = $110 $110 each 100% $110 100% $0 e) Over 100 0.67 x $220 = $147 $146 each 100% $147 100% $1 22 Busways
a) For trolley and plug-in-type busways 0.42 x $220 = $92 $91 each 100 ft 99% $92 100% $1 23 Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees
a) Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplies from one branch circuit

0.42 x $220 = $92 $91 99% $92 100% $1
b) For additional branch circuits with For additional branch circuits with marquee

0.33 x $220 = $73 $73 100% $73 100% $0
24 Services
a) For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating, each

0.67 x $220 = $147 $146 each 100% $147 100% $1
b) For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1,000 amperes in rating

1.17 x $220 = $257 $256 each 100% $257 100% $1
c) For services over 600 volts or over 1,000 amperes in rating 1.75 x $220 = $385 $386 each 100% $385 100% ($1) 25 Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits, and Conductors
a) For electrical apparatus, conduits, and conductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is herein set forth

0.42 x $220 = $92 $91 99% $92 100% $1
3-C MECHANICAL PERMIT

NEW BUILDINGS
26 New Commercial buildings 0.0012 x $220 = $0.26 $0.26 per sq ft 100% $0.26 per SF 98% ($0.00) 27 New Residential buildings 0.0004 x $220 = $0.09 $0.08 per sq ft 92% $0.09 per SF 100% $0.01 20 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Building
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current Fee
Structure
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Fee
Structure
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note

UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
28 Furnaces
a) For installation or relocation of forced-air or gravity-type furnace, up to and including 100,000 Btu/h

1.25 x $220 = $275 $275 100% $275 100% $0
b) For installation or relocation or forced-air or gravity-type furnace, over 100,000 Btu/h

1.25 x $220 = $275 $275 100% $275 100% $0
c) For installation or relocation of each floor furnace 1.25 x $220 = $275 $275 100% $275 100% $0 d) For installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor-mounted unit

1.25 x $220 = $275 $275 100% $275 100% $0
29 Appliance Vents
a) For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent not included in an appliance permit

2.00 x $220 = $440 $440 100% $440 100% $0
30 Repairs or Additions
a) For the repair or, alteration of, or additional to each 2.00 x $220 = $440 $440 100% $440 100% $0 31 Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems
a) Up to and including 3 horsepower or up to and including 100,000 Btu/h

1.75 x $220 = $385 $386 100% $385 100% ($1)
b) Over 3 horsepower to and including 15 horsepower or Over 100,000 Btu/h to and including 500,000 Btu/h

2.00 x $220 = $440 $440 100% $440 100% $0
c) Over 15 to and including 30 horsepower or Over 500,000 to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h

2.17 x $220 = $477 $478 100% $477 100% ($1)
d) Over 30 to and including 50 horsepower or Over 1,000,000 to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h

2.42 x $220 = $532 $532 100% $532 100% $0
e) Over 50 horsepower or Over 1,750,000 Btu/h 2.67 x $220 = $587 $588 100% $587 100% ($1) 32 Air Handlers
a) Each unit up to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute 1.33 x $220 = $293 $293 100% $293 100% $0 b) Each unit Over 10,000 cfm 2.00 x $220 = $440 $440 100% $440 100% $0 33 Evaporative Coolers
a) For each evaporative cooler other than portable type 2.00 x $220 = $440 $440 100% $440 100% $0 34 Ventilation and Exhaust
a) For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct 0.42 x $220 = $92 $92 100% $92 100% $0 b) For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or airconditioning system authorized by a permit

0.75 x $220 = $165 $165 100% $165 100% $0
c) For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust

2.00 x $220 = $440 $440 100% $440 100% $0
35 Incinerators
a) For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type incinerator 1.00 x $220 = $220 $220 100% $220 100% $0 b) For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type incinerator

2.00 x $220 = $440 $440 100% $440 100% $0
36 Miscellaneous
a) For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical Code but not classified in other appliance categories

2.00 x $220 = $440 $440 100% $440 100% $0
21 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Building
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current Fee
Structure
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Fee
Structure
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note
3-C PLUMBING PERMIT FEES

NEW BUILDINGS
37 New Commercial buildings, per sq. ft. 0.0009 x $220 = $0.20 $0.19 98% $0.20 per SF 100% $0.00 38 New Residential buildings, per sq. ft. 0.0004 x $220 = $0.09 $0.08 92% $0.09 per SF 100% $0.01

UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
39 Fixtures and Vents
a) For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap 1.00 x $220 = $220 $220 100% $220 100% $0 b) For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture 1.00 x $220 = $220 $220 each fixture 100% $220 100% $0 40 Sewers, Disposal Systems and Interceptors
a) For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer 1.00 x $220 = $220 $220 100% $220 100% $0 b) For each cesspool 0.42 x $220 = $92 $91 99% $92 100% $1 c) For each private sewage disposal system 0.42 x $220 = $92 $91 99% $92 100% $1 d) For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor 1.00 x $220 = $220 $220 100% $220 100% $0 e) Rainwater systems 0.25 x $220 = $55 $54 per drain 98% $55 100% $1 41 Water Piping and Water Heaters
a) For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping and/or watertreating equipment

1.00 x $220 = $220 $220 100% $220 100% $0
b) For each water heater including vent 1.00 x $220 = $220 $220 100% $220 100% $0 42 Gas Piping Systems
a) For each gas piping system of one to five outlets 0.67 x $220 = $147 $146 100% $147 100% $1 b) For each additional outlet over five 0.03 x $220 = $6 $5 91% $6 100% $1 43 Lawn Sprinklers, Vacuum Breakers and Backflow Protection Devices a) For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter 1.00 x $220 = $220 $220 100% $220 100% $0 b) For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers or backflow protection i) 1 to 5 devices 0.42 x $220 = $92 $91 99% $92 100% $1 ii) Over 5 devices, each 0.08 x $220 = $18 $17 93% $18 98% $1 c) For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric-type vacuum breakers i) 2 in and smaller 1.00 x $220 = $220 $220 100% $220 100% $0 ii) Over 2 inches 1.00 x $220 = $220 $220 100% $220 100% $0 44 Swimming Pools
a) Public pool 3.00 x $220 = $660 $659 100% $660 100% $1 b) Public spa 2.50 x $220 = $550 $550 100% $550 100% $0 c) Private pool 2.50 x $220 = $550 $550 100% $550 100% $0 d) private spa 2.00 x $220 = $440 $440 100% $440 100% $0 45 Miscellaneous
a) For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical Code but not classified in other appliance categories equipment regulated by the Plumbing Code but not classified in other appliance categories

1.00 x $220 = $220 $220 100% $220 100% $0
22 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Building
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current Fee
Structure
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Fee
Structure
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note
3-G GRADING
46 PLAN REVIEW FEES
a) 50 cubic yards or less n/a n/a No Fee No Fee n/a
b) 51 to 100 cubic yards 1.50 x $220 = $330 $329 100% $330 100% $1 c) 101 to 1,000 cubic yards 4.00 x $220 = $880 $875 99% $880 100% $5 d) 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards 6.00 x $220 = $1,320 $1,312 99% $1,320 100% $8 e) 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards - base 10.00 x $220 = $2,200 $2,188 99% $2,200 100% $12 i) Each additional 10,000 cubic yards 0.44 x $220 = $98 $97 99% $98 100% $1 f) 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards - base 14.00 x $220 = $3,080 $3,063 99% $3,080 100% $17 i) Each additional 10,000 cubic yards 1.00 x $220 = $220 $219 100% $220 100% $1 g) 200,001 cubic yards or more - base 24.00 x $220 = $5,280 $5,252 99% $5,280 100% $28 i) Each additional 10,000 cubic yards 0.50 x $220 = $110 $110 100% $110 100% $0 3-H GRADING
47 PERMIT FEES
a) 100 cubic yards or less 2.00 x $220 = $440 $441 100% $440 100% ($1) b) 101 to 1,000 cubic yards - base 2.00 x $220 = $440 $441 100% $440 100% ($1) i) Each additional 100 cubic yards 0.33 x $220 = $73 $73 100% $73 100% $0 c) 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards - base 5.00 x $220 = $1,100 $1,106 101% $1,100 100% ($6) i) Each additional 1,000 cubic yards 0.22 x $220 = $49 $49 100% $49 100% $0 d) 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards - base 7.00 x $220 = $1,540 $1,547 100% $1,540 100% ($7) i) Each additional 10,000 cubic yards 0.89 x $220 = $196 $196 100% $196 100% $0 e) 100,001 cubic yards or more - base 15.00 x $220 = $3,300 $3,316 100% $3,300 100% ($16) i) Each additional 10,000 cubic yards 0.44 x $220 = $98 $98 100% $98 100% $0 3-I OTHER INSPECTIONS AND FEES
48 Inspections outside of normal business hours (per hour) (Min of 2 hours) 1.00 x $285 $285 $272 95% $285 100% $13 49 Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305.8 (per hour) 1.00 x $220 $220 $220 100% $220 100% $0 50 Inspections or plan review for which no fee is specifically indicated (per hour)

1.00 x $220 $220 $220 100% $220 100% $0
51 Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans (per hour)

1.00 x $220 $220 $218 99% $220 100% $2
52 For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections No Fee No Fee 53 Plan Review outside of normal business hours (per hour) (Min of 2 hours) 1.00 x $285 $285 $269 94% $285 100% $16 54 Phased Plan Check (for each phase) 25% of original
plan review fee
100% 25% of original
plan review fee
100%
55 Master Plan Fee 25% of plan
check fee
100% 25% of plan
check fee
100%
56 Alternate Materials & Methods Review (per hour) 1.00 x $220 $220 n/a $220 100% 23 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Building
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current Fee
Structure
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Fee
Structure
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note
57 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 4.75 x $220 $1,045 $1,015 97% $1,045 100% $30 58 Permit to Final (per trade)
(minimum of 1-hour per trade)

1.00 x $220 $220 $209 95% $220 100% $11
59 Replacement of Job Card 0.25 x $220 $55 $43 78% $55 100% $12 60 Residential Re-Roof 2.92 x $220 $642 $639 100% $642 100% $3 60 Application Extension 0.42 x $220 $92 $87 95% $92 100% $5 61 Permit Extension 0.42 x $220 $92 $87 95% $92 100% $5 62 Replacement Permit 0.42 x $220 $92 $87 95% $92 100% $5 63 Addressing (per hour - two hour minimum) 1.00 x $220 $220 $319 145% $220 100% ($99) 64 Plan Duplication of lost plan set (up to 20 pages) 0.42 x $220 $92 $87 95% $92 100% $5 65 Review and stamp transfer of lost plan set 0.42 x $220 $92 $87 95% $92 100% $5 66 Photovoltaic - Residential
a) 15KW or less $450 $450 $0
b) Per KW above 15 $15 $15 $0
67 Photovoltaic - Commercial
a) 50KW or less $1,000 $1,000 $0
b) Between 50KW and 250 KW (base) $1,000 $1,000 $0
i) Between 50KW and 250 KW (per KW) $7 $7 $0
c) Greater than 250 KW (base) $2,400 $2,400 $0
i) Greater than 250 KW (per KW) $5 $5 $0
68 Photovoltaic - Solar Thermal
a) 10kwth or less $450 $450 $0
b) Greater than 10kwth (Base) $450 $450 $0
i) Per kwth above 10kwth $15 $15 $0
24 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Building
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current Fee
Structure
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Fee
Structure
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note

SINGLE-FAMILY / DUPLEX / ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT

RESIDENTIAL SCALED PERMIT FEE

PLAN CHECK
69 Project Size
a) 1 to 250 sq. ft. 3.00 x $220 $660 $657 99% $660.00 100% $3 b) 251 to 1,000 sq. ft.
i) First 250 sq. ft. 3.00 x $220 $660 $657 99% $660.00 100% $3 ii) Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof 1.20 x $220 $264 $263 99% $264.00 100% $1 c) 1,001 to 3,000 sq. ft.
i) First 1,000 sq. ft. 12.00 x $220 $2,640 $2,626 99% $2,640.00 100% $14 ii) Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof 0.60 x $220 $132 $131 99% $132.00 100% $1 d) 3,001 to +
i) First 3,000 sq. ft. 24.00 x $220 $5,280 $5,252 99% $5,280.00 100% $28 ii) Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof 0.30 x $220 $66 $66 99% $66.00 100% $0

INSPECTION
70 Project Size
a) 1 to 250 sq. ft. 3.33 x $220 $733 $737 101% $732.60 100% ($4) b) 251 to 1,000 sq. ft.
i) First 250 sq. ft. 3.33 x $220 $733 $737 101% $732.60 100% ($4) ii) Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof 1.02 x $220 $225 $226 100% $224.99 100% ($1) c) 1,001 to 3,000 sq. ft.
i) First 1,000 sq. ft. 11.00 x $220 $2,420 $2,432 101% $2,420.00 100% ($12) ii) Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof 0.87 x $220 $191 $192 101% $190.63 100% ($1) d) 3,001 to +
i) First 3,000 sq. ft. 28.33 x $220 $6,233 $6,265 101% $6,232.60 100% ($33) ii) Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof 0.43 x $220 $95 $96 101% $95.32 100% ($1) 25 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Building
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current Fee
Structure
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Fee
Structure
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note

COMMERCIAL / MULTI-FAMILY /

INDUSTRIAL SCALED PERMIT FEE
71 PLAN CHECK
Project Valuation
a) $1 to $1,000 0.50 x $220 $110 $109 99% $110.00 100% $1 b) $1,001 to $10,000
i) First $1,000 0.50 x $220 $110 $109 99% $110.00 100% $1 ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.08 x $220 $18 $18 99% $18.33 100% $0 c) $10,001 to $75,000
i) First $10,000 1.25 x $220 $275 $274 99% $275.00 100% $1 ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.07 x $220 $16 $16 99% $16.08 100% $0 d) $75,001 to $150,000
i) First $75,000 6.00 x $220 $1,320 $1,313 99% $1,320.00 100% $7 ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.09 x $220 $21 $20 99% $20.53 100% $0 e) $150,001 to $750,000
i) First $150,000 13.00 x $220 $2,860 $2,845 99% $2,860.00 100% $15 ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.03 x $220 $7 $7 99% $7.15 100% $0 f) $750,001 to $3,000,000
i) First $750,000 32.50 x $220 $7,150 $7,113 99% $7,150.00 100% $37 ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.02 x $220 $5 $5 99% $5.04 100% $0 g) $3,000,001 to $10,000,000
i) First $3,000,000 84.00 x $220 $18,480 $18,384 99% $18,480.00 100% $96 ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.01 x $220 $3 $3 99% $2.95 100% $0 h) $10,000,001 to +
i) First $10,000,000 178.00 x $220 $39,160 $38,956 99% $39,160.00 100% $204 ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.01 x $220 $1 $1 99% $1.48 100% $0 26 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Building
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current Fee
Structure
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Fee
Structure
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note
72 INSPECTION PERMIT
Project Valuation
a) $1 to $1,000 0.50 x $220 $110 $92 84% $110.00 100% $18 b) $1,001 to $10,000
i) First $1,000 0.50 x $220 $110 $92 84% $110.00 100% $18 ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.17 x $220 $37 $39 106% $36.58 100% ($2) c) $10,001 to $75,000
i) First $10,000 2.00 x $220 $439 $441 101% $439.23 100% ($2) ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.09 x $220 $20 $18 89% $20.32 100% $2 d) $75,001 to $150,000
i) First $75,000 8.00 x $220 $1,760 $1,622 92% $1,760.00 100% $138 ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.11 x $220 $23 $23 98% $23.47 100% $0 e) $150,001 to $750,000
i) First $150,000 16.00 x $220 $3,520 $3,354 95% $3,520.00 100% $166 ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.04 x $220 $9 $10 114% $8.80 100% ($1) f) $750,001 to $3,000,000
i) First $750,000 40.00 x $220 $8,800 $9,398 107% $8,800.00 100% ($598) ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.02 x $220 $4 $4 102% $3.91 100% ($0) g) $3,000,001 to $10,000,000
i) First $3,000,000 80.00 x $220 $17,600 $18,427 105% $17,600.00 100% ($827) ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.02 x $220 $4 $4 102% $3.65 100% ($0) h) $10,000,001 to +
i) First $10,000,000 196.00 x $220 $43,120 $44,502 103% $43,120.00 100% ($1,382) ii) Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 0.01 x $220 $2 $2 102% $1.82 100% ($0) 73 Fee for Work Commencing Before Permit Issuance - In Addition to Regularly Applicable Base Fees
Equal to Permit
Fee
Equal to Permit
Fee
27 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Planning
Position [a] FTE [a]
Total Hours
Per FTE [b]
Less:

Holiday &
Leave [c]
Productive
Hours Per
FTE
Total
Productive
Hours
Indirect
[d] Direct [d] Total
Total
Indirect
Hours
Total
Direct
Hours
Total
Hours
Total Salary
Top Step [f]
Associate Planner 5.00 2,080 216 1,864 9,320 20% 80% 100% 1,864 7,456 9,320 $64 Code Enforcement Officer 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $58 Code Enforcement Technician 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 20% 80% 100% 746 2,982 3,728 $46 Development Review Officer 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $94 Director of Community Development 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 100% 0% 100% 1,864 - 1,864 $143 Office Specialist II 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 100% 0% 100% 3,728 - 3,728 $41 Office Specialist IV 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 100% 0% 100% 1,864 - 1,864 $48 Planning Manager 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 60% 40% 100% 1,118 746 1,864 $102 Principal Planner 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 20% 80% 100% 746 2,982 3,728 $87 Staff Analyst I 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $58 Senior Planner 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $72 Subtotal - Directly Budgeted FTE 18.00 33,552 13,421 20,131 33,552 Adjust for: Director of Community Development [e] (0.25) 2,080 216 1,864 (466) 100% 0% 100% (466) - (466) $143 Subtotal - Non-directly Budgeted FTE (0.25) (466) (466) - (466) Total 33,086 12,955 20,131 33,086
Total 39% 61% 100%
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[c] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount assumes twelve days holiday, ten days vacation/personal leave, five days sick leave.
[d] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates developed for purposes of this analysis. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount based on position and consultant experience working with similar municipalities.
[e] Adjustment to account for hours allocated to Building. [f] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. [b] Based on 40 hour week * 52 weeks per year.
28 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Planning
FY 22/23 Forecast Expenses [a] Program 5522 5523 5524 5525 Fund # Fund Desc Account Desc Dev Review
Advanced
Planning
Historical
Preservation
Code
Enforcement Subtotal Adjustment Total Notes
001 General Fund 87010 - Salary And Wages - Regular $978,496 $761,770 $345,987 $484,109 $2,570,362 $0 $2,570,362 001 General Fund 87011 - Salary Attrition and VTO ($8,923) ($7,493) ($3,954) ($4,976) ($25,346) $0 ($25,346) 001 General Fund 87017 - Premium Pay $1,117 $714 $1,573 $58 $3,462 $0 $3,462 001 General Fund 87020 - Salary And Wages - As Needed $60,700 $0 $0 $0 $60,700 $0 $60,700 001 General Fund 87030 - S & W - O.T. Vacation Relief $14,997 $8,570 $8,570 $5,356 $37,493 $0 $37,493 001 General Fund 87110 - Contra 870x0-Reimbd Sal & Wage ($13,147) $0 $0 $0 ($13,147) $13,147 $0 001 General Fund 1 Salary Accounts $1,033,240 $763,561 $352,176 $484,547 $2,633,524 $13,147 $2,646,671 001 General Fund 87212 - PERS - Misc $343,556 $273,365 $134,997 $169,315 $921,233 $0 $921,233 001 General Fund 87221 - Medicare $13,794 $11,759 $5,179 $7,297 $38,029 $0 $38,029 001 General Fund 87222 - Social Security $49,629 $41,200 $17,881 $27,738 $136,448 $0 $136,448 001 General Fund 87223 - Social Security - OT $929 $531 $531 $332 $2,323 $0 $2,323 001 General Fund 87224 - Medicare OT $217 $124 $124 $79 $544 $0 $544 001 General Fund 87230 - Health Allocation $77,472 $61,085 $30,159 $53,737 $222,453 $0 $222,453 001 General Fund 87241 - Dental - City Paid $1,727 $1,401 $648 $1,165 $4,941 $0 $4,941 001 General Fund 87242 - Long Term Disability-City Paid $3,201 $2,366 $1,144 $2,096 $8,807 $0 $8,807 001 General Fund 87243 - Vision- City Paid $741 $607 $280 $506 $2,134 $0 $2,134 001 General Fund 87250 - Basic Life Insurance $342 $381 $145 $200 $1,068 $0 $1,068 001 General Fund 87271 - VEBA $3,780 $3,060 $1,410 $2,550 $10,800 $0 $10,800 001 General Fund 87272 - EAP $302 $248 $113 $208 $871 $0 $871 001 General Fund 87274 - Auto Allowance $3,888 $6,000 $2,016 $1,536 $13,440 $0 $13,440 001 General Fund 87275 - Mobile Phone Allowance $1,296 $2,256 $720 $528 $4,800 $0 $4,800 001 General Fund 87390 - OPEB $22,316 $18,073 $8,329 $15,058 $63,776 $0 $63,776 001 General Fund 2 Benefit Accounts $523,190 $422,456 $203,676 $282,345 $1,431,667 $0 $1,431,667 001 General Fund 87500 - Operating Supplies $50,201 $3,498 $2,373 $1,698 $57,770 $0 $57,770 001 General Fund 87810 - Utilities Expenses $0 $0 $675 $0 $675 $0 $675 001 General Fund 87825 - Conference, Travel and Training $27,258 $0 $9,850 $1,696 $38,804 $0 $38,804 001 General Fund 87870 - Contractual Serv Not Class $87,833 $0 $518 $0 $88,351 ($88,351) $0 001 General Fund 87900 - Rent Expense $1,672 $0 $0 $0 $1,672 $0 $1,672 001 General Fund 3 Mat/Serv/Sup $166,964 $3,498 $13,416 $3,394 $187,272 ($88,351) $98,921 001 General Fund 87640 - Vehicle Equipment Maintenance $4,042 $0 $0 $0 $4,042 $0 $4,042 001 General Fund 87650 - Technical Services Maintenance $170,795 $36,464 $11,771 $41,268 $260,298 $0 $260,298 001 General Fund 87660 - Workers Comp Insurance $18,240 $13,954 $6,765 $11,187 $50,146 $0 $50,146 001 General Fund 87680 - Unemployment Insurance $915 $700 $339 $561 $2,515 $0 $2,515 001 General Fund 87740 - Vehicle Equipment Amortization $5,070 $0 $0 $0 $5,070 $0 $5,070 001 General Fund 87840 - Insurance And Surety Bonds $34,114 $26,097 $12,651 $20,921 $93,783 $0 $93,783 001 General Fund 5 Interfund Services $233,176 $77,215 $31,526 $73,937 $415,854 $0 $415,854 Subtotal $1,956,570 $1,266,730 $600,794 $844,223 $4,668,317 ($75,204) $4,593,113 29 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Planning
Adjustments for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
Dev
Review
Advanced
Planning
Historical
Preservation
Code
Enforcement Subtotal Adjustment Total Notes
Allocation of Citywide Overhead - Services from Other Funds CAP Plan Amount $1,009,140 $71,213 $35,106 $90,855 $1,206,314 $0 $1,206,314 [b] Adjustment for FY 2022/23 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% [c]
Allocation of Citywide Overhead - Services from Other Funds CAP Plan Amount $1,029,323 $72,637 $35,808 $92,672 $1,230,440 $0 $1,230,440 Support Costs Assigned to Building
Description
Dev
Review
Advanced
Planning
Historical
Preservation
Code
Enforcement Subtotal Adjustment Total Notes
Community Development Director ($143,746) $0 $0 $0 ($143,746) $ - ($143,746) [d] Subtotal ($143,746) $0 $0 $0 ($143,746) $0 ($143,746)
Total Divisional Costs
Total $2,842,147 $1,339,367 $636,602 $936,895 $5,755,011 ($75,204) $5,679,807 Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Notes
Divisional Expenses $5,679,807
Direct Hours 20,131 [e]
Total $282
Full Cost Factors for Hourly Rate Buildup
Description Total Share Per Hour
Personnel $3,934,592 69% $195
Equipment $0 0% $0
Materials / Supplies $514,775 9% $26
Other Costs $0 0% $0
Overhead $1,230,440 22% $61
Total $5,679,807 100% $282
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Source: Citywide Cost Allocation Plan.
[c] Aligns to City's typical budgeting practice of increasing cost allocation amounts by 2% for second year of adopted budget. [d] To account for support provided but not directly budgeted to Building. See Building hourly rate calculation worksheet. [e] See worksheet labeled: Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Planning. 30 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Planning
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current
Cost Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Fee Unit
Proposed Fee
Change %
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note
Rezoning
1 Rezone single lot to R1 40.00 x $282 = $11,280 $8,338 74% $8,755 78% per application 5% $417 2 Non Planned Development (PD) 75.00 x $282 = $21,150 $18,930 90% $19,877 94% 5% $947 3 Planned Development (PD) 200.00 x $282 = $56,400 $54,215 96% $56,400 100% 4% $2,185 4 Planned Development Master Community (PD-MC) 240.00 x $282 = $67,680 $65,058 96% $67,680 100% 4% $2,622 5 Development Area Plan Related to a PD-MC Rezoning 130.00 x $282 = $36,660 $35,240 96% $36,660 100% 4% $1,420 6 Zoning Code Text Amendment 90.00 x $282 = $25,380 $24,397 96% $25,380 100% per application 4% $983 7 Variance - Single Family 60.00 x $282 = $16,920 $3,187 19% $3,346 20% per application 5% $159 8 Variance - All Others 60.00 x $282 = $16,920 $9,473 56% $9,947 59% per application 5% $474 Zoning Clearance and Verification
9 Zoning Clearance for Home Occupancy 1.00 x $282 = $282 n/a n/a $282 100% 10 Zoning Clearance for Live Entertainment and Outdoor Dining (up to 24 seats)

1.00 x $282 = $282 n/a n/a $282 100%
11 Zoning Clearance - Other Non-Single Family 4.00 x $282 = $1,128 n/a n/a $1,128 100% Minor Modifications
12 Single Family 2.00 x $282 = $564 $542 96% $564 100% 4% $22 13 All Others 5.00 x $282 = $1,410 $1,355 96% $1,410 100% 4% $55 14 Off-Site Parking Permit (Citywide) 5.00 x $282 = $1,410 $1,355 96% $1,410 100% 4% $55 15 Off-Site Parking Permit (Events North of 101) 5.00 x $282 = $1,410 $1,355 96% $1,410 100% per permit / per year 4% $55 16 Off-Site Parking Facilities (Events North of 101) $6.13 $6.13 per space / per event 0% $0 Use Permits
17 Use Permit - Standard 80.00 x $282 = $22,560 $13,251 59% $13,914 62% per application 5% $663 18 Use Permit - Minor 40.00 x $282 = $11,280 $5,725 51% $6,011 53% per application 5% $286 19 Special Permit - Council Approval 10.00 x $282 = $2,820 $2,710 96% $2,820 100% per application 4% $110 20 Special Permit - Non Profit 10.00 x $282 = $2,820 $254 9% $267 9% 5% $13 21 Special Permit - Admin. Approval 5.00 x $282 = $1,410 $1,355 96% $1,410 100% 4% $55 Maps
22 4 or Fewer Lots 60.00 x $282 = $16,920 $16,264 96% $16,920 100% 4% $656 23 5 or More Lots 80.00 x $282 = $22,560 $21,686 96% $22,560 100% 4% $874 24 Lot Line Adjustment 20.00 x $282 = $5,640 $5,422 96% $5,640 100% 4% $218 Appeals
25 From Non-Applicant Resident 80.00 x $282 = $22,560 $477 2% $500 2% per request 5% $23 26 All Others (Including Applicant) 80.00 x $282 = $22,560 $9,543 42% $10,020 44% 5% $477 31 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Planning
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current
Cost Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Fee Unit
Proposed Fee
Change %
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note
Reposting of Public Notification
27 Single Family 4.00 x $282 = $1,128 $119 11% $125 11% per application 5% $6 28 Non-Single Family 4.00 x $282 = $1,128 $1,084 96% $1,128 100% per application 4% $44 29 Re-Noticing in Newspaper Actual Cost 100% Actual Cost 100% 30 Annexation of territory to City of Santa Clara 140.00 x $282 = $39,480 $37,950 96% $39,480 100% per application 4% $1,530 Architectural Review
31 Over the Counter 0.50 x $282 = $141 $0 0% $0 0% $0
32 Single Family 40.00 x $282 = $11,280 $893 8% $938 8% 5% $45 33 New development - Non-SFR 120.00 x $282 = $33,840 $32,529 96% $33,840 100% 4% $1,311 34 SB 9 Review 6.00 x $282 = $1,692 n/a n/a $1,692 100% 35 SB 35 Review 80.00 x $282 = $22,560 n/a n/a $22,560 100% 36 Design Consultant Review Consultant Cost
plus Citywide
Overhead
100% Consultant Cost
plus Citywide
Overhead
Environmental Review
37 City review of Draft EIR and preparation of Final EIR 120.00 x $282 = $33,840 $32,529 96% $33,840 100% per application 4% $1,311 38 City review of Supplemental EIR/Final EIR 60.00 x $282 = $16,920 $16,264 96% $16,920 100% 4% $656 39 City review or preparation of Initial Study/MND and Negative Declaration

80.00 x $282 = $22,560 $21,686 96% $22,560 100% per application 4% $874 40 Exemption 3.00 x $282 = $846 $813 96% $846 100% 4% $33 41 Exemption (SFR or Paperless) 0.50 x $282 = $141 $0 0% $0 0% $0 42 Recordation of Exemption 2.00 x $282 = $564 $542 96% $564 100% 4% $22 43 AB 32 Tribal Consultation 3.00 x $282 = $846 n/a n/a $846 100% 44 Re-Use of Prior Environmental Determination 6.00 x $282 = $1,692 $1,627 96% $1,692 100% 4% $65 45 Addendum to Prior Environmental Determination 16.00 x $282 = $4,512 $4,336 96% $4,512 100% 4% $176 46 General plan amendment Single Family 40.00 x $282 = $11,280 $2,710 24% $2,846 25% 5% $136 47 General plan amendment Up to one acre 80.00 x $282 = $22,560 $21,686 96% $22,560 100% per application 4% $874 48 General plan amendment One to Five acres 120.00 x $282 = $33,840 $32,529 96% $33,840 100% 4% $1,311 49 General plan amendment Over Five acre 140.00 x $282 = $39,480 $37,950 96% $39,480 100% 4% $1,530 50 Development Agreement 120.00 x $282 = $33,840 $32,529 96% $33,840 100% per application 4% $1,311 51 Amendment or Cancellation of Development Agreement 40.00 x $282 = $11,280 $10,844 96% $11,280 100% per application 4% $436 52 Development Agreement Negotiations Actual Cost 100% Actual Cost 100% 53 Certificate of Compliance 8.00 x $282 = $2,256 $2,169 96% $2,256 100% per certificate 4% $87 32 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Planning
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current
Cost Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Fee Unit
Proposed Fee
Change %
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note
Signs
54 Sign Permit Fees (attached or ground) for first sign 2.00 x $282 = $564 $317 56% $333 59% per application 5% $16 55 Temporary Sign Permit/Street Banner (pursuant to Zoning Ord. Sec. 40-27) good for 60 days; or each additional sign under a Sign Permit application

0.50 x $282 = $141 $78 55% $82 58% per application 5% $4 56 Temporary Sign Removal Fees 0.50 x $282 = $141 $135 96% $141 100% per sign 4% $6 57 Master Sign Program 15.00 x $282 = $4,230 $4,066 96% $4,230 100% 4% $164 58 Mills Act Application 40.00 x $282 = $11,280 $7,694 68% $8,079 72% per application 5% $385 Pre- Application
59 Single Family 8.00 x $282 = $2,256 $476 21% $500 22% 5% $24 60 Planning Review 16.00 x $282 = $4,512 $3,179 70% $3,338 74% 5% $159 61 Project Clearance Committee 20.00 x $282 = $5,640 $5,422 96% $5,640 100% 4% $218 62 Flood Zone Verification 1.00 x $282 = $282 $271 96% $282 100% 4% $11 63 Zoning Verification 3.00 x $282 = $846 $463 55% $486 57% 5% $23 Historical & Landmarks
64 Single Family 40.00 x $282 = $11,280 $893 8% $938 8% 5% $45 65 All Others 40.00 x $282 = $11,280 $10,844 96% $11,280 100% 4% $436 66 Stormwater Management Plan Review 3.00 x $282 = $846 $813 96% $846 100% 4% $33 67 Minor Amendment to Approved Projects 3.00 x $282 = $846 $813 96% $846 100% 4% $33 68 ABC Review/Verification 2.00 x $282 = $564 $542 96% $564 100% 4% $22 69 Tree Removal Permit - Single Family Residence 2.00 x $282 = $564 n/a $282 50% 70 Tree Removal Permit - All Others 2.00 x $282 = $564 n/a $564 100% 71 Heritage Tree Removal 8.00 x $282 = $2,256 $758 34% $796 35% 5% $38 72 Non-Historical Referral to Historical and Landmarks
Commission - Standard

20.00 x $282 = $5,640 $477 8% $501 9% 5% $24
73 Non-Historical Referral to Historical and Landmarks
Commission - Comprehensive

40.00 x $282 = $11,280 $893 8% $938 8% 5% $45
74 Contract Administration Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost 33 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Planning
# Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current
Cost Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Fee Unit
Proposed Fee
Change %
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note
Time Extensions
75 Entitlement Extension 50% of application
fee
varies 50% of application
fee
varies varies
76 Processing Time Extension 25% of application
fee
varies 25% of application
fee
varies varies
Re-Inspection Services
77 Code Enforcement Re-Inspection Fee 1.50 x $177 = $266 n/a $266 100% Significant Property Alteration
78 Major - Single Family 40.00 x $282 = $11,280 $893 8% $938 8% 5% $45 79 Major - Other 40.00 x $282 = $11,280 $10,844 96% $11,280 100% 4% $436 80 Minor - Single Family 30.00 x $282 = $8,460 $596 7% $626 7% 5% $30 81 Minor - Other 30.00 x $282 = $8,460 $1,893 22% $1,988 23% 5% $95 Specific Plan Fee - Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP)
82 Phase I Developers $21,755 $22,678 per acre 4% $923
83 Phase II Developers $13,912 $14,503 per acre 4% $590 84 Specific Plan Fee - Tasman East Specific Plan Area (TESP) $275 $287 per unit 4% $12 85 Hourly Billing Rate for Services Provided But Not Otherwise Listed

1.00 x $282 = $282 $282 100% $282
34 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Housing and Community Services Position [a] FTE [a]
Total Hours
Per FTE [b]
Less:

Holiday &
Leave [c]
Productive
Hours Per
FTE
Total
Productive
Hours
Indirect
[d] Direct [d] Total
Total
Indirect
Hours
Total
Direct
Hours
Total
Hours
Total Salary
Top Step [e] Annual Salary
Housing Division Manager 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 60% 40% 100% 1,118 746 1,864 $97 $202,717 Housing Development Officer 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $77 $159,182 Housing Inspector 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $62 $129,459 Management Analyst 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 20% 80% 100% 746 2,982 3,728 $67 $278,803 Office Specialist III 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 60% 40% 100% 1,118 746 1,864 $45 $94,099 Staff Aide I 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $48 $98,842 Staff Analyst I 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $58 $120,370 Staff Analyst II 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $61 $126,464 Total 9.00 16,776 4,846 11,930 16,776 $1,209,936
Total 29% 71% 100%
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Based on 40 hour week * 52 weeks per year.
[c] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount assumes twelve days holiday, ten days vacation/personal leave, five days sick leave.
[d] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates developed for purposes of this analysis. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount based on position and consultant experience working with similar municipalities.
[e] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 35 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Housing and Community Services FY 22/23 Forecast Expenses [a] Program 5542 5543 5545 5546 5547 5548 Fund # Fund Desc Account Desc Comm Svcs Comm Svcs
Comm Svc -
Aff H'sng Housing Auth
Comm Dev -
Aff H'sng
Comm Dev -
H'sng S'csr Subtotal Adjust Total Notes
All All 87010 - Salary And Wages - Regular $291,977 $331,318 $255,395 $87,963 $167,101 $205,610 $1,339,364 $0 $1,339,364 All All 87011 - Salary Attrition and VTO $0 $0 ($8,847) $0 $0 $0 ($8,847) $0 ($8,847) All All 87017 - Premium Pay $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
All All 87020 - Salary And Wages - As Needed $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,420 $25,709 $77,129 $0 $77,129 All All 87030 - S & W - O.T. Vacation Relief $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 All All 87110 - Contra 870x0-Reimbd Sal & Wage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 All All 87410 - Contra 872xx-Reimbd Benefits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 All All 1 Salary Accounts $291,977 $331,318 $246,548 $87,963 $218,521 $231,319 $1,407,646 $0 $1,407,646 All All 87212 - PERS - Misc $102,107 $54,968 $89,311 $30,761 $58,435 $71,901 $407,483 $0 $407,483 All All 87221 - Medicare $4,427 $2,394 $3,873 $1,317 $2,573 $3,162 $17,746 $0 $17,746 All All 87222 - Social Security $17,125 $10,094 $15,431 $4,824 $9,520 $11,943 $68,937 $0 $68,937 All All 87230 - Health Allocation $26,437 $14,636 $28,910 $8,373 $14,732 $19,106 $112,194 $0 $112,194 All All 87241 - Dental - City Paid $576 $329 $630 $178 $329 $427 $2,469 $0 $2,469 All All 87242 - Long Term Disability-City Paid $855 $688 $1,096 $286 $450 $619 $3,994 $0 $3,994 All All 87243 - Vision- City Paid $248 $142 $270 $77 $142 $184 $1,063 $0 $1,063 All All 87250 - Basic Life Insurance $185 $43 $121 $53 $119 $139 $660 $0 $660 All All 87271 - VEBA $1,260 $720 $1,380 $390 $720 $930 $5,400 $0 $5,400 All All 87272 - EAP $103 $58 $112 $32 $58 $74 $437 $0 $437 All All 87274 - Auto Allowance $3,120 $1,080 $840 $2,160 $2,400 $9,600 $0 $9,600 All All 87275 - Mobile Phone Allowance $1,248 $432 $336 $864 $960 $3,840 $0 $3,840 All All 87279 - Misc. Other Benefits $0 ($174,134) $0 $0 $0 $0 ($174,134) $0 ($174,134) All All 87390 - OPEB $7,440 $4,251 $8,147 $2,303 $4,251 $5,492 $31,884 $0 $31,884 All All 2 Benefit Accounts $165,131 ($85,811) $150,793 $49,770 $94,353 $117,337 $491,573 $0 $491,573 All All 87500 - Operating Supplies $0 $0 $10,612 $600 $2,500 $2,500 $16,212 $0 $16,212 All All 87825 - Conference, Travel and Training $0 $0 $29,183 $0 $0 $0 $29,183 $0 $29,183 All All 87830 - Training $0 $0 ($10,637) $0 $0 $0 ($10,637) $0 ($10,637) All All 87870 - Contractual Serv Not Class $0 $0 $140,942 $130,000 $807,286 $558,030 $1,636,258 ($1,636,258) $0 All All 87900 - Rent Expense $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 All All 3 Mat/Serv/Sup $0 $0 $170,100 $130,600 $809,786 $560,530 $1,671,016 ($1,636,258) $34,758 All All 87640 - Vehicle Equipment Maintenance $0 $0 $5,023 $0 $0 $0 $5,023 $0 $5,023 All All 87650 - Technical Services Maintenance $0 $0 $2,402 $0 $0 $0 $2,402 $0 $2,402 All All 87660 - Workers Comp Insurance $0 $0 $4,983 $0 $0 $0 $4,983 $0 $4,983 All All 87680 - Unemployment Insurance $296 $165 $250 $78 $170 $182 $1,141 $0 $1,141 All All 87740 - Vehicle Equipment Amortization $0 $0 $5,151 $0 $0 $0 $5,151 $0 $5,151 All All 87840 - Insurance And Surety Bonds $0 $0 $9,321 $0 $0 $0 $9,321 $0 $9,321 All All 87994 - Services from Other Funds - CAP $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,548 $22,704 $47,252 $0 $47,252 All All 5 Interfund Services $296 $165 $27,130 $78 $24,718 $22,886 $75,273 $0 $75,273 Subtotal $457,404 $245,672 $594,571 $268,411 $1,147,378 $932,072 $3,645,508 ($1,636,258) $2,009,250 36 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Housing and Community Services Adjustments for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description Comm Svcs Comm Svcs
Comm Svc -
Aff H'sng Housing Auth
Comm Dev -
Aff H'sng
Comm Dev -
H'sng S'csr Subtotal Adjust Total Notes
Allocation of Citywide Overhead - Services from Other Funds CAP Plan Amount $23,310 $44,226 $144,805 $3,144 $215,485 $0 $215,485 [b] Adjustment for FY 2022/23 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% [c] Allocation of Citywide Overhead - Services from Other Funds CAP Plan Amount $23,776 $45,110 $147,702 $3,207 $0 $0 $219,794 $0 $219,794 Total Divisional Costs
Total $481,180 $290,782 $742,273 $271,618 $1,147,378 $932,072 $3,865,302 ($1,636,258) $2,229,044 Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Notes
Divisional Expenses $2,229,044
Direct Hours 11,930 [d]
Total $187
Full Cost Factors for Hourly Rate Buildup
Description Total Share Per Hour
Personnel $1,899,219 85% $159
Equipment $0 0% $0
Materials / Supplies $62,779 3% $5
Other Costs $0 0% $0
Overhead $267,046 12% $22
Total $2,229,044 100% $187
37 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Housing and Community Services Information Below is for Use if City Desires to Use Positional Hourly Billing Rates Scenario 1: Uniform Assignment of Materials and Overhead Costs Per Hour Calculate Benefit Ratio
Salary Accounts $1,407,646
Benefit Accounts $491,573
Total 0.35
Calculation of Direct Hours Ratio (Billing Factor)
Description
Base Hrs
Per FTE
Adjust for
Typical Leave
Productive
Hours Direct Hours %
Direct Hours
Per FTE Notes
Hours 2,080 (216) 1,864 71% 1,326
Direct Hours Bill Factor (For Every $ of Salary Add this amount to account for Direct Hrs v. Total Hrs.) 1.57 Position
Top Step Hrly
[e] Benefits
Subtotal Labor
Costs
Adjust for
Direct Hours
Total Labor
Rate
Add: M'tls /
Supplies
Add:

Overhead
Total
Hourly Rate
Housing Division Manager $97 $34 $131 1.57 $206 $5 $22 $234 Housing Development Officer $77 $27 $103 1.57 $162 $5 $22 $190 Housing Inspector $62 $22 $84 1.57 $132 $5 $22 $159
Management Analyst $67 $23 $90 1.57 $142 $5 $22 $170
Office Specialist III $45 $16 $61 1.57 $96 $5 $22 $123
Staff Aide I $48 $17 $64 1.57 $101 $5 $22 $128
Staff Analyst I $58 $20 $78 1.57 $123 $5 $22 $150
Staff Analyst II $61 $21 $82 1.57 $129 $5 $22 $156
Scenario 2: Assignment of a Common Indirect Rate Factor that Can Be Applied to Base Hourly Wage Rate to Calculate Fully-Burdened Hourly Billing Rate by Position Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Billing Factor (Apply Factor to Top Step Salary for Positional Rates) Description FTE Hours Per FTE Total Hours
Salaries and
Wages
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier Notes
Total 9.00 2,080 18,720 $1,209,936 $65 $187 2.89
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Source: Citywide Cost Allocation Plan.
[c] Aligns to City's typical budgeting practice of increasing cost allocation amounts by 2% for second year of adopted budget. [d] See worksheet labeled: Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Housing and Community Services. [e] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 38 ----------------
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Housing and Community Services # Fee Description Total Hours
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Cost of
Service
Current
Fee
Current
Cost Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Fee Unit
Proposed Fee
Change %
Proposed Fee
Change $ Note
1 Neighborhood Conservation Improvement Program (NCIP) Loan Application Fee

5.00 x $187 = $935 $1,029 110% $935 100% -9% ($94)
2 Residential Loan Refinance / Subordinations all programs 9.00 x $187 = $1,683 $1,131 67% $1,683 100% 49% $552 3 Multi-Family (MF) Loan Subordination Request Review Fee 21.00 x $187 = $3,927 $3,708 94% $3,927 100% 6% $219 4 Loan Demand Payoff Fee - NCIP 6.50 x $187 = $1,216 $1,153 95% $1,216 100% 5% $63 5 Loan Demand Payoff Fee - FTHB & BMP 6.50 x $187 = $1,216 $1,065 88% $1,216 100% 14% $151 6 Loan Demand Payoff Fee All Programs for walk-ins 5.00 x $187 = $935 $780 83% $935 100% 20% $155 7 Multi-Family Monitoring Fee 1.00 x $187 = $187 $119 64% $122 65% per unit 3% $3 8 AHA Affordable Housing Agreements - For Sale 21.50 x $187 = $4,021 $3,771 94% $4,021 100% per agreement 7% $250 9 Affordable Housing Application Fee $50 100% $50 100% per application 0% $0 9 AHA Affordable Housing Agreement -MF For Rental 30.00 x $187 = $5,610 $5,113 91% $5,610 100% per agreement 10% $497 10 AHA Affordable Housing Agreement Amendments 11.00 x $187 = $2,057 $1,990 97% $2,057 100% per agreement 3% $67 11 Loan Demand Payoff Fee Recalculation 0.50 x $187 = $94 $91 97% $94 100% 3% $3 12 Development Impact Fees
a) Affordable Housing Fees - For Sale Residential
i) Single Family Home [a] [a]
ii) Townhome [a] [a]
iii) Condominium [a] [a]
b) Affordable Housing Fees - Rental Residential (Any Tenure Type)
[a] [a]
c) Affordable Housing Fees - Non-Residential Projects
i) Retail < 5,000 sq ft No Fee No Fee per square foot
ii) Retail ≥ 5,000 sq ft $5.56 $5.56 per square foot
iii) Hotel $5.56 $5.56 per square foot
iv) Office < 20,000 sq ft $11.11 $11.11 per square foot v) Office ≥ 20,000 sq ft $22.22 $22.22 per square foot
vi) Other Commercial $5.56 $5.56 per square foot
vii) Light Industrial < 20,000 sq ft $5.56 $5.56 per square foot viii) Light Industrial ≥20,000 sq ft $11.11 $11.11 per square foot ix) Low-Intensity Uses $2.22 $2.22 per square foot
[a] Fees shall be equal to the difference between the unrestricted appraised market value ("Initial Market Value") of the unit and the Affordable Sales Price of the unit, multiplied by the fractional amount due. The Initial Market Value of the last unit sold shall be the basis for calculating the in-lieu fee.
39 Electric (SVP) Fees
40 City .of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost Allocation - Electric (SVP) - Department Administration FY 22/23 Forecast Expenses [a] Program 1316
Fund # Fund Desc Account Desc Admin Svcs Adjustment Total Notes 091 Electric Utility 87010 - Salary And Wages - Regular $2,260,308 $0 $2,260,308 091 Electric Utility 87011 - Salary Attrition and VTO ($896,100) $0 ($896,100) 091 Electric Utility 87030 - S & W - O.T. Vacation Relief $11,000 $0 $11,000 091 Electric Utility 87090 - Separation Payouts $300,000 $0 $300,000 091 Electric Utility 1 Salary Accounts $1,675,208 $0 $1,675,208 091 Electric Utility 87212 - PERS - Misc $790,429 $0 $790,429 091 Electric Utility 87221 - Medicare $33,611 $0 $33,611 091 Electric Utility 87222 - Social Security $77,745 $0 $77,745 091 Electric Utility 87223 - Social Security - OT $682 $0 $682 091 Electric Utility 87224 - Medicare OT $1,595 $0 $1,595 091 Electric Utility 87230 - Health Allocation $127,470 $0 $127,470 091 Electric Utility 87241 - Dental - City Paid $2,745 $0 $2,745 091 Electric Utility 87242 - Long Term Disability-City Paid $4,428 $0 $4,428 091 Electric Utility 87243 - Vision- City Paid $1,185 $0 $1,185 091 Electric Utility 87250 - Basic Life Insurance $864 $0 $864 091 Electric Utility 87260 - Meal Allowance $196 $0 $196 091 Electric Utility 87271 - VEBA $6,000 $0 $6,000
091 Electric Utility 87272 - EAP $485 $0 $485
091 Electric Utility 87274 - Auto Allowance $19,680 $0 $19,680 091 Electric Utility 87275 - Mobile Phone Allowance $3,840 $0 $3,840 091 Electric Utility 87279 - Misc. Other Benefits $111,654 $0 $111,654 091 Electric Utility 87390 - OPEB $35,430 $0 $35,430
091 Electric Utility 2 Benefit Accounts $1,218,039 $0 $1,218,039 091 Electric Utility 87500 - Operating Supplies $100,000 ($100,000) $0 091 Electric Utility 87550 - Veh Operating Supplies & Mtce $1,000 ($1,000) $0 091 Electric Utility 87600 - Maintenance $55,000 ($55,000) $0 091 Electric Utility 87710 - Adver And Community Promotion $175,000 ($175,000) $0 091 Electric Utility 87720 - Misc Rec Pur Install & Service $5,000 ($5,000) $0 091 Electric Utility 87800 - Miscellaneous Serv & Supplies $44,800 ($44,800) $0 091 Electric Utility 87802 - Misc Fee-Pension Rate Stab Trust $19,800 ($19,800) $0 091 Electric Utility 87810 - Utilities Expenses $335,100 ($335,100) $0 091 Electric Utility 87825 - Conference, Travel and Training $68,000 ($68,000) $0 091 Electric Utility 87870 - Contractual Serv Not Class $744,798 ($744,798) $0 091 Electric Utility 87900 - Rent Expense $742,600 ($742,600) $0 091 Electric Utility 87930 - City Membership $340,000 ($340,000) $0 091 Electric Utility 87940 - Mandated Program Costs $0 $0 $0 091 Electric Utility 3 Mat/Serv/Sup $2,631,098 ($2,631,098) $0 091 Electric Utility 87640 - Vehicle Equipment Maintenance $587,555 $0 $587,555 091 Electric Utility 87650 - Technical Services Maintenance $1,334,582 $0 $1,334,582 091 Electric Utility 87660 - Workers Comp Insurance $44,141 $0 $44,141 091 Electric Utility 87680 - Unemployment Insurance $2,007 $0 $2,007 091 Electric Utility 87740 - Vehicle Equipment Amortization $503,734 $0 $503,734 091 Electric Utility 87750 - Communi Equipment Amortization $74,630 $0 $74,630 091 Electric Utility 87840 - Insurance And Surety Bonds $218,958 $0 $218,958 091 Electric Utility 87994 - Services from Other Funds-CAP $8,070,333 $0 $8,070,333 091 Electric Utility 5 Interfund Services $10,835,940 $0 $10,835,940 Subtotal $16,360,285 ($2,631,098) $13,729,187
41 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost Allocation - Electric (SVP) - Department Administration Allocation to Direct Service Divisions
Description Subtotal Adjustment Total Share Notes
Administration 10.00 (10.00) 0.00 0%
Business Services 18.00 0.00 18.00 10%
Resource Planning and Engagement 20.00 0.00 20.00 11%
Customer Development and Project Management 50.00 0.00 50.00 27% Utility Operations 100.00 0.00 100.00 53%
Total 198.00 (10.00) 188.00 100%
Allocation to Direct Service Divisions
Description Total Notes
Administration $0
Business Services $1,314,497
Resource Planning and Engagement $1,460,552
Customer Development and Project Management $3,651,380
Utility Operations $7,302,759
Total $13,729,187
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
42 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Electric (SVP)
Position [a] FTE [a]
Total Hours
Per FTE [b]
Less:

Holiday &
Leave [c]
Productive
Hours Per
FTE
Total
Productive
Hours
Indirect
[d] Direct [d] Total
Total
Indirect
Hours
Total
Direct
Hours
Total
Hours
Total Salary
Top Step [e] Annual Salary
Database Administrator 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $76 $157,331 Electric Utility Helper/Driver 4.00 2,080 216 1,864 7,456 15% 85% 100% 1,118 6,338 7,456 $59 $490,214 Electric Utility Network Administrator 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $76 $314,662 Electric & Water System Operator 6.00 2,080 216 1,864 11,184 15% 85% 100% 1,678 9,506 11,184 $62 $776,755 Electric Crew Foreperson 4.00 2,080 216 1,864 7,456 15% 85% 100% 1,118 6,338 7,456 $93 $777,587 Electric Division Manager 5.00 2,080 216 1,864 9,320 15% 85% 100% 1,398 7,922 9,320 $116 $1,208,064 Electric Maintenance Worker 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $62 $256,880 Electric Meter Technician 3.00 2,080 216 1,864 5,592 15% 85% 100% 839 4,753 5,592 $79 $490,963 Electric Program Manager 3.00 2,080 216 1,864 5,592 15% 85% 100% 839 4,753 5,592 $101 $630,240 Electric Utility Equipment Operator 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $62 $256,880 Electric Utility Generator Tech 9.00 2,080 216 1,864 16,776 15% 85% 100% 2,516 14,260 16,776 $85 $1,586,707 Electric Utility Program Analyst 4.00 2,080 216 1,864 7,456 15% 85% 100% 1,118 6,338 7,456 $64 $529,901 Electrician 7.00 2,080 216 1,864 13,048 15% 85% 100% 1,957 11,091 13,048 $85 $1,234,106 Fiber Splicing Technician 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $79 $327,309 Journey Lineworker 12.00 2,080 216 1,864 22,368 15% 85% 100% 3,355 19,013 22,368 $85 $2,115,610 Journey Lineworker Apprentice 3.00 2,080 216 1,864 5,592 15% 85% 100% 839 4,753 5,592 $68 $423,946 Meter Data Analyst 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $51 $212,909 Office Specialist II 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $41 $85,530 Power Trader 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $93 $193,690 Principal Utility Info System Manager 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $111 $230,298 Project Manager 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $62 $129,459 Senior Electric Utility Generation Tech 5.00 2,080 216 1,864 9,320 15% 85% 100% 1,398 7,922 9,320 $109 $1,138,384 Senior Electrician Technician 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $91 $379,309 Senior Materials Handler 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $46 $96,470 Senior Elec & Water System Operator 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $62 $129,459 Senior Energy Systems Analyst 3.00 2,080 216 1,864 5,592 15% 85% 100% 839 4,753 5,592 $76 $471,994 Senior Elec Meter Technician 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $91 $189,654 Senior Instrument & Control Tech 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $91 $189,654 Service Coordinator - Inspector 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $89 $185,120 Service Coordinator - Inspector (Fiber) 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $83 $343,990 Troubleshooter 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $91 $379,309 Underground Crew Leader 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $87 $180,544 Utility Electrician Technician 4.00 2,080 216 1,864 7,456 15% 85% 100% 1,118 6,338 7,456 $85 $705,203 Utility Locator (Fiber) 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $62 $128,440 Total 100.00 186,400 27,960 158,440 186,400 $16,946,571 Total 15% 85% 100%
43 User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Electric (SVP)
[c] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount assumes twelve days holiday, ten days vacation/personal leave, five days sick leave. [d] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates developed for purposes of this analysis. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount based on position and consultant experience working with similar municipalities.
[e] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. [b] Based on 40 hour week * 52 weeks per year.
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
44 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Electric (SVP)
FY 22/23 Forecast Expenses [a] Program 1362 1371 1372 1376 1377 Fund # Fund Desc Account Desc
Util Ops
Pwr System
Controls
Util Ops
Comm & Meter
Tech
Util Ops
Substation
Maint
Util Ops
Transm'sn &
Distrib
Util Ops
Generation Subtotal Adjustment Total Notes
091 Electric Utility 87010 - Salary And Wages - Regular $2,055,035 $1,029,308 $2,411,937 $5,413,271 $3,422,726 $14,332,277 $0 $14,332,277 091 Electric Utility 87017 - Premium Pay $8,040 $492 $10,730 $72,981 $7,003 $99,246 $0 $99,246 091 Electric Utility 87020 - Salary And Wages - As Needed $0 $0 $35,000 $129,200 $0 $164,200 $0 $164,200 091 Electric Utility 87030 - S & W - O.T. Vacation Relief $513,600 $103,000 $437,000 $2,600,000 $661,400 $4,315,000 $0 $4,315,000 091 Electric Utility 87090 - Separation Payouts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 091 Electric Utility 1 Salary Accounts $2,576,675 $1,132,800 $2,894,667 $8,215,452 $4,091,129 $18,910,723 $0 $18,910,723 091 Electric Utility 87212 - PERS - Misc $721,413 $360,115 $847,106 $1,918,192 $1,199,343 $5,046,169 $0 $5,046,169 091 Electric Utility 87221 - Medicare $30,584 $15,353 $35,883 $80,021 $51,832 $213,673 $0 $213,673 091 Electric Utility 87222 - Social Security $89,453 $54,909 $119,390 $273,926 $157,881 $695,559 $0 $695,559 091 Electric Utility 87223 - Social Security - OT $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 091 Electric Utility 87224 - Medicare OT $7,447 $1,494 $6,337 $37,700 $9,287 $62,265 $0 $62,265 091 Electric Utility 87230 - Health Allocation $206,103 $125,337 $301,394 $834,988 $305,109 $1,772,931 $0 $1,772,931 091 Electric Utility 87241 - Dental - City Paid $2,877 $1,918 $3,837 $8,768 $5,206 $22,606 $0 $22,606 091 Electric Utility 87242 - Long Term Disability-City Paid $1,612 $1,056 $491 $380 $1,796 $5,335 $0 $5,335 091 Electric Utility 87243 - Vision- City Paid $1,249 $832 $1,665 $3,807 $2,261 $9,814 $0 $9,814 091 Electric Utility 87250 - Basic Life Insurance $714 $372 $891 $1,980 $1,212 $5,169 $0 $5,169 091 Electric Utility 87260 - Meal Allowance $5,150 $2,987 $8,240 $87,550 $20,600 $124,527 $0 $124,527 091 Electric Utility 87271 - VEBA $6,300 $4,200 $8,400 $19,200 $11,400 $49,500 $0 $49,500 091 Electric Utility 87272 - EAP $514 $342 $685 $1,567 $931 $4,039 $0 $4,039 091 Electric Utility 87274 - Auto Allowance $4,800 $0 $2,400 $2,400 $4,800 $14,400 $0 $14,400 091 Electric Utility 87275 - Mobile Phone Allowance $960 $0 $0 $960 $960 $2,880 $0 $2,880 091 Electric Utility 87279 - Misc. Other Benefits $1,960 $1,400 $3,624 $45,613 $4,200 $56,797 $0 $56,797 091 Electric Utility 87390 - OPEB $37,201 $24,800 $49,602 $113,374 $67,317 $292,294 $0 $292,294 091 Electric Utility 2 Benefit Accounts $1,118,337 $595,115 $1,389,945 $3,430,426 $1,844,135 $8,377,958 $0 $8,377,958 091 Electric Utility 87500 - Operating Supplies $7,158 $5,500 $23,000 $178,000 $25,113 $238,771 $0 $238,771 091 Electric Utility 87600 - Maintenance $32,800 $280,000 $742,000 $660,000 $3,918,100 $5,632,900 ($5,632,900) $0 091 Electric Utility 87710 - Adver And Community Promotion $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 091 Electric Utility 87720 - Misc Rec Pur Install & Service $0 $0 $15,000 $62,000 $0 $77,000 ($77,000) $0 091 Electric Utility 87800 - Miscellaneous Serv & Supplies $500,400 $0 $0 $0 $44,200 $544,600 ($544,600) $0 091 Electric Utility 87810 - Utilities Expenses $3,700 $0 $0 $11,500 $172,000 $187,200 ($187,200) $0 091 Electric Utility 87825 - Conference, Travel and Training $52,800 $15,300 $58,200 $45,000 $67,000 $238,300 $0 $238,300 091 Electric Utility 87870 - Contractual Serv Not Class $88,799 $0 $170,900 $3,100,000 $1,747,200 $5,106,899 ($5,106,899) $0 091 Electric Utility 87940 - Mandated Program Costs $0 $0 $0 $10,300 $894,300 $904,600 ($904,600) $0 091 Electric Utility 3 Mat/Serv/Sup $685,657 $300,800 $1,009,100 $4,066,800 $6,867,913 $12,930,270 ($12,453,199) $477,071 091 Electric Utility 87960 - Generation & Pumping Expense $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,813,900 $3,813,900 ($3,813,900) $0 091 Electric Utility 4 Resource/Product $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,813,900 $3,813,900 ($3,813,900) $0 091 Electric Utility 87640 - Vehicle Equipment Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 091 Electric Utility 87650 - Technical Services Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 091 Electric Utility 87660 - Workers Comp Insurance $40,128 $19,975 $46,975 $104,926 $66,990 $278,994 $0 $278,994 091 Electric Utility 87680 - Unemployment Insurance $1,825 $908 $2,136 $4,771 $3,046 $12,686 $0 $12,686 091 Electric Utility 87740 - Vehicle Equipment Amortization $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 091 Electric Utility 87750 - Communi Equipment Amortization $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 091 Electric Utility 87840 - Insurance And Surety Bonds $199,051 $99,084 $233,015 $520,476 $332,299 $1,383,925 $0 $1,383,925 091 Electric Utility 87994 - Services from Other Funds-CAP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 091 Electric Utility 5 Interfund Services $241,004 $119,967 $282,126 $630,173 $402,335 $1,675,605 $0 $1,675,605 Subtotal $4,621,673 $2,148,682 $5,575,838 $16,342,851 $17,019,412 $45,708,456 ($16,267,099) $29,441,357 45 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Electric (SVP)
Allocation of Department Administration
Description
Utility
Operations Notes
Allocation of Department Administration $7,302,759 [b]
Total Divisional Costs
Description
Utility
Operations Notes
Total $36,744,116
Calculation of Uniform Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Notes
Divisional Expenses $36,744,116
Direct Hours 158,440 [b]
Total $232
Full Cost Factors for Hourly Rate Buildup
Description Total Share Per Hour
Personnel $27,288,681 74% $172
Equipment $0 0% $0
Materials / Supplies $2,152,676 6% $14
Other Costs $0 0% $0
Overhead $7,302,759 20% $46
Total $36,744,116 100% $232
Information Below is for Use if City Desires to Use Positional Hourly Billing Rates Scenario 1: Uniform Assignment of Materials and Overhead Costs Per Hour Calculate Benefit Ratio
Salary Accounts $18,910,723
Benefit Accounts $8,377,958
Total 0.44
46 r::::::::::::::

City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Electric (SVP)
Calculation of Direct Hours Ratio (Billing Factor)
Description
Base Hrs
Per FTE
Adjust for
Typical Leave
Productive
Hours Direct Hours %
Direct Hours
Per FTE Notes
Hours 2,080 (216) 1,864 85% 1,584
Direct Hours Bill Factor (For Every $ of Salary Add this amount to account for Direct Hrs v. Total Hrs.) 1.31 Position
Top Step Hrly
[c] Benefits
Subtotal Labor
Costs
Adjust for
Direct Hours
Total Labor
Rate
Add: M'tls /
Supplies Add: Overhead
Total
Hourly Rate
Asst Elec Utility Engineer $78 $34 $112 1.31 $147 $14 $46 $207 Electric Crew Foreperson $93 $41 $135 1.31 $177 $14 $46 $237 Electric Meter Technician $79 $35 $114 1.31 $149 $14 $46 $209 Journey Lineworker $85 $38 $122 1.31 $161 $14 $46 $220
Office Specialist II $41 $18 $59 1.31 $78 $14 $46 $138
Sr Electrical Estimator $77 $34 $111 1.31 $145 $14 $46 $205 Senior Engineer $109 $48 $158 1.31 $207 $14 $46 $267
Troubleshooter $91 $40 $132 1.31 $173 $14 $46 $232
Helper $59 $26 $85 1.31 $112 $14 $46 $171
Utility Locator $62 $27 $89 1.31 $117 $14 $46 $177
Scenario 2: Assignment of a Common Indirect Rate Factor that Can Be Applied to Base Hourly Wage Rate to Calculate Fully-Burdened Hourly Billing Rate by Position Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Billing Factor (Apply Factor to Top Step Salary for Positional Rates) Description FTE Hours Per FTE Total Hours
Salaries and
Wages
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier Notes
Total 100.00 2,080 208,000 $16,946,571 $81 $232 2.85
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] To account for department admin support provided but not directly budgeted to direct service units. See Electric Department - Department Administration cost allocation worksheet. [c] See worksheet labeled: Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Electric. [d] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 47 ----------------
City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services - Electric Fees Fee Description
Sr. Elec
Eng'r
Asst Elec
Utility Eng'r
Elec Crew
Forep'rsn
Electric
Meter Tech
Journey
Linew'kr
Office Spec
II
Sr Elec.

Estim'tr
Trouble
shooter Helper
Utility
Locator Total
1 Overhead Lines - New Single Family/Residential
2 Overhead Lines - New Multiple Units
3 Overhead Lines - New Street Lighting
4 Underground - New Single Family/Residential
5 Underground - New Multiple Units/Residential
6 Underground - New Street Lighting
7 Underground - Existing Single Family
8 Underground - Existing Multi-Units
9 Underground - Existing Street Lighting
10 Load Development Up to 4,500 KVA
11 Load Development Over 4,500 KVA
12 Load Development Commercial Facilities < 12KV
13 Load Development Commercial Facilities 12KV
14 Load Development Commercial Facilities Dedicated 12 KV 15 Load Development Commercial Facilities Dedicated 60 KV 16 Temporary Connection to Pole 3.00 3.00
17 Temporary Power
18 Underground Street Light Relocation
19 Service Wire Relocation from Mid-Span 2.50 5.00 0.75 3.50 11.75 20 Service Wire Relocation from Pole 0.50 0.75 1.50 1.00 3.75 21 Meter Test Deposit 1.00 1.00
22 Service Wire Relocation Additional Linework
23 Electric System Damage
24 Service Reconnection (Residential) 0.75 0.75
25 Service Disconnection (Residential) 0.75 0.75
26 Electric Reconnection Fee (Non-Residential)
27 Electric Disconnection Fee (Non-Residential)
28 Service Fee Customer-Owned Equipment Problem 1.00 1.00 48 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services - Electric Fees Fee Description
1 Overhead Lines - New Single Family/Residential
2 Overhead Lines - New Multiple Units
3 Overhead Lines - New Street Lighting
4 Underground - New Single Family/Residential
5 Underground - New Multiple Units/Residential
6 Underground - New Street Lighting
7 Underground - Existing Single Family
8 Underground - Existing Multi-Units
9 Underground - Existing Street Lighting
10 Load Development Up to 4,500 KVA
11 Load Development Over 4,500 KVA
12 Load Development Commercial Facilities < 12KV
13 Load Development Commercial Facilities 12KV
14 Load Development Commercial Facilities Dedicated 12 KV 15 Load Development Commercial Facilities Dedicated 60 KV 16 Temporary Connection to Pole
17 Temporary Power
18 Underground Street Light Relocation
19 Service Wire Relocation from Mid-Span
20 Service Wire Relocation from Pole
21 Meter Test Deposit
22 Service Wire Relocation Additional Linework
23 Electric System Damage
24 Service Reconnection (Residential)
25 Service Disconnection (Residential)
26 Electric Reconnection Fee (Non-Residential)
27 Electric Disconnection Fee (Non-Residential)
28 Service Fee Customer-Owned Equipment Problem
Estimated Cost of Labor
$267 $207 $237 $209 $220 $138 $205 $232 $171 $177
Sr. Elec
Eng'r
Asst Elec
Utility Eng'r
Elec Crew
Forep'rsn
Electric
Meter Tech
Journey
Linew'kr
Office Spec
II
Sr Elec.

Estim'tr
Trouble
shooter Helper
Utility
Locator Mat'l Cost
Estimated
Cost of
Service
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $696 $0 $0 $696
$0 $0 $593 $0 $1,100 $104 $718 $0 $0 $0 $160 $2,674
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69 $154 $348 $171 $0 $102 $844
$0 $0 $0 $209 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $209
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $174 $0 $0 $174
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $174 $0 $0 $174
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $232 $0 $0 $232
49 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services - Electric Fees Fee Description
1 Overhead Lines - New Single Family/Residential
2 Overhead Lines - New Multiple Units
3 Overhead Lines - New Street Lighting
4 Underground - New Single Family/Residential
5 Underground - New Multiple Units/Residential
6 Underground - New Street Lighting
7 Underground - Existing Single Family
8 Underground - Existing Multi-Units
9 Underground - Existing Street Lighting
10 Load Development Up to 4,500 KVA
11 Load Development Over 4,500 KVA
12 Load Development Commercial Facilities < 12KV
13 Load Development Commercial Facilities 12KV
14 Load Development Commercial Facilities Dedicated 12 KV 15 Load Development Commercial Facilities Dedicated 60 KV 16 Temporary Connection to Pole
17 Temporary Power
18 Underground Street Light Relocation
19 Service Wire Relocation from Mid-Span
20 Service Wire Relocation from Pole
21 Meter Test Deposit
22 Service Wire Relocation Additional Linework
23 Electric System Damage
24 Service Reconnection (Residential)
25 Service Disconnection (Residential)
26 Electric Reconnection Fee (Non-Residential)
27 Electric Disconnection Fee (Non-Residential)
28 Service Fee Customer-Owned Equipment Problem
Cost Recovery Information
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Unit Notes
$1,197.16 $1,235.61 per lot [a]
$736.24 $759.88 per unit [a]
$7.42 $7.65 per front foot [a]
$1,764.70 $2,436.28 per lot [a]
$1,573.68 $2,070.84 per unit [a]
$18.23 $18.81 per front foot [a]
$3,467.74 $3,578.71 per lot [a]
$1,853.56 $1,912.88 per unit [a]
$27.08 $27.95 per front foot [a]
$141.63 $348.99 [a]
$240.03 $697.98 [a]
$141.63 $243.63 [a],[b]
$141.63 $203.58 [a],[b]
$240.03 $391.85 [a]
$240.03 $348.99 [a]
$646 n/a $696 100%
actual cost 100% actual cost 100%
actual cost 100% actual cost 100%
$2,419 90% $2,674 100%
$534 63% $844 100%
$192 92% $209 100%
actual cost 100% actual cost 100%
actual cost 100% actual cost 100%
$161 93% $174 100%
$161 93% $174 100%
$108 varies actual cost 100% per account
$108 varies actual cost 100% per account
$216 93% $232 100% per hour
50 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services - Electric Fees Fee Description
Sr. Elec
Eng'r
Asst Elec
Utility Eng'r
Elec Crew
Forep'rsn
Electric
Meter Tech
Journey
Linew'kr
Office Spec
II
Sr Elec.

Estim'tr
Trouble
shooter Helper
Utility
Locator Total
29 Electric replacement/reconnection fee due to meter
tampering/illegal access

1.00 1.00
30 Service Removal
31 Engineering Plan Check - Electric 1.75 1.75
32 Engineering Plan Check - Electric - 4th and subsequent review 0.25 0.25 33 Project Clearance committee/Sub committee review 3.00 3.00 34 Time of Use Meter Installation - Residential 1.00 1.00 35 Time of Use Meter Installation - Non-Residential 1.00 1.00 36 Field Marking-Fiber Up to 50 ft of excavation 0.75 0.75 37 Field Marking-Fiber Over 50 ft of excavation 0.50 0.50 38 Electric equipment relocation
39 EV charging retrofit-Existing building
40 SVP system impact study - Transmission system
41 CAISO System Impact Study
42 SVP system impact study - Distribution 12kV system
43 SVP generation interconnection study
44 Distribution Pole Contact-Application fee
45 Distribution Pole Contact-cable attachment
46 Distribution Pole Contact-equipment attachment
47 Distribution Pole Contact-riser attachment
48 Distribution Pole Contact-anchor attachment
49 Distribution Pole Contact-small cell
[a] Fee calculated as part of separate study.
[b] Fee recommended for three year phase-in. July 2022 50%; July 2023 75%; July 2024 100% cost recovery. [c] Amount currently collected via agreement. Moving to Master Fee Schedule for documentation purposes. [d] Use 2.5% annual escalator.
51 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services - Electric Fees Fee Description
29 Electric replacement/reconnection fee due to meter
tampering/illegal access
30 Service Removal
31 Engineering Plan Check - Electric
32 Engineering Plan Check - Electric - 4th and subsequent review 33 Project Clearance committee/Sub committee review
34 Time of Use Meter Installation - Residential
35 Time of Use Meter Installation - Non-Residential
36 Field Marking-Fiber Up to 50 ft of excavation
37 Field Marking-Fiber Over 50 ft of excavation
38 Electric equipment relocation
39 EV charging retrofit-Existing building
40 SVP system impact study - Transmission system
41 CAISO System Impact Study
42 SVP system impact study - Distribution 12kV system
43 SVP generation interconnection study
44 Distribution Pole Contact-Application fee
45 Distribution Pole Contact-cable attachment
46 Distribution Pole Contact-equipment attachment
47 Distribution Pole Contact-riser attachment
48 Distribution Pole Contact-anchor attachment
49 Distribution Pole Contact-small cell
[a] Fee calculated as part of separate study.
[b] Fee recommended for three year phase-in. July 2022 50%; July 2023 75%; July 2024 100% cost recovery. [c] Amount currently collected via agreement. Moving to Master Fee Schedule for documentation purposes. [d] Use 2.5% annual escalator.

Estimated Cost of Labor
$267 $207 $237 $209 $220 $138 $205 $232 $171 $177
Sr. Elec
Eng'r
Asst Elec
Utility Eng'r
Elec Crew
Forep'rsn
Electric
Meter Tech
Journey
Linew'kr
Office Spec
II
Sr Elec.

Estim'tr
Trouble
shooter Helper
Utility
Locator Mat'l Cost
Estimated
Cost of
Service
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $232 $0 $0 $232
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $362 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $362
$0 $52 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52
$801 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $801
$0 $0 $0 $209 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $190 $399
$0 $0 $0 $209 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $380 $589
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $133 $133
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $89 $89
$75,000
$124,200
$15,000
$15,000
52 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services - Electric Fees Fee Description
29 Electric replacement/reconnection fee due to meter
tampering/illegal access
30 Service Removal
31 Engineering Plan Check - Electric
32 Engineering Plan Check - Electric - 4th and subsequent review 33 Project Clearance committee/Sub committee review
34 Time of Use Meter Installation - Residential
35 Time of Use Meter Installation - Non-Residential
36 Field Marking-Fiber Up to 50 ft of excavation
37 Field Marking-Fiber Over 50 ft of excavation
38 Electric equipment relocation
39 EV charging retrofit-Existing building
40 SVP system impact study - Transmission system
41 CAISO System Impact Study
42 SVP system impact study - Distribution 12kV system
43 SVP generation interconnection study
44 Distribution Pole Contact-Application fee
45 Distribution Pole Contact-cable attachment
46 Distribution Pole Contact-equipment attachment
47 Distribution Pole Contact-riser attachment
48 Distribution Pole Contact-anchor attachment
49 Distribution Pole Contact-small cell
[a] Fee calculated as part of separate study.
[b] Fee recommended for three year phase-in. July 2022 50%; July 2023 75%; July 2024 100% cost recovery. [c] Amount currently collected via agreement. Moving to Master Fee Schedule for documentation purposes. [d] Use 2.5% annual escalator.

Cost Recovery Information
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Unit Notes
$216 93% $232 100% per account [c]
actual cost 100% actual cost 100%
$292 81% $362 100% per sheet
$42 80% $52 100% per sheet
n/a $801 100%
$299 75% $399 100% per meter
$598 101% $589 100% per meter
$123 92% $133 100%
$82 93% $89 100% per each add'l 50ft
actual cost 100% actual cost 100%
actual cost 100%
$75,000 100% $75,000 100% [c]
$124,200 100% $124,200 100% [c]
$15,000 100% $15,000 100% [c]
$15,000 100% $15,000 100% [c]
$230 $236 [d]
$17 $18 [d]
$49 $50 [d]
$36 $37 [d]
$3 $3 [d]
$87 $90 [d]
53 Finance - Municipal Services Division Fees
54 City .of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Finance - Municipal Services Position [a] FTE [a]
Total Hours
Per FTE [b]
Less:

Holiday &
Leave [c]
Productive
Hours Per
FTE
Total
Productive
Hours
Indirect
[d] Direct [d] Total
Total
Indirect
Hours
Total
Direct
Hours
Total
Hours
Total Salary
Top Step [e] Annual Salary
Business Analyst 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $62 $129,459 Customer Service Representative 14.00 2,080 216 1,864 26,096 20% 80% 100% 5,219 20,877 26,096 $42 $1,228,282 Customer Service Supervisor 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 40% 60% 100% 1,491 2,237 3,728 $52 $218,150 Meter Reader 3.00 2,080 216 1,864 5,592 20% 80% 100% 1,118 4,474 5,592 $44 $276,182 Municipal Services Division Manager 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 60% 40% 100% 1,118 746 1,864 $96 $199,909 Office Specialist II 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 100% 0% 100% 1,864 - 1,864 $41 $85,530 Senior Customer Service Representative 5.00 2,080 216 1,864 9,320 20% 80% 100% 1,864 7,456 9,320 $45 $470,496 Senior Management Analyst 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 100% 0% 100% 1,864 - 1,864 $74 $153,338 Utility Field Services Worker 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 20% 80% 100% 746 2,982 3,728 $46 $192,941 Utility Field Services Supervisor 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 40% 60% 100% 746 1,118 1,864 $52 $109,075 Utility Services Technician 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 20% 80% 100% 746 2,982 3,728 $52 $218,150 Total 33.00 61,512 17,149 44,363 61,512 $3,281,512
Total 28% 72% 100%
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Based on 40 hour week * 52 weeks per year.
[c] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount assumes twelve days holiday, ten days vacation/personal leave, five days sick leave. [d] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates developed for purposes of this analysis. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount based on position and consultant experience working with similar municipalities.
[e] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 55 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Finance - Municipal Services
FY 22/23 Forecast Expenses [a] Program 3332 3333 3334 3335 3336 3337 Fund # Fund Desc Account Desc
Utility Bill
Svcs
Revenue
Cashiering
Business
Certificate Field Svcs Admin Contact Ctr Subtotal Adjust Total Notes 001 General Fund 87010 - Salary And Wages - Regular $1,504,859 $367,727 $158,731 $585,463 $206,814 $410,860 $3,234,454 $0 $3,234,454 001 General Fund 87011 - Salary Attrition and VTO ($31,902) ($11,954) ($5,487) ($18,384) ($7,073) ($10,744) ($85,544) $0 ($85,544) 001 General Fund 87017 - Premium Pay $3 $13 $13 $3 $5 $15 $52 $0 $52 001 General Fund 87020 - Salary And Wages - As Needed $74,403 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,403 $0 $74,403 001 General Fund 87030 - S & W - O.T. Vacation Relief $536 $536 $536 $2,679 $0 $536 $4,823 $0 $4,823 001 General Fund 87110 - Contra 870x0-Reimbd Sal & Wage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 001 General Fund 1 Salary Accounts $1,547,899 $356,322 $153,793 $569,761 $199,746 $400,667 $3,228,188 $0 $3,228,188 001 General Fund 87212 - PERS - Misc $526,253 $128,596 $55,511 $204,742 $72,327 $143,684 $1,131,113 $0 $1,131,113 001 General Fund 87221 - Medicare $22,848 $5,519 $2,488 $9,175 $3,258 $6,103 $49,391 $0 $49,391 001 General Fund 87222 - Social Security $96,351 $23,041 $10,083 $38,689 $11,140 $25,541 $204,845 $0 $204,845 001 General Fund 87223 - Social Security - OT $33 $33 $33 $166 $0 $33 $298 $0 $298 001 General Fund 87224 - Medicare OT $7 $7 $7 $38 $0 $7 $66 $0 $66 001 General Fund 87230 - Health Allocation $185,819 $52,515 $19,190 $73,916 $17,279 $62,998 $411,717 $0 $411,717 001 General Fund 87241 - Dental - City Paid $4,060 $1,124 $439 $1,686 $416 $1,331 $9,056 $0 $9,056 001 General Fund 87242 - Long Term Disability-City Paid $7,495 $1,964 $797 $3,120 $723 $2,195 $16,294 $0 $16,294 001 General Fund 87243 - Vision- City Paid $1,791 $547 $191 $732 $176 $604 $4,041 $0 $4,041 001 General Fund 87250 - Basic Life Insurance $632 $174 $66 $229 $99 $192 $1,392 $0 $1,392 001 General Fund 87271 - VEBA $8,880 $2,460 $960 $3,690 $900 $2,910 $19,800 $0 $19,800 001 General Fund 87272 - EAP $721 $200 $79 $300 $73 $235 $1,608 $0 $1,608 001 General Fund 87274 - Auto Allowance $2,640 $240 $240 $240 $1,200 $240 $4,800 $0 $4,800 001 General Fund 87275 - Mobile Phone Allowance $1,056 $96 $96 $96 $480 $96 $1,920 $0 $1,920 001 General Fund 87279 - Misc. Other Benefits $0 $0 $0 $1,416 $24 $0 $1,440 $0 $1,440 001 General Fund 87390 - OPEB $52,437 $14,526 $5,670 $21,790 $5,319 $17,183 $116,925 $0 $116,925 001 General Fund 2 Benefit Accounts $911,023 $231,042 $95,850 $360,025 $113,414 $263,352 $1,974,706 $0 $1,974,706 001 General Fund 87500 - Operating Supplies $43,044 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,044 $0 $43,044 001 General Fund 87825 - Conference, Travel and Training $5,627 $212 $0 $0 $0 $1,454 $7,293 $0 $7,293 001 General Fund 87870 - Contractual Serv Not Class $1,006,696 $43,774 $107,076 $22,119 $116 ($16,979) $1,162,802 $0 $1,162,802 001 General Fund 87940 - Mandated Program Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 001 General Fund 3 Mat/Serv/Sup $1,055,367 $43,986 $107,076 $22,119 $116 ($15,525) $1,213,139 $0 $1,213,139 001 General Fund 87640 - Vehicle Equipment Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $43,553 $0 $0 $43,553 $0 $43,553 001 General Fund 87650 - Technical Services Maintenance $164,092 $46,286 $22,736 $69,195 $24,834 $53,826 $380,969 $0 $380,969 001 General Fund 87660 - Workers Comp Insurance $27,620 $6,772 $2,923 $10,789 $3,801 $7,521 $59,426 $0 $59,426 001 General Fund 87680 - Unemployment Insurance $1,339 $328 $142 $523 $184 $365 $2,881 $0 $2,881 001 General Fund 87740 - Vehicle Equipment Amortization $0 $0 $0 $10,214 $0 $0 $10,214 $0 $10,214 001 General Fund 87840 - Insurance And Surety Bonds $49,933 $12,244 $5,284 $19,505 $6,872 $13,597 $107,435 $0 $107,435 001 General Fund 5 Interfund Services $242,984 $65,630 $31,085 $153,779 $35,691 $75,309 $604,478 $0 $604,478 Subtotal $3,757,273 $696,980 $387,804 $1,105,684 $348,967 $723,803 $7,020,511 $0 $7,020,511 56 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Finance - Municipal Services
Adjustments for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Notes
Divisional Expenses $7,020,511
Productive Hours 44,363 [b]
Total $158
Full Cost Factors for Hourly Rate Buildup
Description Total Share Per Hour
Personnel $5,202,894 74% $117
Equipment $0 0% $0
Materials / Supplies $1,817,617 26% $41
Other Costs $0 0% $0
Overhead $0 0% $0
Total $7,020,511 100% $158
57 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Finance - Municipal Services
Information Below is for Use if City Desires to Use Positional Hourly Billing Rates Scenario 1: Uniform Assignment of Materials and Overhead Costs Per Hour Calculate Benefit Ratio
Salary Accounts $3,228,188
Benefit Accounts $1,974,706
Total 0.61
Calculation of Direct Hours Ratio (Billing Factor)
Description
Base Hrs
Per FTE
Adjust for
Typical Leave
Productive
Hours Direct Hours %
Direct Hours
Per FTE Notes
Hours 2,080 (216) 1,864 72% 1,344
Direct Hours Bill Factor (For Every $ of Salary Add this amount to account for Direct Hrs v. Total Hrs.) 1.55 Position
Top Step Hrly
[c] Benefits
Subtotal Labor
Costs
Adjust for
Direct Hours
Total Labor
Rate
Add: M'tls /
Supplies
Add:

Overhead
Total
Hourly Rate
Business Analyst $62 $38 $100 1.55 $155 $41 $0 $196
Customer Service Representative $42 $26 $68 1.55 $105 $41 $0 $146 Customer Service Supervisor $52 $32 $85 1.55 $131 $41 $0 $172 Meter Reader $44 $27 $71 1.55 $110 $41 $0 $151
Municipal Services Division Manager $96 $59 $155 1.55 $240 $41 $0 $281 Office Specialist II $41 $25 $66 1.55 $103 $41 $0 $144
Senior Customer Service Representative $45 $28 $73 1.55 $113 $41 $0 $154 Senior Management Analyst $74 $45 $119 1.55 $184 $41 $0 $225 Utility Field Services Worker $46 $28 $75 1.55 $116 $41 $0 $157 Utility Field Services Supervisor $52 $32 $85 1.55 $131 $41 $0 $172 Utility Services Technician $52 $32 $85 1.55 $131 $41 $0 $172 Scenario 2: Assignment of a Common Indirect Rate Factor that Can Be Applied to Base Hourly Wage Rate to Calculate Fully-Burdened Hourly Billing Rate by Position Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Billing Factor (Apply Factor to Top Step Salary for Positional Rates) Description FTE Hours Per FTE Total Hours
Salaries and
Wages
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier Notes
Total 33.00 2,080 68,640 $3,281,512 $48 $158 3.31
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] See allocation of Annual Labor Effort, Finance Municipal Services. [c] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 58 ----------------
City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Finance / Municipal Services
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost of Service
$146 $154 $157 $172 $172
Fee Description
Cust Svc
Rep
Sr Cust
Svc Rep
Utility Field
Svc Wrkr
Utility Field
Svcs Sup
Utility Svcs
Tech Total
Cust Svc
Rep
Sr Cust
Svc Rep
Utility Field
Svc Wrkr
Utility Field
Svcs Sup
Utility Svcs
Tech Cost of Svc
1 Business Tax Certificate
Commercial Enterprises
Manufacturing/Industrial Enterprises
Professional
Companies conducting business in the City without a fixed place of business
2 Delinquent payment of business certificate fees - 30 days after due date 3 Change of name, address or business type as shown on current certificate 0.08 0.08 $12 $12 4 Business Certificate Info - Special Request (Research Required) 5 Duplicate business certificate 0.08 0.08 $12 $12
Business Tax Certificate
6 Ambulance Service
Per Ambulance
7 Carnivals
Carnival concession, ride, sideshow
8 Circus
Circus concession, ride, sideshow
9 Promotional Show
Promotional Show concession, ride, sideshow
10 Escort Service (funerals, personal escort services, etc.) 11 Intracity bus service and public transportation
12 Parade route vendor
13 Pawnshop
14 Taxicab Company
15 Taxicab Stand
16 Rental units (3+)
Apartments
Hotels/Motels
17 Business providing regular service by use of vehicles including catering trucks 18 Public market operators
19 Vending Operators
20 Automatic coin-operated amusement machines and peep shows 21 Juke Box
22 Billiard and pool tables, Ping-pong tables
23 Bowling or Tenpin lanes
59 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Finance / Municipal Services
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Fee Description
1 Business Tax Certificate
Commercial Enterprises
Manufacturing/Industrial Enterprises
Professional
Companies conducting business in the City without a fixed place of business
2 Delinquent payment of business certificate fees - 30 days after due date 3 Change of name, address or business type as shown on current certificate 4 Business Certificate Info - Special Request (Research Required) 5 Duplicate business certificate
Business Tax Certificate
6 Ambulance Service
Per Ambulance
7 Carnivals
Carnival concession, ride, sideshow
8 Circus
Circus concession, ride, sideshow
9 Promotional Show
Promotional Show concession, ride, sideshow
10 Escort Service (funerals, personal escort services, etc.) 11 Intracity bus service and public transportation
12 Parade route vendor
13 Pawnshop
14 Taxicab Company
15 Taxicab Stand
16 Rental units (3+)
Apartments
Hotels/Motels
17 Business providing regular service by use of vehicles including catering trucks 18 Public market operators
19 Vending Operators
20 Automatic coin-operated amusement machines and peep shows 21 Juke Box
22 Billiard and pool tables, Ping-pong tables
23 Bowling or Tenpin lanes
Cost Recovery Information
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Unit Notes
See Schedule 100 attached See Schedule 100 attached
See Schedule 300 attached See Schedule 300 attached
See Schedule 200 attached See Schedule 200 attached
$45.00 per year
100% 100% 100% of appropriate bus.
license fee
$11.00 90% $12 100% per each update
Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual cost of compilation
$11.00 90% $12 100% each
$45.00 $45 flat fee per business
$15.00 $15 add'l fee for each ambulance
$150.00 $150 per day
$15.00 $15 each per day
$150.00 $150 per day
$15.00 $15 each per day
$150.00 $150 per day
$15.00 $15 each per day
$150.00 $150 per year
$150.00 $150 per year
$15.00 $15 per parade
$150.00 $150 per year
$15.00 $15 per cab per year
$90.00 $90 per year
$5.22 $5.22 per unit per year
$3.00 $3 per unit per year
$23.00 $23 per vehicle
$0.75 $0.75 per booth per day
$79.00 $79 per year
$60.00 $60 each per year
$30.00 $30 each per year
$8.00 $8 per table or per
lane per year
$80.00 $80 flat fee for 11 or more tables
or lanes per year
60 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Finance / Municipal Services
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost of Service
$146 $154 $157 $172 $172
Fee Description
Cust Svc
Rep
Sr Cust
Svc Rep
Utility Field
Svc Wrkr
Utility Field
Svcs Sup
Utility Svcs
Tech Total
Cust Svc
Rep
Sr Cust
Svc Rep
Utility Field
Svc Wrkr
Utility Field
Svcs Sup
Utility Svcs
Tech Cost of Svc
24 Merry go-rounds, shooting galleries, golf ranges, and skating rinks 25 Theaters
1-500 seats or stalls
501-1000 seats or stalls
1001 or more seats or stalls
26 Nightclubs, cabarets, etc.
27 Class I entertainment license without a valid theater or night club license for same location
First Year
Annual Renewal
28 Class II Entertainment License
First Year
Annual Renewal
29 Class III entertainment license without a valid theater or night club license for the same location
First Year
Annual Renewal
30 Massage establishment
31 Contractors - State licensed
32 Detective Agency
33 Itinerant merchant
34 Peddlers
35 Secondhand dealer
36 Principal solicitors certificate
37 Miniature golf course
38 Christmas tree lots
39 Pumpkin sales lots
40 Seasonal items sales lots
41 Bingo
61 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Finance / Municipal Services
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Fee Description
24 Merry go-rounds, shooting galleries, golf ranges, and skating rinks 25 Theaters
1-500 seats or stalls
501-1000 seats or stalls
1001 or more seats or stalls
26 Nightclubs, cabarets, etc.
27 Class I entertainment license without a valid theater or night club license for same location
First Year
Annual Renewal
28 Class II Entertainment License
First Year
Annual Renewal
29 Class III entertainment license without a valid theater or night club license for the same location
First Year
Annual Renewal
30 Massage establishment
31 Contractors - State licensed
32 Detective Agency
33 Itinerant merchant
34 Peddlers
35 Secondhand dealer
36 Principal solicitors certificate
37 Miniature golf course
38 Christmas tree lots
39 Pumpkin sales lots
40 Seasonal items sales lots
41 Bingo
Cost Recovery Information
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Unit Notes
See Schedule 200 attached See Schedule 200 attached
$23.00 $23 per year
$30.00 $30 per year
$45.00 $45 per year
See Schedule 100 attached See Schedule 100 attached
$263.00 $263 first year
$210.00 $210 annual renewal
$90.00 $90 first year
$75.00 $75 annual renewal
$413.00 $413 first year
$360.00 $360 annual renewal
See Schedule 200 attached See Schedule 200 attached
$45.00 $45 per year
$150.00 $150 per year
$225.00 $225 per year, max 190 days
$113.00 $113 per year plus $5
$150.00 $150 per year
$113.00 $113
See Schedule 200 attached See Schedule 200 attached
$150.00 $150 plus all other applicable fees
per lot per sale
$150.00 $150 plus all other applicable fees
per lot per sale
$150.00 $150 plus all other applicable fees
per lot per sale
$50.00 $50
62 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Finance / Municipal Services
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost of Service
$146 $154 $157 $172 $172
Fee Description
Cust Svc
Rep
Sr Cust
Svc Rep
Utility Field
Svc Wrkr
Utility Field
Svcs Sup
Utility Svcs
Tech Total
Cust Svc
Rep
Sr Cust
Svc Rep
Utility Field
Svc Wrkr
Utility Field
Svcs Sup
Utility Svcs
Tech Cost of Svc
42 Amplified Music Permit 0.50 0.50 $73 $73
43 City Flag
44 Block Party Request 0.50 0.50 $73 $73
45 Utility service deposit - commercial, industrial and residential 46 Service turn-on fee (for each service)
Electric 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.29 $12 $16 $18 $46
Water 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.29 $12 $16 $18 $46
47 Billing service charge for late payment - residential, commercial and industrial

0.08 0.08 $14 $14
48 Delinquent Service Letter (48 hour notice) 0.33 0.33 $51 $51 49 Fees for the verification of electric meter address (aka "ring out") Per Address Visit 0.08 0.33 0.42 0.83 $12 $52 $72 $136
Per Meter 0.03 0.03 0.07 $5 $6 $11
50 Utility Billing Splitting or Combining Accounts 0.50 0.50 1.00 $73 $79 $152 51 Municipal Services Information Each Document
52 Special Request (Research Required)
53 10-day letter for house meter for up to 10 units 0.50 0.33 0.83 $77 $52 $129 For each full or partial increment of 10 thereafter 0.13 0.13 $19 $19 54 Meter reading more than once per month
55 1st meter per location 0.33 0.25 0.58 $48 $39 $87
56 Delinquent Reconnect Fee 0.17 0.33 0.50 $24 $52 $77
63 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Finance / Municipal Services
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Fee Description
42 Amplified Music Permit
43 City Flag
44 Block Party Request
45 Utility service deposit - commercial, industrial and residential 46 Service turn-on fee (for each service)
Electric
Water
47 Billing service charge for late payment - residential, commercial and industrial
48 Delinquent Service Letter (48 hour notice)
49 Fees for the verification of electric meter address (aka "ring out") Per Address Visit
Per Meter
50 Utility Billing Splitting or Combining Accounts
51 Municipal Services Information Each Document
52 Special Request (Research Required)
53 10-day letter for house meter for up to 10 units
For each full or partial increment of 10 thereafter
54 Meter reading more than once per month
55 1st meter per location
56 Delinquent Reconnect Fee
Cost Recovery Information
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Unit Notes
$70.00 96% $73 100%
Actual Cost Actual Cost
No Charge 0% No Charge 0%
Est. 3 mo. usage Est. 3 mo. usage based on history and/or projected load
$43.00 93% $46 100%
$43.00 93% $46 100%
Greater of $14 or 1.5% 100% Greater of $14 or 1.5% 100% $50.00 $51 100% per account
$126.00 93% $136 100% per address
$5.00 46% $5 46% per meter
$150.00 99% $152 100% per account
Actual cost of compilation Actual cost of compilation
$128.00 99% $129 100%
$18.00 94% $19 100%
$84.00 96% $87 100%
$76.00 99% $77 100% per account
64 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Finance / Municipal Services
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost of Service
$146 $154 $157 $172 $172
Fee Description
Cust Svc
Rep
Sr Cust
Svc Rep
Utility Field
Svc Wrkr
Utility Field
Svcs Sup
Utility Svcs
Tech Total
Cust Svc
Rep
Sr Cust
Svc Rep
Utility Field
Svc Wrkr
Utility Field
Svcs Sup
Utility Svcs
Tech Cost of Svc
57 Schedule No. 100 - Commercial/Industrial
1 2-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-40
41-55
56-75
76-100
101+
58 Schedule No. 200 - Professional
1 2-3
4-6
7-10
11-20
21-25
26-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
55+
65 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Finance / Municipal Services
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Fee Description
57 Schedule No. 100 - Commercial/Industrial
1 2-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-40
41-55
56-75
76-100
101+
58 Schedule No. 200 - Professional
1 2-3
4-6
7-10
11-20
21-25
26-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
55+
Cost Recovery Information
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Unit Notes
$15.00 $15
$30.00 $30
$70.00 $70
$90.00 $90
$115.00 $115
$175.00 $175
$225.00 $225
$280.00 $280
$330.00 $330
$380.00 $380
$460.00 $460
$500.00 $500
$15.00 $15
$30.00 $30
$70.00 $70
$90.00 $90
$115.00 $115
$175.00 $175
$225.00 $225
$280.00 $280
$330.00 $330
$380.00 $380
$460.00 $460
$500.00 $500
66 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Finance / Municipal Services
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost of Service
$146 $154 $157 $172 $172
Fee Description
Cust Svc
Rep
Sr Cust
Svc Rep
Utility Field
Svc Wrkr
Utility Field
Svcs Sup
Utility Svcs
Tech Total
Cust Svc
Rep
Sr Cust
Svc Rep
Utility Field
Svc Wrkr
Utility Field
Svcs Sup
Utility Svcs
Tech Cost of Svc
59 Schedule No. 300 - Manufacturing
1-3
4-20
21-30
31-50
51-75
76-100
101-125
126-175
176-225
226-300
301-400
401+
67 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Finance / Municipal Services
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Fee Description
59 Schedule No. 300 - Manufacturing
1-3
4-20
21-30
31-50
51-75
76-100
101-125
126-175
176-225
226-300
301-400
401+
Cost Recovery Information
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery Unit Notes
$15.00 $15
$45.00 $45
$65.00 $65
$100.00 $100
$135.00 $135
$175.00 $175
$225.00 $225
$280.00 $280
$330.00 $330
$380.00 $380
$460.00 $460
$500.00 $500
68 Fire Department Fees
69 City .of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost Allocation - Fire - Department Administration
FY 22/23 Forecast Expenses [a] Program 7811
Fund # Fund Desc Account Desc Fire - Admin Adjustment Total Notes 001 General Fund 87010 - Salary And Wages - Regular $1,161,084 $0 $1,161,084 001 General Fund 87011 - Salary Attrition and VTO ($4,503) $0 ($4,503) 001 General Fund 87017 - Premium Pay $50 $0 $50
001 General Fund 87030 - S & W - O.T. Vacation Relief ($2,679) $0 ($2,679) 001 General Fund 87040 - Salary And Wages - Holiday Pay $29,970 $0 $29,970 001 General Fund 87110 - Contra 870x0-Reimbd Sal & Wage ($45,636) $0 ($45,636) 001 General Fund 1 Salary Accounts $1,138,286 $0 $1,138,286 001 General Fund 87211 - PERS - Safety $348,065 $0 $348,065 001 General Fund 87212 - PERS - Misc $196,438 $0 $196,438 001 General Fund 87221 - Medicare $17,942 $0 $17,942
001 General Fund 87222 - Social Security $36,233 $0 $36,233 001 General Fund 87224 - Medicare OT $6,000 $0 $6,000
001 General Fund 87230 - Health Allocation $90,846 $0 $90,846 001 General Fund 87241 - Dental - City Paid $2,055 $0 $2,055 001 General Fund 87242 - Long Term Disability-City Paid $2,961 $0 $2,961 001 General Fund 87243 - Vision- City Paid $714 $0 $714 001 General Fund 87250 - Basic Life Insurance $408 $0 $408 001 General Fund 87270 - Uniform Allowance $520 $0 $520 001 General Fund 87271 - VEBA $9,300 $0 $9,300
001 General Fund 87272 - EAP $368 $0 $368
001 General Fund 87273 - Professional Development $1,000 $0 $1,000 001 General Fund 87275 - Mobile Phone Allowance $960 $0 $960 001 General Fund 87276 - BCN $864 $0 $864
001 General Fund 87390 - OPEB $26,573 $0 $26,573
001 General Fund 2 Benefit Accounts $741,247 $0 $741,247 001 General Fund 87500 - Operating Supplies $23,457 $0 $23,457 001 General Fund 87810 - Utilities Expenses $236,221 $0 $236,221 001 General Fund 87825 - Conference, Travel and Training ($5,058) $0 ($5,058) 001 General Fund 87870 - Contractual Serv Not Class $102,648 $0 $102,648 001 General Fund 87900 - Rent Expense $11,142 $0 $11,142 001 General Fund 3 Mat/Serv/Sup $368,410 $0 $368,410
001 General Fund 87640 - Vehicle Equipment Maintenance $34,145 $0 $34,145 001 General Fund 87650 - Technical Services Maintenance $1,227,055 $0 $1,227,055 001 General Fund 87660 - Workers Comp Insurance $58,025 $0 $58,025 001 General Fund 87680 - Unemployment Insurance $1,312 $0 $1,312 001 General Fund 87740 - Vehicle Equipment Amortization $15,284 $0 $15,284 001 General Fund 87840 - Insurance And Surety Bonds $48,914 $0 $48,914 001 General Fund 5 Interfund Services $1,384,735 $0 $1,384,735 Subtotal $3,632,678 $0 $3,632,678
70 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost Allocation - Fire - Department Administration
Adjustments for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description Fire - Admin Adjustment Total Notes
Allocation of Citywide Overhead - Services from Other Funds CAP Plan Amount $1,865,118 $0 $1,865,118 [b] Adjustment for FY 2022/23 2% 2% 2% [c]
Allocation of Citywide Overhead - Services from Other Funds CAP Plan Amount $1,902,420 $0 $1,902,420 Total Costs for Allocation
Description Total Adjustment Total Notes
Department Administration $5,535,098 $0 $5,535,098 [d]
Subtotal $5,535,098 $0 $5,535,098
Allocation to Direct Service Divisions
Description Subtotal Adjustment Total Share Notes
Administration 7.50 (7.50) 0.00 0%
Emergency Medical Services 2.00 0.00 2.00 1%
Training 4.00 0.00 4.00 3%
Field Operation 120.00 0.00 120.00 82%
Community Risk Reduction 20.00 0.00 20.00 14%
Office of Emergency Services 1.00 0.00 1.00 1%
Total 154.50 (7.50) 147.00 100%
Allocation to Direct Service Divisions
Description Total Notes
Administration $0
Emergency Medical Services $75,307
Training $150,615
Field Operation $4,518,448
Community Risk Reduction $753,075
Office of Emergency Services $37,654
Total $5,535,098
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Source: Citywide Cost Allocation Plan.
[c] Aligns to City's typical budgeting practice of increasing cost allocation amounts by 2% for second year of adopted budget. [d] To account for support provided but not directly budgeted to direct service units. 71 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Position [a] FTE [a]
Total Hours
Per FTE [b]
Less:

Holiday &
Leave [c]
Productive
Hours Per
FTE
Total
Productive
Hours
Indirect
[d] Direct [d] Total
Total
Indirect
Hours
Total
Direct
Hours
Total
Hours
Total Salary
Top Step [e]
Annual
Salary
Fire Marshal 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 60% 40% 100% 1,118 746 1,864 $140 $290,347 Assistant Fire Marshal 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 25% 75% 100% 466 1,398 1,864 $130 $269,526 Fire Protection Engineer 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $86 $359,341 Deputy Fire Marshal III 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $98 $407,514 Deputy Fire Marshal II 5.00 2,080 216 1,864 9,320 15% 85% 100% 1,398 7,922 9,320 $93 $970,112 Deputy Fire Marshal I 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $85 $351,728 Fire Prevention Specialist II 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $75 $310,461 Fire Prevention Specialist I 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 15% 85% 100% 559 3,169 3,728 $43 $177,008 Staff Aide I 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 15% 85% 100% 280 1,584 1,864 $48 $98,842 Office Specialist II 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 100% 0% 100% 3,728 - 3,728 $41 $171,059 Total 20.00 37,280 9,786 27,494 37,280 $3,405,938
Total 26% 74% 100%
[c] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount assumes twelve days holiday, ten days vacation/personal leave, five days sick leave. [d] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates developed for purposes of this analysis. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount based on position and consultant experience working with similar municipalities.
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Based on 40 hour week * 52 weeks per year.
[e] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 72 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Fire - Community Risk Reduction FY 22/23 Forecast Expenses [a] Program 7832 7833
Fund # Fund Desc Account Desc
Fire Prev &
Haz Mat
Fire Prev -
CUPA Subtotal Adjustment Total Notes
001 General Fund 87010 - Salary And Wages - Regular $2,119,303 $1,124,350 $3,243,653 $0 $3,243,653 001 General Fund 87011 - Salary Attrition and VTO ($5,443) ($2,816) ($8,259) $0 ($8,259) 001 General Fund 87020 - Salary And Wages - As Needed $32,137 $0 $32,137 $0 $32,137 001 General Fund 87030 - S & W - O.T. Vacation Relief $59,988 $0 $59,988 $0 $59,988 001 General Fund 87040 - Salary And Wages - Holiday Pay $12,460 $11,541 $24,001 $0 $24,001 001 General Fund 87110 - Contra 870x0-Reimbd Sal & Wage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 001 General Fund 1 Salary Accounts $2,218,445 $1,133,075 $3,351,520 $0 $3,351,520 001 General Fund 87211 - PERS - Safety $715,324 $584,632 $1,299,956 $0 $1,299,956 001 General Fund 87212 - PERS - Misc $302,625 $34,571 $337,196 $0 $337,196 001 General Fund 87221 - Medicare $31,602 $16,790 $48,392 $0 $48,392 001 General Fund 87222 - Social Security $47,818 $6,130 $53,948 $0 $53,948 001 General Fund 87224 - Medicare OT $776 $0 $776 $0 $776 001 General Fund 87230 - Health Allocation $179,111 $66,875 $245,986 $0 $245,986 001 General Fund 87241 - Dental - City Paid $2,192 $548 $2,740 $0 $2,740 001 General Fund 87242 - Long Term Disability-City Paid $3,611 $551 $4,162 $0 $4,162 001 General Fund 87243 - Vision- City Paid $833 $119 $952 $0 $952 001 General Fund 87250 - Basic Life Insurance $888 $228 $1,116 $0 $1,116 001 General Fund 87270 - Uniform Allowance $4,810 $1,885 $6,695 $0 $6,695 001 General Fund 87271 - VEBA $25,200 $15,600 $40,800 $0 $40,800 001 General Fund 87272 - EAP $637 $294 $931 $0 $931
001 General Fund 87273 - Professional Development $500 $500 $1,000 $0 $1,000 001 General Fund 87276 - BCN $2,592 $2,160 $4,752 $0 $4,752 001 General Fund 87280 - City Paid Deferred Comp Exp $6,000 $0 $6,000 $0 $6,000 001 General Fund 87390 - OPEB $46,059 $21,258 $67,317 $0 $67,317 001 General Fund 2 Benefit Accounts $1,370,578 $752,141 $2,122,719 $0 $2,122,719 001 General Fund 87500 - Operating Supplies $70,428 $8,489 $78,917 $0 $78,917 001 General Fund 87825 - Conference, Travel and Training $18,890 $13,265 $32,155 $0 $32,155 001 General Fund 87870 - Contractual Serv Not Class $37,142 $0 $37,142 $0 $37,142 001 General Fund 87900 - Rent Expense $3,503 $0 $3,503 $0 $3,503 001 General Fund 3 Mat/Serv/Sup $129,963 $21,754 $151,717 $0 $151,717 001 General Fund 87640 - Vehicle Equipment Maintenance $37,939 $16,213 $54,152 $0 $54,152 001 General Fund 87650 - Technical Services Maintenance $15,612 $7,205 $22,817 $0 $22,817 001 General Fund 87660 - Workers Comp Insurance $83,074 $43,989 $127,063 $0 $127,063 001 General Fund 87680 - Unemployment Insurance $1,878 $995 $2,873 $0 $2,873 001 General Fund 87740 - Vehicle Equipment Amortization $3,108 $7,842 $10,950 $0 $10,950 001 General Fund 87840 - Insurance And Surety Bonds $70,030 $37,082 $107,112 $0 $107,112 001 General Fund 5 Interfund Services $211,641 $113,326 $324,967 $0 $324,967 Subtotal $3,930,627 $2,020,296 $5,950,923 $0 $5,950,923 73 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Adjustments for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
Fire Prev &
Haz Mat
Fire Prev -
CUPA Subtotal Adjustment Total Notes
Allocation of Citywide Overhead - Services from Other Funds CAP Plan Amount $534,862 $102,816 $637,678 $0 $637,678 [b] Adjustment for FY 2022/23 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% [c]
Allocation of Citywide Overhead - Services from Other Funds CAP Plan Amount $545,560 $104,872 $650,432 $0 $650,432 Department Administration Costs Assigned to Fire Prev, Haz Mat, and CUPA Description Total Notes
Department Administration $753,075 [d]
Subtotal $753,075
Allocation Share for Department Administration Costs Assigned to Fire Prev, Haz Mat, and CUPA Description Total Salaries Share Notes
7832 - Fire Prevention & Haz Mat $2,119,303 65%
7833 - Fire CUPA $1,124,350 35%
Subtotal $3,243,653 100%
Allocation of Department Administration
Description
Fire Prev &
Haz Mat
Fire Prev -
CUPA Total Notes
Allocation of Department Administration $492,036 $261,039 $753,075 [b] Total Divisional Costs
Description
Fire Prev &
Haz Mat
Fire Prev -
CUPA Total Notes
Total $4,968,222 $2,386,207 $7,354,430
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total
Divisional Expenses $7,354,430
Direct Hours 27,494
Total $267
74 --------
--------
r:::::-:::-:::-
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Billing Factor (Apply Factor to Top Step Salary for Positional Rates) Description FTE Hours Per FTE Total Hours
Salaries and
Wages
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
ICR
Multiplier Notes
Total 20.00 2,080 41,600 $3,405,938 $82 $267 3.27
Full Cost Factors for Hourly Rate Buildup
Description Total Total
Personnel $5,474,239 74%
Equipment $0 0%
Materials / Supplies $476,684 6%
Other Costs $0 0%
Overhead $1,403,507 19%
Total $7,354,430 100%
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Source: Citywide Cost Allocation Plan.
[c] Aligns to City's typical budgeting practice of increasing cost allocation amounts by 2% for second year of adopted budget. [d] To account for department admin support provided but not directly budgeted to direct service units. See Fire Department - Department Administration cost allocation worksheet. 75 ----------------
City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description Service Time
Hourly
Rate Cost of Service
Current
Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Construction Permits
1 Alternate Materials and Methods Review 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $1,297 61% 2 Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems: Special Hazard Systems (including Halon, Wet and Dry Chemical Systems, CO2, Foam and Similar Systems)

7.00 x $267 = $1,869 $1,361 73%
3 Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems: Hood & Duct 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $865 65% 4 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems - New
a) 1-49 heads 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $1,081 81%
b) 50-100 heads 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $1,729 81%
c) 101-200 heads 13.00 x $267 = $3,471 $2,811 81%
d) Each additional 100 heads (>200 heads) 3.00 x $267 = $801 $648 81% 5 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems - Existing
a) 1-49 heads, no calculations 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $648 61% b) 50-100 heads, no calculations 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $864 81% c) 1-49 heads, with calculations 6.50 x $267 = $1,736 $1,405 81% d) 50-100 heads, with calculations 7.50 x $267 = $2,003 $1,621 81% e) 101-200 heads, with calculations 12.00 x $267 = $3,204 $2,595 81% f) Each additional 100 heads (>200 heads) 1.50 x $267 = $401 $323 81% 6 Battery Systems 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $1,080 67%
7 Building Plan Check varies x $267 = 35% of Building Fee; Min. 3.5 hours
30% of Building Fee;
Min. $756
varies
8 Carnivals and Fairs 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $648 49%
9 Closure of an Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment System a) Conditionally Authorized and Conditionally Exempt 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $746 70% b) Permit by Rule 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $912 68%
10 Compressed Gas Installation 7.00 x $267 = $1,869 $1,323 71% 11 Cooking Oil Storage Tanks 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $1,080 81% 12 Demolition of Building 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $648 49% 13 Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 18.00 x $267 = $4,806 $3,395 71% 76 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description
Construction Permits
1 Alternate Materials and Methods Review
2 Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems: Special Hazard Systems (including Halon, Wet and Dry Chemical Systems, CO2, Foam and Similar Systems)
3 Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems: Hood & Duct
4 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems - New
a) 1-49 heads
b) 50-100 heads
c) 101-200 heads
d) Each additional 100 heads (>200 heads)
5 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems - Existing
a) 1-49 heads, no calculations
b) 50-100 heads, no calculations
c) 1-49 heads, with calculations
d) 50-100 heads, with calculations
e) 101-200 heads, with calculations
f) Each additional 100 heads (>200 heads)
6 Battery Systems
7 Building Plan Check
8 Carnivals and Fairs
9 Closure of an Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment System a) Conditionally Authorized and Conditionally Exempt
b) Permit by Rule
10 Compressed Gas Installation
11 Cooking Oil Storage Tanks
12 Demolition of Building
13 Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Change $
Proposed
Change %
$1,577 74% $280 22%
$1,530 82% $169 12%
$1,022 77% $157 18%
$1,166 87% $85 8%
$1,865 87% $136 8%
$3,031 87% $220 8%
$699 87% $51 8%
$788 74% $140 22%
$932 87% $68 8%
$1,515 87% $110 8%
$1,748 87% $127 8%
$2,798 87% $203 8%
$349 87% $26 8%
$1,254 78% $174 16%
35% of Building Fee;
Min. $831
86% $75 10%
$877 66% $229 35%
$853 80% $107 14%
$1,053 79% $141 15%
$1,505 81% $182 14%
$1,165 87% $85 8%
$877 66% $229 35%
$3,865 80% $470 14%
77 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description Service Time
Hourly
Rate Cost of Service
Current
Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
14 Emergency Alarm Systems
a) New System - No Gas Detection 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $1,729 81% b) Modification - No Gas Detection 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $1,080 101% c) New System - Including Gas Detection 10.00 x $267 = $2,670 $2,161 81% d) Modification - Including Gas Detection 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $1,296 97% 15 Engineering Referrals (Parcel maps, public roads, public fire hydrants) 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $432 40% 16 Environmental Study Initial Review (includes 6 hours of review) 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $1,509 71% 17 Environmental Study Each Additional Hour after Initial Review 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81% 18 Exhibit and Trade Shows 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $864 54% 19 Fire Alarm Systems (Non-high rise and R-2 Occupancies) a) 1-20 Devices 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $864 81%
b) 21-40 Devices 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $1,297 81%
c) 41-100 Devices 10.00 x $267 = $2,670 $2,161 81%
d) 101-200 Devices 13.00 x $267 = $3,471 $2,811 81%
e) Each additional 50 devices (>200 devices) 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81% 20 Fire Alarm Systems with pre-wire inspection required (High Rise and R-2 occupancies) a) 1-20 Devices 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $1,080 81%
b) 21-40 Devices 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $1,729 81%
c) 41-100 Devices 12.00 x $267 = $3,204 $2,595 81%
d) 101-200 Devices 15.00 x $267 = $4,005 $3,244 81%
e) Each additional 50 devices (>200 devices) 3.00 x $267 = $801 $648 81% 21 Fire Pump Installation 12.00 x $267 = $3,204 $2,595 81% 22 High-Rise Fire Protection Water Storage Tank
a) 1st Tank 5.50 x $267 = $1,469 $1,189 81%
b) each additional tank 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81%
23 Hazardous Materials Closure Plan
a) Facility/Site 20.00 x $267 = $5,340 $3,781 71%
b) Equipment 10.00 x $267 = $2,670 $1,889 71%
24 Hazardous Material Tool/Equipment Installation 10.00 x $267 = $2,670 $2,161 81% 25 High-Piled Combustible Storage 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $1,729 81% 78 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description
14 Emergency Alarm Systems
a) New System - No Gas Detection
b) Modification - No Gas Detection
c) New System - Including Gas Detection
d) Modification - Including Gas Detection
15 Engineering Referrals (Parcel maps, public roads, public fire hydrants) 16 Environmental Study Initial Review (includes 6 hours of review) 17 Environmental Study Each Additional Hour after Initial Review 18 Exhibit and Trade Shows
19 Fire Alarm Systems (Non-high rise and R-2 Occupancies) a) 1-20 Devices
b) 21-40 Devices
c) 41-100 Devices
d) 101-200 Devices
e) Each additional 50 devices (>200 devices)
20 Fire Alarm Systems with pre-wire inspection required (High Rise and R-2 occupancies) a) 1-20 Devices
b) 21-40 Devices
c) 41-100 Devices
d) 101-200 Devices
e) Each additional 50 devices (>200 devices)
21 Fire Pump Installation
22 High-Rise Fire Protection Water Storage Tank
a) 1st Tank
b) each additional tank
23 Hazardous Materials Closure Plan
a) Facility/Site
b) Equipment
24 Hazardous Material Tool/Equipment Installation
25 High-Piled Combustible Storage
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Change $
Proposed
Change %
$1,865 87% $136 8%
$1,068 100% ($12) -1%
$2,331 87% $170 8%
$1,309 98% $13 1%
$644 60% $212 49%
$1,718 80% $209 14%
$233 87% $17 8%
$1,110 69% $246 28%
$932 87% $68 8%
$1,399 87% $102 8%
$2,331 87% $170 8%
$3,031 87% $220 8%
$466 87% $34 8%
$1,165 87% $85 8%
$1,865 87% $136 8%
$2,798 87% $203 8%
$3,498 87% $254 8%
$699 87% $51 8%
$2,798 87% $203 8%
$1,282 87% $93 8%
$466 87% $34 8%
$4,301 81% $520 14%
$2,149 80% $260 14%
$2,331 87% $170 8%
$1,865 87% $136 8%
79 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description Service Time
Hourly
Rate Cost of Service
Current
Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
26 Knox Box Installation 1.50 x $267 = $401 n/a
27 Liquefied Petroleum Gases Installation Per Tank 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $864 81% 28 Methane Venting and Detection Systems 14.00 x $267 = $3,738 $3,027 81% 29 Open Burnings (open flames, torches, candles) 3.00 x $267 = $801 $648 81% 30 Ovens: Industrial Baking and/or Drying per oven 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $864 81% 31 Community Development (Planning) Department Referrals 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $865 81% 32 Pyrotechnic / Special Effects Display 7.00 x $267 = $1,869 $1,513 81% 33 Pyrotechnics Special Effects Proximal to Audience 12.00 x $267 = $3,204 $2,595 81% 34 Refrigeration System 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $864 54%
35 Access Control and Traffic Calming Devices Gates and Barricades across fire apparatus access roads

4.50 x $267 = $1,202 $432 36%
36 Smoke Control System 20.00 x $267 = $5,340 $4,325 81% 37 Standpipe Systems: Wet, Combination and Horizontal 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $1,080 81% 38 Storage Tanks - Hazardous Materials: Underground and Above Ground Tank Installations (1st tank)

9.00 x $267 = $2,403 $1,700 71%
39 Underground and Above Ground Tank Installations (each additional tank after the 1st) 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $756 71% 40 Storage Tanks - Hazardous Materials: Underground and Above Ground Tank Removals (1st tank)

9.00 x $267 = $2,403 $1,700 71%
41 Underground and Above Ground Tank Removals (each additional tank after the 1st) 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $756 71% 42 Underground and Above Ground Tank Modifications 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $945 71% 43 First Tent, Canopy or Air Supported Structure 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $865 81% 44 Each Additional Tent, Canopy or Air Supported Structure 1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81% 45 Special Event Structure 10.00 x $267 = $2,670 $2,160 81% 46 Underground Fire Service Systems
a) Fire Sprinkler System (no hydrants) 7.00 x $267 = $1,869 $1,513 81% b) Fire Sprinkler System with hydrants 9.00 x $267 = $2,403 $2,161 90% c) Repairs 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $864 81%
80 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description
26 Knox Box Installation
27 Liquefied Petroleum Gases Installation Per Tank
28 Methane Venting and Detection Systems
29 Open Burnings (open flames, torches, candles)
30 Ovens: Industrial Baking and/or Drying per oven
31 Community Development (Planning) Department Referrals 32 Pyrotechnic / Special Effects Display
33 Pyrotechnics Special Effects Proximal to Audience
34 Refrigeration System
35 Access Control and Traffic Calming Devices Gates and Barricades across fire apparatus access roads
36 Smoke Control System
37 Standpipe Systems: Wet, Combination and Horizontal
38 Storage Tanks - Hazardous Materials: Underground and Above Ground Tank Installations (1st tank)
39 Underground and Above Ground Tank Installations (each additional tank after the 1st) 40 Storage Tanks - Hazardous Materials: Underground and Above Ground Tank Removals (1st tank)
41 Underground and Above Ground Tank Removals (each additional tank after the 1st) 42 Underground and Above Ground Tank Modifications
43 First Tent, Canopy or Air Supported Structure
44 Each Additional Tent, Canopy or Air Supported Structure 45 Special Event Structure
46 Underground Fire Service Systems
a) Fire Sprinkler System (no hydrants)
b) Fire Sprinkler System with hydrants
c) Repairs
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Change $
Proposed
Change %
$349 87% n/a
$932 87% $68 8%
$3,264 87% $237 8%
$699 87% $51 8%
$932 87% $68 8%
$932 87% $67 8%
$1,632 87% $119 8%
$2,798 87% $203 8%
$1,110 69% $246 28%
$689 57% $257 59%
$4,663 87% $338 8%
$1,165 87% $85 8%
$1,934 80% $234 14%
$860 81% $104 14%
$1,934 80% $234 14%
$860 81% $104 14%
$1,075 81% $130 14%
$933 87% $68 8%
$350 87% $26 8%
$2,330 87% $170 8%
$1,632 87% $119 8%
$2,242 93% $81 4%
$932 87% $68 8%
81 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description Service Time
Hourly
Rate Cost of Service
Current
Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
47 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
a) Residential 13D - Initial Submittal Plan Review Required 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $1,133 71% b) Residential 13D - Secondary Submittal - No Plan Review Required 3.00 x $267 = $801 $648 81% c) Automatic Fire Protection System for Spray Booths 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $1,297 81% 48 On-Demand Mobile Fueling Site Permit 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $1,729 81% 49 2-Way Elevator Permit 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $864 54%
50 Solar Photovoltaic Power Systems
a) Commercial 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $865 40%
b) Residential 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81%
51 Phased Permitting / Occupancy Plan 12.00 x $267 = $3,204 $2,595 81% 52 Access Controlled Egress 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $864 54% 53 Fire Safety Demolition/Construction Plan 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $648 40% 54 Hazardous Materials Tool/Equipment Modification 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $1,297 81% 55 Energy Storage Systems
a) Energy Storage Systems 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $1,296 81% b) Energy Storage Systems - Residential (R3) 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81% 56 Plant Extraction Systems 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $1,729 81% 57 Special Events Structure 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $432 20% 58 Plan Revision / Resubmittal Fee 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81% 59 Firefighter Air Replenishment System 12.00 x $267 = $3,204 $1,340 42% 60 Carbon Dioxide Beverage Dispensing System 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $903 68% 61 Design Review / Consultation (per hour) 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81% 62 Miscellaneous Inspections or Plan Reviews per hour 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81% 63 Overtime Inspection 3.00 x $320 = $961 $925 96%
64 Overtime Plan Review 3.00 x $320 = $961 $925 96%
65 Outdoor Assembly Event 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $864 65% 66 Licensed Care Facility (Pre-Inspection) 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81% 82 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description
47 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
a) Residential 13D - Initial Submittal Plan Review Required b) Residential 13D - Secondary Submittal - No Plan Review Required c) Automatic Fire Protection System for Spray Booths
48 On-Demand Mobile Fueling Site Permit
49 2-Way Elevator Permit
50 Solar Photovoltaic Power Systems
a) Commercial
b) Residential
51 Phased Permitting / Occupancy Plan
52 Access Controlled Egress
53 Fire Safety Demolition/Construction Plan
54 Hazardous Materials Tool/Equipment Modification
55 Energy Storage Systems
a) Energy Storage Systems
b) Energy Storage Systems - Residential (R3)
56 Plant Extraction Systems
57 Special Events Structure
58 Plan Revision / Resubmittal Fee
59 Firefighter Air Replenishment System
60 Carbon Dioxide Beverage Dispensing System
61 Design Review / Consultation (per hour)
62 Miscellaneous Inspections or Plan Reviews per hour
63 Overtime Inspection
64 Overtime Plan Review
65 Outdoor Assembly Event
66 Licensed Care Facility (Pre-Inspection)
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Change $
Proposed
Change %
$1,289 80% $156 14%
$699 87% $51 8%
$1,399 87% $102 8%
$1,865 87% $136 8%
$1,110 69% $246 28%
$1,288 60% $423 49%
$466 87% $34 8%
$2,798 87% $203 8%
$1,110 69% $246 28%
$966 60% $318 49%
$1,399 87% $102 8%
$1,398 87% $102 8%
$466 87% $34 8%
$1,865 87% $136 8%
$1,000 47% $568 131%
$466 87% $34 8%
$1,961 61% $621 46%
$1,047 78% $144 16%
$233 87% $17 8%
$233 87% $17 8%
$937 97% $12 1%
$937 97% $12 1%
$1,021 76% $157 18%
$466 87% $34 8%
83 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description Service Time
Hourly
Rate Cost of Service
Current
Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Operational Permits
67 Aerosol products 1.30 x $267 = $347 $280 81%
68 Additive Manufacturing 1.00 x $267 = $267
69 Amusement Park Buildings 1.30 x $267 = $347 $281 81% 70 Covered and Open Mall Buildings 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $824 77% 71 Emergency Information Contact - Business License 0.25 x $267 = $67 n/a 72 Exhibit and Trade Shows 1.30 x $267 = $347 $280 81%
73 Explosives 1.30 x $267 = $347 $280 81%
74 Cutting and Welding 1.30 x $267 = $347 $280 81%
75 Cellulose Nitrate Storage 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81% 76 Combustible Dust Producing Operations 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81% 77 Combustible Fire Fiber Storage 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81% 78 Combustible Storage - Including tires in excess of 2,500 cubic feet 2.50 x $267 = $668 $541 81% 79 Dry Cleaning Plants 1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81%
80 Energy Storage Systems 1.00 x $267 = $267 $259 97%
Fruit Ripening 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81%
81 High Piled Combustible Storage 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81% 82 Hot Work Operations 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81%
83 Lithium Batteries (Collection and Storage over 1,000 pounds) 1.00 x $267 = $267 84 Lumber Yard - More than 100,000 board feet 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81% 85 Magnesium Working - more than 10 lbs. per work day 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81% 86 Miscellaneous combustible storage 1.30 x $267 = $347 $280 81% 87 Organic Coatings 1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81%
88 Industrial Ovens (Industrial baking or drying) 0.50 x $267 = $134 $107 80% 89 Places of Assembly 0.75 x $267 = $200 $161 80%
84 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description
Operational Permits
67 Aerosol products
68 Additive Manufacturing
69 Amusement Park Buildings
70 Covered and Open Mall Buildings
71 Emergency Information Contact - Business License
72 Exhibit and Trade Shows
73 Explosives
74 Cutting and Welding
75 Cellulose Nitrate Storage
76 Combustible Dust Producing Operations
77 Combustible Fire Fiber Storage
78 Combustible Storage - Including tires in excess of 2,500 cubic feet 79 Dry Cleaning Plants
80 Energy Storage Systems
Fruit Ripening
81 High Piled Combustible Storage
82 Hot Work Operations
83 Lithium Batteries (Collection and Storage over 1,000 pounds) 84 Lumber Yard - More than 100,000 board feet
85 Magnesium Working - more than 10 lbs. per work day
86 Miscellaneous combustible storage
87 Organic Coatings
88 Industrial Ovens (Industrial baking or drying)
89 Places of Assembly
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Change $
Proposed
Change %
$302 87% $22 8%
$267 100% $267
$302 87% $21 8%
$905 85% $81 10%
$25 37% n/a
$302 87% $22 8%
$302 87% $22 8%
$302 87% $22 8%
$233 87% $17 8%
$466 87% $34 8%
$233 87% $17 8%
$583 87% $42 8%
$350 87% $26 8%
$262 98% $3 1%
$233 87% $17 8%
$466 87% $34 8%
$233 87% $17 8%
$267 100% $267
$233 87% $17 8%
$233 87% $17 8%
$302 87% $22 8%
$350 87% $26 8%
$116 87% $9 8%
$174 87% $13 8%
85 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description Service Time
Hourly
Rate Cost of Service
Current
Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
90 Places of Assembly (Temporary - Special Event) 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $1,296 81% 91 Private Fire Hydrants 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81%
92 Pyroxylin Plastics 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81%
93 Refrigeration Equipment 1.30 x $267 = $347 $280 81%
94 Repair Garages 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81%
95 Rooftop Heliports 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81%
96 Smoke Control and Evacuation Systems 3.00 x $267 = $801 n/a 97 Spray or Dipping Operations 1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81% 98 Tire Rebuilding Plants 1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81%
99 Waste Handling Facilities 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81% 100 Wood Products - Storage in excess of 200 cubic feet 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81% 101 Mobile Food Preparation Vehicles 0.50 x $267 = $134 $107 80% 102 Liquid-or-gas Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly Buildings 0.50 x $267 = $134 $107 80% 103 Motor Fuel-Dispensing Facilities 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81% 104 Pyrotechnics Special Effects Materials Storage 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81% 105 Plant Extraction Systems 1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81% 106 Indoor Growing Operations 1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81% 107 Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 2.00 x $267 = $534 $216 40% 108 Single Story Building
a) 1 to 20,000 square feet 1.50 x $267 = $401 $216 54%
b) 20,001 square feet or greater 2.25 x $267 = $601 $324 54% c) Multi-Story Structures: Buildings 2 or more stories in height and not classified as a highrise3.00 x $267 = $801 $324 40% 109 Operational Permit Re-Inspection (per hour) 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81% Operational Permits - Haz-Mat
110 Combustible and Flammable Materials (any amount) 1.00 x $267 = $267 $217 81% 111 Combustible and Flammable Materials - On Demand Mobile Fueling 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $1,297 81% 112 Compressed Gases (any amount) 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81% 86 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description
90 Places of Assembly (Temporary - Special Event)
91 Private Fire Hydrants
92 Pyroxylin Plastics
93 Refrigeration Equipment
94 Repair Garages
95 Rooftop Heliports
96 Smoke Control and Evacuation Systems
97 Spray or Dipping Operations
98 Tire Rebuilding Plants
99 Waste Handling Facilities
100 Wood Products - Storage in excess of 200 cubic feet 101 Mobile Food Preparation Vehicles
102 Liquid-or-gas Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly Buildings 103 Motor Fuel-Dispensing Facilities
104 Pyrotechnics Special Effects Materials Storage
105 Plant Extraction Systems
106 Indoor Growing Operations
107 Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System
108 Single Story Building
a) 1 to 20,000 square feet
b) 20,001 square feet or greater
c) Multi-Story Structures: Buildings 2 or more stories in height and not classified as a highrise 109 Operational Permit Re-Inspection (per hour)
Operational Permits - Haz-Mat
110 Combustible and Flammable Materials (any amount)
111 Combustible and Flammable Materials - On Demand Mobile Fueling 112 Compressed Gases (any amount)
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Change $
Proposed
Change %
$1,398 87% $102 8%
$466 87% $34 8%
$466 87% $34 8%
$302 87% $22 8%
$233 87% $17 8%
$466 87% $34 8%
$697 87% n/a
$350 87% $26 8%
$350 87% $26 8%
$466 87% $34 8%
$466 87% $34 8%
$116 87% $9 8%
$116 87% $9 8%
$233 87% $17 8%
$233 87% $17 8%
$350 87% $26 8%
$350 87% $26 8%
$322 60% $106 49%
$278 69% $62 28%
$416 69% $92 28%
$483 60% $159 49%
$233 87% $17 8%
$234 88% $17 8%
$1,399 87% $102 8%
$233 87% $17 8%
87 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description Service Time
Hourly
Rate Cost of Service
Current
Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
113 Corrosives 1.30 x $267 = $347 $280 81%
114 Cryogens 1.30 x $267 = $347 $280 81%
115 Highly Toxic Materials 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81%
116 Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG): Any Amount 1.30 x $267 = $347 $280 81% 117 Organic Peroxides: Liquids and Solids - any amount (Except Class V Organic Peroxides) 1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81% 118 Oxidizing Materials: Gasses - more than 504 cubic feet, Liquids and Solids - any amount (Except Class 1 Oxidizers)

1.30 x $267 = $347 $280 81%
119 Pyrophoric Materials: Gases, Liquids and Solids - any amount 1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81% 120 Toxic Materials: Gases, Liquids and Solids - any amount 1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81% 121 Unstable (Reactive) Materials: Gases, Liquids and Solids - any amount (Except Class 1 Unstable Reactive Materials)

1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81%
122 Water Reactive Materials: Gases, Liquids and Solids - any amount (Except Class 1 Water Reactive Materials)

1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81%
State Mandated
123 High-Rise: Per Floor 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $865 81%
124 R-1/R-2 Occupancies: Multi-Family occupancies, 3 of more residential units 0.12 x $267 = $32 $25 78% 125 High-Rise R1/R2: Per Floor 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $865 81% 126 Commercial Day Care (E3) Adult Day Care (I4)
a) 7-49 persons 1.00 x $267 = $267 $216 81%
b) 50-149 persons 1.50 x $267 = $401 $324 81%
c) 150+ persons 3.00 x $267 = $801 $648 81%
127 School
a) 1-250 students 2.00 x $267 = $534 $432 81%
b) 251-500 students 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $865 81%
c) >500 students 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $1,730 81%
128 Jails 3.00 x $267 = $801 $432 54%
129 Hospitals 10.00 x $267 = $2,670 $2,060 77%
88 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description
113 Corrosives
114 Cryogens
115 Highly Toxic Materials
116 Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG): Any Amount
117 Organic Peroxides: Liquids and Solids - any amount (Except Class V Organic Peroxides) 118 Oxidizing Materials: Gasses - more than 504 cubic feet, Liquids and Solids - any amount (Except Class 1 Oxidizers)
119 Pyrophoric Materials: Gases, Liquids and Solids - any amount 120 Toxic Materials: Gases, Liquids and Solids - any amount 121 Unstable (Reactive) Materials: Gases, Liquids and Solids - any amount (Except Class 1 Unstable Reactive Materials)
122 Water Reactive Materials: Gases, Liquids and Solids - any amount (Except Class 1 Water Reactive Materials)
State Mandated
123 High-Rise: Per Floor
124 R-1/R-2 Occupancies: Multi-Family occupancies, 3 of more residential units 125 High-Rise R1/R2: Per Floor
126 Commercial Day Care (E3) Adult Day Care (I4)
a) 7-49 persons
b) 50-149 persons
c) 150+ persons
127 School
a) 1-250 students
b) 251-500 students
c) >500 students
128 Jails
129 Hospitals
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Change $
Proposed
Change %
$302 87% $22 8%
$302 87% $22 8%
$466 87% $34 8%
$302 87% $22 8%
$350 87% $26 8%
$302 87% $22 8%
$350 87% $26 8%
$350 87% $26 8%
$350 87% $26 8%
$350 87% $26 8%
$933 87% $68 8%
$27 85% $2 9%
$933 87% $68 8%
$233 87% $17 8%
$350 87% $26 8%
$699 87% $51 8%
$466 87% $34 8%
$933 87% $68 8%
$1,865 87% $135 8%
$555 69% $123 28%
$2,263 85% $203 10%
89 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description Service Time
Hourly
Rate Cost of Service
Current
Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Penalty Fees
109 False Alarm Responses: After third time in 180 day period per response 1.00 x $267 = $431 $317 74% 110 Re-Inspection Fee: For failure to cancel appointments, work not ready for inspection or more than two inspections

1.50 x $267 = $401 $382 95%
111 Expired Construction Permit
a) Permit Reactivation Fee 1.00 x $267 = $267 $210 79%
b) Plan Review Reactivation Fee 1.00 x $267 = $267 $210 79% Document Fees
112 Microfilm Copies 0.25 x $267 = $67 $25 37%
113 Photographs 0.25 x $267 = $67 $25 37%
CUPA Fees
114 Hazardous Waste Generator Fees
a) Used Oil Only 2.00 x $267 = $534 $374 70%
b) Less than 100 Kg per year 2.00 x $267 = $534 $374 70% c) 100Kg up to 5 tons per year 3.00 x $267 = $801 $578 72% d) 5 tons up to 25 tons per year 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $695 52% e) 25 tons and greater per year 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $827 52% 115 California Accidental Release Program (CALARP) Fees a) CalARP Facility Operating Permit Program 1 10.00 x $267 = $2,670 $1,928 72% b) CalARP Facility Operating Permit Program 2 12.00 x $267 = $3,204 $2,315 72% c) CalARP Facility Operating Permit Program 3 12.00 x $267 = $3,204 $2,315 72% d) RMP Review Fee (per hour) 1.00 x $267 = $267 $226 85% 116 Onsite treatment of Hazardous Waste Annual Fee - Highest Tier a) Permit by Rule 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $1,387 65%
b) Conditionally Authorized 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $991 74% c) Conditionally Exempt 2.00 x $267 = $534 $386 72%
90 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description
Penalty Fees
109 False Alarm Responses: After third time in 180 day period per response 110 Re-Inspection Fee: For failure to cancel appointments, work not ready for inspection or more than two inspections
111 Expired Construction Permit
a) Permit Reactivation Fee
b) Plan Review Reactivation Fee
Document Fees
112 Microfilm Copies
113 Photographs
CUPA Fees
114 Hazardous Waste Generator Fees
a) Used Oil Only
b) Less than 100 Kg per year
c) 100Kg up to 5 tons per year
d) 5 tons up to 25 tons per year
e) 25 tons and greater per year
115 California Accidental Release Program (CALARP) Fees a) CalARP Facility Operating Permit Program 1
b) CalARP Facility Operating Permit Program 2
c) CalARP Facility Operating Permit Program 3
d) RMP Review Fee (per hour)
116 Onsite treatment of Hazardous Waste Annual Fee - Highest Tier a) Permit by Rule
b) Conditionally Authorized
c) Conditionally Exempt
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Change $
Proposed
Change %
$355 82% $38 12%
$388 97% $6 2%
$229 86% $19 9%
$229 86% $19 9%
$25 37% $0 0%
$25 37% $0 0%
$414 78% $40 11%
$414 78% $40 11%
$634 79% $56 10%
$855 64% $160 23%
$1,021 64% $194 23%
$2,114 79% $186 10%
$2,537 79% $222 10%
$2,537 79% $222 10%
$236 88% $10 5%
$1,574 74% $187 14%
$1,077 81% $86 9%
$423 79% $37 10%
91 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description Service Time
Hourly
Rate Cost of Service
Current
Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
117 State of California Annual Surcharges
a) CUPA Oversight Fee As Determined by
State Regulation
b) Underground Tank Fee As Determined by
State Regulation
c) California Accidental Release Prevention Program As Determined by State Regulation
d) Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act As Determined by
State Regulation
118 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Program
a) <1,320 gallon capacity 2.50 x $267 = $668 $469 70%
b) 1,320-10,000 gallon capacity 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $564 53% c) More than 10,000 gallon capacity 5.00 x $267 = $1,335 $792 59% d) Tank in Underground Area (TIUGA) 2.00 x $267 = $534 $434 81% 119 Underground Hazardous Materials Tank
a) First Tank 7.25 x $267 = $1,936 $1,297 67%
b) Each additional tank 2.00 x $267 = $534 $454 85%
120 Hazardous Materials Business Plan
a) 1-3 chemicals 3.00 x $267 = $801 $385 48%
b) 4-6 chemicals 4.00 x $267 = $1,068 $628 59%
c) 7-9 chemicals 6.00 x $267 = $1,602 $943 59%
d) 10-15 chemicals 8.00 x $267 = $2,136 $1,285 60%
e) 16-21 chemicals 10.00 x $267 = $2,670 $1,660 62%
f) Each additional chemical >21 chemicals 0.25 x $267 = $67 $55 82% 92 City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Cost of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire - Community Risk Reduction Fees Fee Description
117 State of California Annual Surcharges
a) CUPA Oversight Fee
b) Underground Tank Fee
c) California Accidental Release Prevention Program
d) Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act
118 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Program
a) <1,320 gallon capacity
b) 1,320-10,000 gallon capacity
c) More than 10,000 gallon capacity
d) Tank in Underground Area (TIUGA)
119 Underground Hazardous Materials Tank
a) First Tank
b) Each additional tank
120 Hazardous Materials Business Plan
a) 1-3 chemicals
b) 4-6 chemicals
c) 7-9 chemicals
d) 10-15 chemicals
e) 16-21 chemicals
f) Each additional chemical >21 chemicals
Proposed
Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Change $
Proposed
Change %
As Determined by
State Regulation
As Determined by
State Regulation
As Determined by
State Regulation
As Determined by
State Regulation
$519 78% $50 11%
$690 65% $126 22%
$928 69% $136 17%
$459 86% $25 6%
$1,457 75% $160 12%
$475 89% $21 5%
$489 61% $104 27%
$738 69% $110 18%
$1,108 69% $165 17%
$1,498 70% $213 17%
$1,913 72% $253 15%
$58 87% $3 5%
93 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Fire - Protection - Emergency Response Position [a] FTE [a]
Total Hours
Per FTE [b]
Less:

Holiday &
Leave [c]
Productive
Hours Per
FTE
Total
Productive
Hours
Indirect
[d] Direct [d] Total
Total
Indirect
Hours
Total
Direct
Hours
Total
Hours
Total Salary
Top Step [e] Annual Salary
Battalion Chief (24 Hours) 3.00 2,912 - 2,912 8,736 20% 80% 100% 1,747 6,989 8,736 $95 $829,571 Fire Captain 34.00 2,912 - 2,912 99,008 20% 80% 100% 19,802 79,206 99,008 $68 $6,712,742 Driver Engineer 40.00 2,912 - 2,912 116,480 20% 80% 100% 23,296 93,184 116,480 $61 $7,157,696 Firefighter I/II 42.00 2,912 - 2,912 122,304 20% 80% 100% 24,461 97,843 122,304 $56 $6,804,995 Total 119.00 346,528 69,306 277,222 346,528 $21,505,004 Deputy Fire Chief 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 $154 $319,467 Total 120.00 348,392 69,678 278,714 348,392 $21,824,471 Total 20% 80% 100%
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Based on 56 hour week * 52 weeks per year for 24 hour employees. [c] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount assumes twelve days holiday, ten days vacation/personal leave, five days sick leave. [d] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates developed for purposes of this analysis. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount based on position and consultant experience working with similar municipalities.
[e] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 94 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Fire - Field Operations
FY 22/23 Forecast Expenses [a] Program 7822
Fund # Fund Desc Account Desc
Protection -
Emerg Resp Adjustment Total Notes
001 General Fund 87010 - Salary And Wages - Regular $24,716,746 $0 $24,716,746 001 General Fund 87011 - Salary Attrition and VTO ($59,304) $0 ($59,304) 001 General Fund 87030 - S & W - O.T. Vacation Relief $3,616,978 $0 $3,616,978 001 General Fund 87040 - Salary And Wages - Holiday Pay $1,111,089 $0 $1,111,089 001 General Fund 87110 - Contra 870x0-Reimbd Sal & Wage $0 $0 $0 001 General Fund 1 Salary Accounts $29,385,509 $0 $29,385,509 001 General Fund 87211 - PERS - Safety $14,508,453 $0 $14,508,453 001 General Fund 87212 - PERS - Misc $0 $0 $0
001 General Fund 87221 - Medicare $366,295 $0 $366,295
001 General Fund 87224 - Medicare OT $15,336 $0 $15,336 001 General Fund 87230 - Health Allocation $1,285,081 $0 $1,285,081 001 General Fund 87241 - Dental - City Paid $275 $0 $275 001 General Fund 87250 - Basic Life Insurance $3,168 $0 $3,168 001 General Fund 87270 - Uniform Allowance $24,240 $0 $24,240 001 General Fund 87271 - VEBA $360,000 $0 $360,000
001 General Fund 87272 - EAP $5,879 $0 $5,879
001 General Fund 87273 - Professional Development $2,000 $0 $2,000 001 General Fund 87275 - Mobile Phone Allowance $1,920 $0 $1,920 001 General Fund 87276 - BCN $51,840 $0 $51,840
001 General Fund 87280 - City Paid Deferred Comp Exp $0 $0 $0 001 General Fund 87390 - OPEB $425,160 $0 $425,160
001 General Fund 2 Benefit Accounts $17,049,647 $0 $17,049,647 001 General Fund 87500 - Operating Supplies $206,811 $0 $206,811 001 General Fund 87600 - Maintenance $158,191 $0 $158,191 001 General Fund 87825 - Conference, Travel and Training $2,123 $0 $2,123 001 General Fund 87870 - Contractual Serv Not Class $180,682 $0 $180,682 001 General Fund 87900 - Rent Expense $2,971 $0 $2,971
001 General Fund 3 Mat/Serv/Sup $550,778 $0 $550,778
001 General Fund 87640 - Vehicle Equipment Maintenance $544,830 $0 $544,830 001 General Fund 87650 - Technical Services Maintenance $154,915 $0 $154,915 001 General Fund 87660 - Workers Comp Insurance $960,719 $0 $960,719 001 General Fund 87680 - Unemployment Insurance $21,722 $0 $21,722 001 General Fund 87740 - Vehicle Equipment Amortization $715,033 $0 $715,033 001 General Fund 87750 - Communi Equipment Amortization $143,013 $0 $143,013 001 General Fund 87840 - Insurance And Surety Bonds $809,861 $0 $809,861 001 General Fund 5 Interfund Services $3,350,093 $0 $3,350,093 Subtotal $50,336,027 $0 $50,336,027
95 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Fire - Field Operations
Adjustments for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
Protection -
Emerg Resp Adjustment Total Notes
Allocation of Citywide Overhead - Services from Other Funds CAP Plan Amount $3,123,506 $0 $3,123,506 [b] Adjustment for FY 2022/23 2% 2% 2% [c]
Allocation of Citywide Overhead - Services from Other Funds CAP Plan Amount $3,185,976 $0 $3,185,976 Department Administration Costs Assigned to Protection - Emergency Response Description Total Notes
Department Administration $4,518,448 [d]
Subtotal $4,518,448
Total Divisional Costs
Description Total Notes
Total $58,040,451
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total
Divisional Expenses $58,040,451
Direct Hours 346,528
Total $167
Full Cost Factors for Hourly Rate Buildup
Description Total Share Hourly Rate
Personnel $46,435,156 80% $134
Equipment $0 0% $0
Materials / Supplies $3,900,871 7% $11
Other Costs $0 0% $0
Overhead $7,704,424 13% $22
Total $58,040,451 100% $167
96 r:::::-:::-:::-
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Fire - Field Operations
Information Below is for Use if City Desires to Use Positional Hourly Billing Rates Scenario 1: Uniform Assignment of Materials and Overhead Costs Per Hour Calculate Benefit Ratio
Salary Accounts $24,716,746
Benefit Accounts $17,049,647
Total 0.69
Calculation of Direct Hours Ratio (Billing Factor)
Description
Base Hrs
Per FTE
Adjust for
Typical Leave
Productive
Hours Direct Hours %
Direct Hours
Per FTE Notes
Hours 2,912 0 2,912 80% 2,330
Direct Hours Bill Factor (For Every $ of Salary Add this amount to account for Direct Hrs v. Total Hrs.) 1.25 Position
Top Step Hrly
[e] Benefits
Subtotal Labor
Costs
Adjust for
Direct Hours
Total Labor
Rate
Add: M'tls /
Supplies
Add:

Overhead
Total
Hourly Rate
Battalion Chief (24 Hours) $95 $66 $160 1.25 $201 $11 $22 $234 Fire Captain $68 $47 $115 1.25 $143 $11 $22 $177
Driver Engineer $61 $42 $104 1.25 $130 $11 $22 $163
Firefighter I/II $56 $38 $94 1.25 $118 $11 $22 $151
Deputy Fire Chief $154 $106 $260 1.25 $324 $11 $22 $358 Scenario 2: Assignment of a Common Indirect Rate Factor that Can Be Applied to Base Hourly Wage Rate to Calculate Fully-Burdened Hourly Billing Rate by Position Description FTE Hours Per FTE Total Hours
Salaries and
Wages
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
ICR
Multiplier Notes
Total 119.00 2,912 346,528 $21,505,004 $62 $167 2.70
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Source: Citywide Cost Allocation Plan.
[c] Aligns to City's typical budgeting practice of increasing cost allocation amounts by 2% for second year of adopted budget. [d] To account for department admin support provided but not directly budgeted to direct service units. See Fire Department - Department Administration cost allocation worksheet. [e] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 97 ----------------
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Fire - Training
Position [a] FTE [a]
Total Hours
Per FTE [b]
Less:

Holiday &
Leave [c]
Productive
Hours Per
FTE
Total
Productive
Hours
Indirect
[d] Direct [d] Total
Total
Indirect
Hours
Total
Direct
Hours
Total
Hours
Total Salary
Top Step [e]
Annual
Salary
Battalion Chief 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 0% 100% 100% - 3,728 3,728 $140 $580,694 Driver Engineer - Training 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 0% 100% 100% - 1,864 1,864 $93 $194,022 Office Specialist II 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 0% 100% 100% - 1,864 1,864 $41 $85,530 Total 4.00 7,456 - 7,456 7,456 $860,246
Total 0% 100% 100%
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Based on 40 hour week * 52 weeks per year.
[c] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount assumes twelve days holiday, ten days vacation/personal leave, five days sick leave. [d] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates developed for purposes of this analysis. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount based on position and consultant experience working with similar municipalities.
[e] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 98 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Fire - Training
FY 22/23 Forecast Expenses [a] Program 7841
Fund # Fund Desc Account Desc Training Adjustment Total Notes 001 General Fund 87010 - Salary And Wages - Regular $879,659 $0 $879,659 001 General Fund 87011 - Salary Attrition and VTO ($3,578) $0 ($3,578) 001 General Fund 87030 - S & W - O.T. Vacation Relief $36,422 $0 $36,422 001 General Fund 87040 - Salary And Wages - Holiday Pay $36,308 $0 $36,308 001 General Fund 87110 - Contra 870x0-Reimbd Sal & Wage $0 $0 $0 001 General Fund 1 Salary Accounts $948,811 $0 $948,811 001 General Fund 87211 - PERS - Safety $431,582 $0 $431,582 001 General Fund 87212 - PERS - Misc $29,964 $0 $29,964 001 General Fund 87221 - Medicare $12,537 $0 $12,537
001 General Fund 87222 - Social Security $5,312 $0 $5,312 001 General Fund 87224 - Medicare OT $466 $0 $466
001 General Fund 87230 - Health Allocation $45,458 $0 $45,458 001 General Fund 87241 - Dental - City Paid $274 $0 $274 001 General Fund 87242 - Long Term Disability-City Paid $478 $0 $478 001 General Fund 87243 - Vision- City Paid $119 $0 $119 001 General Fund 87250 - Basic Life Insurance $252 $0 $252 001 General Fund 87270 - Uniform Allowance $720 $0 $720 001 General Fund 87271 - VEBA $9,600 $0 $9,600
001 General Fund 87272 - EAP $195 $0 $195
001 General Fund 87273 - Professional Development $1,000 $0 $1,000 001 General Fund 87275 - Mobile Phone Allowance $960 $0 $960 001 General Fund 87276 - BCN $1,296 $0 $1,296
001 General Fund 87280 - City Paid Deferred Comp Exp $0 $0 $0 001 General Fund 87390 - OPEB $14,172 $0 $14,172
001 General Fund 2 Benefit Accounts $554,385 $0 $554,385 001 General Fund 87500 - Operating Supplies $63,250 ($63,250) $0 001 General Fund 87800 - Miscellaneous Serv & Supplies ($26,000) $26,000 $0 001 General Fund 87825 - Conference, Travel and Training $109,460 ($109,460) $0 001 General Fund 87870 - Contractual Serv Not Class $10,824 ($10,824) $0 001 General Fund 87900 - Rent Expense $3,396 ($3,396) $0 001 General Fund 3 Mat/Serv/Sup $160,930 ($160,930) $0
001 General Fund 87640 - Vehicle Equipment Maintenance $89,474 ($89,474) $0 001 General Fund 87650 - Technical Services Maintenance $6,004 $0 $6,004 001 General Fund 87660 - Workers Comp Insurance $35,274 $0 $35,274 001 General Fund 87680 - Unemployment Insurance $798 $0 $798 001 General Fund 87740 - Vehicle Equipment Amortization $4,907 $0 $4,907 001 General Fund 87840 - Insurance And Surety Bonds $29,736 $0 $29,736 001 General Fund 5 Interfund Services $166,193 ($89,474) $76,719 Subtotal $1,830,319 ($250,404) $1,579,915
99 City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Fire - Training
Adjustments for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
Protection -
Emerg Resp Adjustment Total Notes
Allocation of Citywide Overhead - Services from Other Funds CAP Plan Amount $84,374 $0 $84,374 [b] Adjustment for FY 2022/23 2% 2% 2% [c]
Allocation of Citywide Overhead - Services from Other Funds CAP Plan Amount $86,061 $0 $86,061 Department Administration Costs Assigned to Protection - Emergency Response Description Total Notes
Department Administration $150,615 [d]
Subtotal $150,615
Total Divisional Costs
Description Total Notes
Total $1,816,591
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total
Divisional Expenses $1,816,591
Direct Hours 7,456
Total $244
Full Cost Factors for Hourly Rate Buildup
Description Total Share Hourly Rate
Personnel $1,503,196 83% $202
Equipment $0 0% $0
Materials / Supplies $76,719 4% $10
Other Costs $0 0% $0
Overhead $236,676 13% $32
Total $1,816,591 100% $244
100
r:::::-:::-:::-
City of Santa Clara
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Hourly Rate Calculation - Fire - Training
Information Below is for Use if City Desires to Use Positional Hourly Billing Rates Scenario 1: Uniform Assignment of Materials and Overhead Costs Per Hour Calculate Benefit Ratio
Salary Accounts $879,659
Benefit Accounts $554,385
Total 0.63
Calculation of Direct Hours Ratio (Billing Factor)
Description
Base Hrs
Per FTE
Adjust for
Typical Leave
Productive
Hours Direct Hours %
Direct Hours
Per FTE Notes
Hours 2,080 (216) 1,864 100% 1,864
Direct Hours Bill Factor (For Every $ of Salary Add this amount to account for Direct Hrs v. Total Hrs.) 1.12 Position
Top Step Hrly
[c] Benefits
Subtotal Labor
Costs
Adjust for
Direct Hours
Total Labor
Rate
Add: M'tls /
Supplies
Add:

Overhead
Total
Hourly Rate
Battalion Chief $140 $88 $228 1.12 $254 $10 $32 $296
Fire Captain - Training $105 $66 $172 1.12 $192 $10 $32 $234 Driver Engineer - Training $93 $59 $152 1.12 $170 $10 $32 $212 Office Specialist II $41 $26 $67 1.12 $75 $10 $32 $117
Scenario 2: Assignment of a Common Indirect Rate Factor that Can Be Applied to Base Hourly Wage Rate to Calculate Fully-Burdened Hourly Billing Rate by Position Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Billing Factor (Apply Factor to Top Step Salary for Positional Rates) Description FTE Hours Per FTE Total Hours
Salaries and
Wages
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
ICR
Multiplier Notes
Total 4.00 2,080 8,320 $860,246 $103 $244 2.36
[a] Source: FY 21/22 & 22/23 Adopted budget.
[b] Source: Citywide Cost Allocation Plan.
[c] Aligns to City's typical budgeting practice of increasing cost allocation amounts by 2% for second year of adopted budget. [d] To account for department admin support provided but not directly budgeted to direct service units. See Fire Department - Department Administration cost allocation worksheet. [e] Source: City of Santa Clara Classified Salary Plan Approved 9/7/2021; City of Santa Clara Unclassified/Elected Salary Plan Approved 5/4/2021. 101
----------------
City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire Training & Resource Fees Fee Description
B'tln
Chief -
Train'g
Fire
Prev'ntn
Fire Captain
- Training
Office
Spec'lst
B'tln
Chief
Fire Captain
24 Hrs
Driver /
Engin'r
Fire
Fighter Total
Training Fees
1 CPR - Adult Heart Saver (4 hours) 3.75 1.25 2.50 7.50 2 CPR - Adult/Pediatric Heart Saver (6 hours) 5.25 1.75 3.50 10.50 3 First Aid (4 hours) 3.75 1.25 2.50 7.50
4 PALS/ACLS Recognition (2 days) 2.67 5.33 2.67 5.33 16.00 5 PALS/ACLS Re-Recognition (1 day) 1.33 2.67 1.33 2.67 8.00 6 Fire Extinguisher Training (2 hours) 0.50 0.75 0.25 0.50 2.00 7 Fire Safety and Evacuation Training Lecture (2 hours) 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.50 2.00

RENTAL FEES
Facility Rental Fees
8 Headquarters' Conference Room Rental 0.25 1.00 1.25
9 Training Center: Classroom (Limit 80 persons) 0.25 1.00 1.25 10 Training Center: Classroom (Limit 30 persons) 0.25 1.00 1.25 11 Training Center: Classroom (Limit 20 persons) 0.25 1.00 1.25 12 Training Center: Drill Grounds/Tower 0.25 1.00 1.25
Resource Fees
13 Stand-by (One Engine for Permitted Activity) 0.75 0.75 1.50 3.00 14 Fire Watch (Per Person Per Hour) 1.00 1.00
15 Water Clean-up - Industrial and Commercial (1 Engine) 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 16 Water Clean-up - Industrial and Commercial (1 Truck) 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 17 Water Clean-up - Industrial and Commercial (1 Haz-Mat) 1.00 1.00 18 Water Clean-up - Industrial and Commercial (1 Battalion Chief) 1.00 1.00 19 DUI Fire Response 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
20 False Alarm Response 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00
[a] Add to False Alarm fee in penalty schedule.
102
City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire Training & Resource Fees Fee Description
Training Fees
1 CPR - Adult Heart Saver (4 hours)
2 CPR - Adult/Pediatric Heart Saver (6 hours)
3 First Aid (4 hours)
4 PALS/ACLS Recognition (2 days)
5 PALS/ACLS Re-Recognition (1 day)
6 Fire Extinguisher Training (2 hours)
7 Fire Safety and Evacuation Training Lecture (2 hours)

RENTAL FEES
Facility Rental Fees
8 Headquarters' Conference Room Rental
9 Training Center: Classroom (Limit 80 persons)
10 Training Center: Classroom (Limit 30 persons)
11 Training Center: Classroom (Limit 20 persons)
12 Training Center: Drill Grounds/Tower
Resource Fees
13 Stand-by (One Engine for Permitted Activity)
14 Fire Watch (Per Person Per Hour)
15 Water Clean-up - Industrial and Commercial (1 Engine) 16 Water Clean-up - Industrial and Commercial (1 Truck) 17 Water Clean-up - Industrial and Commercial (1 Haz-Mat) 18 Water Clean-up - Industrial and Commercial (1 Battalion Chief) 19 DUI Fire Response
20 False Alarm Response
[a] Add to False Alarm fee in penalty schedule.

Cost of Service
$296 $267 $234 $117 $234 $177 $163 $151
B'tln
Chief -
Train'g
Fire
Prev'ntn
Fire Captain
- Training
Office
Spec'lst
B'tln
Chief
Fire Captain
24 Hrs
Driver /
Engin'r
Fire
Fighter
Estimated
Cost of
Service
$664 $204 $378 $1,245
$929 $285 $529 $1,743
$664 $204 $378 $1,245
$624 $944 $435 $805 $2,808
$312 $472 $217 $403 $1,404
$134 $133 $41 $76 $383
$74 $134 $89 $41 $76 $412
$74 $117 $191
$74 $117 $191
$74 $117 $191
$74 $117 $191
$74 $117 $191
$133 $122 $227 $482
$267 $267
$177 $163 $151 $491
$177 $163 $302 $642
$163 $163
$234 $234
$177 $163 $151 $491
$59 $54 $50 $164
103
City of Santa Clara
Cost of Service Study for Analyzing User and Regulatory Fees Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services - Fire Training & Resource Fees Fee Description
Training Fees
1 CPR - Adult Heart Saver (4 hours)
2 CPR - Adult/Pediatric Heart Saver (6 hours)
3 First Aid (4 hours)
4 PALS/ACLS Recognition (2 days)
5 PALS/ACLS Re-Recognition (1 day)
6 Fire Extinguisher Training (2 hours)
7 Fire Safety and Evacuation Training Lecture (2 hours)

RENTAL FEES
Facility Rental Fees
8 Headquarters' Conference Room Rental
9 Training Center: Classroom (Limit 80 persons)
10 Training Center: Classroom (Limit 30 persons)
11 Training Center: Classroom (Limit 20 persons)
12 Training Center: Drill Grounds/Tower
Resource Fees
13 Stand-by (One Engine for Permitted Activity)
14 Fire Watch (Per Person Per Hour)
15 Water Clean-up - Industrial and Commercial (1 Engine) 16 Water Clean-up - Industrial and Commercial (1 Truck) 17 Water Clean-up - Industrial and Commercial (1 Haz-Mat) 18 Water Clean-up - Industrial and Commercial (1 Battalion Chief) 19 DUI Fire Response
20 False Alarm Response
[a] Add to False Alarm fee in penalty schedule.