HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-032 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 06-032
A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH AND/OR INCREASE
ENGINEERING-RELATED FEES AND FEES IN THE
FOLLOWING FEE CATEGORIES: APPLICATION FEES
(MISCELLANEOUS), UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING FEES,
PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES, PUBLIC WORKS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES, MAP AND IMPROVEMENT
PLAN CHECKING FEES AND ETIWANDA DRAINAGE AREA
(MASTER 9) FEES.
A. RECITALS.
(i) The California Government Code authorizes the City to establish fees,
costs and charges for municipal services and facilities, provided such fees,
costs and charges do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost to the City
in providing the service to which the fee, cost or charge applies.
(ii) The City Council has heretofore established fees, costs and charges for
municipal services provided by the City's Engineering Department, and for
funding, in whole or in part, the construction of public facilities. Costs to the
City in providing these services have increased since those fees and
charges were last revised.
(iii) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has heretofore conducted thoroughgoing
and comprehensive studies, as identified in Section B of this Resolution, to
determine actual costs to the City in providing the various municipal
services for which the fees and charges set forth herein apply, and to
determine the appropriate amount of development fee to be charged to
fund or partly fund construction of specified public facilities.
(iv) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has heretofore established a program to
fund the undergrounding of electrical utility lines, as a condition of new
development, in order to promote a more aesthetic and desirable working
and living environment within the City, as provided in Planning Commission
Resolution 87-96. Resolution 87-96 provides that the undergrounding fee
amount shall equal the length of the property being developed from
property line to property line, times the unit amount (per linear foot) as
established by the City Council in City Council Resolution 88-180 based
upon information supplied by the utility companies and as updated
periodically as deemed necessary.
(v) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has heretofore established a drainage plan
for the City and has designated seven local drainage areas. Pursuant to
Section 13.08.030 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, as a
condition of development approval, the City shall require the payment of a
fee for the purposes of defraying the actual or estimated costs of
constructing drainage facilities for the removal of surface and storm waters
from the local drainage areas, made necessary by new development.
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 2 of 63
(vi) All data indicating the estimated or actual cost to the City to provide each
service for which the fees and charges set forth herein apply, and all other
information utilized to establish appropriate development fees in
accordance with State law, was made available to the public at least fifteen
(15) days prior to the date of the public hearing referred to in Recital (vii),
below.
(vii) On February 1, 2006, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing as required by law concerning the fees proposed to be established
and/or increased in this Resolution.
(viii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
finds and resolves as follows:
1. All facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and
correct.
2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the following: (a) the study
and analysis prepared by Maximus, Inc. entitled "City of Rancho Cucamonga
User Fee Study — Engineering Department Final Report January 2006"; (b)
the study and analysis prepared by TischlerBise entitled "Parks and
Recreation Impact Fee Study, January 2006"; (c) the study entitled
"Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Master Plan of Drainage", prepared by BSI
Consultants, Inc. and approved in February 1989, subsequently updated and
approved in 2001 by the "Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Fees
Adjustment — March 21, 2001" in Resolution 01-067, and updated in
Resolution 02-061; (d) all reports, documentation and data provided by City
staff in connection with the proposed fees and charges; (e) City ordinances
and resolutions authorizing collection of fees, charges and /or other
exactions; and (f) the testimony received at the February 1, 2006 public
hearing.
3. Based upon all of the documents, data, authorities, studies and other
evidence described in paragraph 2, above (collectively, "the Supporting
Documentation"), the City Council hereby finds and determines that the fees,
costs and charges for municipal services and facilities set forth in Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, do not exceed the
estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or facility to which the fee,
cost or charge applies. With respect to development or impact fees, in
accordance with Government Code Section 66001, et seq., the City Council
further finds that the Supporting Documentation: (a) adequately identifies the
purpose of each such fee; (b) establishes how each such fee reasonably
relates to the types of development projects upon which the fee is imposed;
(c) establishes how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 3 of 63
the public facility to which each such fee applies and the types of
development projects upon which each fee is imposed; and (d) establishes
how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of each such fee
and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to
the development on which the fee is imposed.
4. Based upon paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, above, the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves and adopts each of the fees set forth
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
5. All fee amounts, costs, and charges for City services, and impact or
development fee amounts or rates, identical to those contained in Exhibit "A",
that were previously adopted or established by resolution of the City Council,
are hereby repealed and replaced with and superceded by the fee amounts,
costs and charges set forth in Exhibit "A", provided, however, that such repeal
shall not excuse or affect the failure of any person or entity to pay any fee
heretofore imposed upon such person or entity.
6. Subject to the provisions of Section 7, below, the fees, costs and charges set
forth in Exhibit "A" shall take effect immediately, except as hereinafter
provided. In accordance with Government Code Section 66017, those fees
and charges set forth in Exhibit "A" that constitute "a fee or charge... upon a
development project... which applies to the filing, accepting, reviewing,
approving, or issuing of an application, permit, or entitlement to use' shall
become effective and payable sixty (60) days from the date of adoption of this
Resolution.
7. Each fee, cost and charge set forth in Exhibit "A" shall be adjusted annually,
commencing January 1, 2007, and each year thereafter on January I",
without further action of the City Council, in proportion to the percentage
change in the following indexes:
a) Application Fees, Public Works Construction Permit Fees and Map and
Improvement Plan Checking Fees will all be adjusted according to the
percentage change in the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers,
for the Los Angeles—Anaheim—Riverside statistical area, for the 12-
month period ending on December 31s` of the immediately preceding
year. If the Consumer Price Index is discontinued, then the replacement
index in use and accepted as the industry and business standard for
Southern California, as determined by the City Council, shall be utilized.
b) Utility Undergrounding Fees, Park Development Fees and Etiwanda
Drainage Area (Master 9) Fees will each be adjusted according to the
percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost
Index for the Los Angeles Area, for the 12-month period ending on
December 315` of the immediately preceding year. If the Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles Area is
discontinued, then the replacement index in use and accepted as the
industry and business standard for Southern California, as determined by
the City Council, shall be utilized.
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 4 of 63
8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1'` day of February 2006.
AYES: Alexander, Gutierrez, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
William Ale 71'r, Mayor
ATTEST:
bra J. Ada s, CMC, City Clerk
I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and
adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting
of said City Council held on the 18t day of February 2006.
Executed this 2otl day of February 2006, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Debra J. Ada C, City Clerk
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 5 of 63
Exhibit"A"
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Engineering Fees
CRANQIIOUCAMON(;A Revised and Adopted as of February 1, 2006
CALWORNIA
Applications
Amending Map...................................................................$1,678.00
BondSubstitution...............................................................$1,985.00
Certificate of Compliance...................................................$2,149.00
Certificate of Correction.....................................................$1,337.00
FloodHazard Letter...............................................................$141.00
Lot Line Adjustment...........................................................$1,729.00
Private Street Designation..................................................$2,999.00
Reapportionment Maps.......................................................$1,552.00
(Two sheet parcel/tract map;$30.00 each additional sheet)
Reimbursement Agreement—Storm Drain........................$4,555.00
Reimbursement Agreement—Street and Utilities..............$5,164.00
Release of Lien Agreement................................................$1,034.00
Standard Agreement/Document Processing..........................$989.00
StreetVacation ...................................................................$3,506.00
Traffic Study Review.............................................................$198.00
(Development Project)
Map and Improvement Plan Checking
Property Legal Description.................................................$1,242.00
Residential Parcel Map.......................................................$3,856.00 +$217.00 per parcel
Tract Maps and Non-Residential Parcel Maps
over ten (10)lots.................................................................$4,506.00 +$268.00 per parcel or lot
Tract Maps and Non-Residential Parcel Maps
of ten(10) lots or less.........................................................$4,854.00
Widening of Existing Streets......................................................$ .59 per LF+sheet charge
for interior streets
Interior Streets— 1 Sheet ....................................................$3,249.00 LS
Interior Streets—2 Sheets...................................................$3,939.00 LS
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 6 of 63
Engineering Fees(continued)
Interior Streets—Sheets 3 and 4.........................................$1,132.00 EA
Interior Streets—5 Sheets...................................................$7,041.00 LS
Interior Streets—Sheets 6 through 9 ..................................$1,132.00 EA
Interior Streets— 10 Sheets....:..........................................$13,209.00 LS
Interior Streets—Sheets I I and more.................................$1,132.00 EA
Storm Drain Plans Same as for Interior Streets
Landscaped and Irrigation Plans
for City-Maintained Areas..................................................$1,154.00 EA
Hydrology Study Drainage Areas
up to 150 acres....................................................................$2,870.00
Hydrology Study Drainage Areas
greater than 150 acres.........................................................$3,913.00
For map and plan checking,the fees for rush checking, when approved by the City Engineer, will
be 50%greater than those listed above. The fees for checking the revisions to approved plans
will be on the basis of actual costs at hourly rates as determined by the City Engineer with a
minimum fee of$100.00
Undergrounding Overhead Utilities
Electric...................................................................................$250.00
Telephone................................................................................$50.00
Cable Television......................................................................$27.00
Public Works Construction Permit
Inspection: Drainage Catch Basin W-4...................................$61.31 EA
Inspection: Drainage Catch Basin W=7...................................$61.31 EA
Inspection: Drainage Catch Basin W=21.................................$61.31 EA
Inspection: Drainage Collar Pipe PCC....................................$20.44 EA
Inspection:Drainage Headwall 48" Wing...............................$40.87 EA
Inspection: Drainage Junction Structure w/o Manhole...........$27.25 EA
Inspection: Drainage Junction Structure with Manhole..........$27.25 EA
Inspection: Drainage RCP 18...................................................$12.26 LF
Inspection: Drainage RCP 24".................................................$12.26 LF
Inspection: Drainage RCP 36"._..............................................$12.26 LF
2
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 7 of 63
Engineering Fees(continued)
Inspection: Drainage RCP 48"-...............................................$12.26 LF
Inspection: Drainage RCP 54".................................................$12.26 LF
Inspection: Drainage RCP 60".................................................$20.44 LF
Inspection: Drainage RCP 72".................................................$20.44 LF
Inspection: Drainage RCP 84".................................................$20.44 LF
Inspection: Drainage RCP 96".................................................$20.44 LF
Inspection: V-Ditch...................................................................$4.09 LF
Inspection: Landscape Cobblestone/Boulders.......................$326.00 1"2,000 SF+$81.75
each additional 1,000 SF
Inspection: Landscape Concrete Header...................................$1.36 LF
Inspection: Landscape Decomposed Granite ..........................$81.75 Per Inspection Occurrence
Inspection: Landscape Fence Tubular Steel..............................$5.45 LF
Inspection: Landscape Gates Tubular Steel.............................$13.62 EA
Inspection: Landscape Irrigation System ..................................$2.04 LF
Inspection: Landscape Maintenance 180 Day.......................$653.00 EA
Inspection: Landscape Masonry Column/Pilaster...................$10.90 EA
Inspection: Landscape Mulch Shredded 4"...............................$2.86 CY
Inspection: Landscape Pavers....................................................$2.72 SF
Inspection: Landscape Shrub I Gallon......................................$1.36 EA
Inspection: Landscape Shrub 5 Gallon......................................$1.36 EA
Inspection: Landscape Slope Erosion Control..........................$0.68 SF
(Jute Matting)
Inspection: Landscape Trail Fence PVC 2-rail..........................$5.45 LF
Inspection: Landscape Trail Fence PVC 3-tail..........................$5.45 LF
Inspection: Landscape Trail Gate............................................$81.75 EA
Inspection: Landscape Tree 5 Gallon......................................$12.26 EA
Inspection: Landscape Tree 15 Gallon....................................$12.26 EA
-• Inspection: Landscape Tree 24" Box.......................................$1635 EA
Inspection: Landscape Tree Palm............................................$27.25 EA
Inspection: Landscape Vine 5 Gallon........................................$1.36 EA
Inspection: Landscape Wall Garden 6.....................................$10.90 LF
Inspection: Landscape Wall Retaining 3.................................$10.90 I,F
Inspection: Landscape Wall Retaining Drain . .......................$6.81 LF
Inspection: Removal Clear and Grub......................................$61.31 EA
3
Resolution.Na 06-032
Page 8 of 63
Engineering Fees(continued)
Inspection: Removal of AC Berm............................................$0.68 LF
Inspection: Removal of PCC Curb...........................................$ 0.65 LF
Inspection: Removal of PCC Sidewalk....................................$ 0.33 SF
Inspection:Removal Tree........................................................$29.92 EA
Inspection: Street AC (1,000 LF Paved Lane)...............................$61.31 EA
Inspection: Street Access Ramp..............................................$27.25 EA
Inspection: Street Adjust Manhole to Grade.............................$6.81 EA
Inspection: Street Adjust Valves/CO to Grade..........................$6.81 EA
Inspection: Street Aggregate Base(per 1,000 LF)......................$61.31 EA
Inspection: Street Barricades.....................................................$1.36 LF
Inspection: Street Berm AC.......................................................$1.36 LF
Inspection: Street Cross-gutter.................................................$0.41 SF
Inspection: Street Curb& Gutter 6".........................................$0.25 LF
Inspection: Street Curb&Gutter 8".........................................$0.29 LF
Inspection: Street Curb&Gutter 12".......................................$0.33 LF
Inspection: Street Curb&Gutter Cobble..................................$2.04 LF
Inspection: Street Curb Core...................................................$40.87 EA
Inspection: Street Curb Only....................................................$0.34 LF
Inspection: Street Curb Rolled.................................................$0.68 LF
Inspection: Street Curbside Drain STD 107-A......................$122.00 EA
Inspection: Street Curbside Drain STD 107-B......................$122.00 EA
Inspection: Street Curbside Drain STD 107-C......................$122.00 EA
Inspection: Street Drive Approach Commercial .....................$61.31 Per Inspection Occurrence
Inspection: Street Drive Approach Residential.......................$30.00 Per Inspection Occurrence
Inspection: Street Light/Signal Interconnect Conduit..............$0.49 LF
Inspection: Street Lights............................................................$6.81 EA
Inspection: Street Right Tum Lane/Busbay PCC 8".............$408.00 EA
Inspection: Street Sidewalk PCC 4".-.....................................$ 0.15 SF
Inspection: Street Subgrade Preparation/Fine Grading............$0.16 LF
Inspection: Traffic Pavement Markings...................................$0.68 EA
Inspection: Traffic Pavement Striping...................................$163.00 Per Inspection Occurrence
Inspection:Traffic Reflectors and Posts..................................$40.87 Per Inspection Occurrence
Inspection: Traffic Signal...................................................$4,577.00 EA
4
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 9 of 63
Engineering Fees(continued)
Inspection: Traffic Signal Modification..............................$2,043.00 EA
Inspection: Traffic Street Sign...................................................$6.81 EA
Inspection: Utility Fiber Optic Conduit& Trench.....................$2.04 LF
Inspection: Utility Underground Existing Electrical.................$2.04 LF
Inspection: Utility Underground Existing Telecom...................$2.04 LF
Inspection: Miscellaneous;Construction items not listed
above will be charged based upon an estimated hourly
inspection need at the rate of$81.75 per hour.
Park Improvement Impact Fees (Subdivisions=or<49,and all other projects)
Single Family Detached .....................................................$3,671.00
Single Family Attached ......................................................$2,657.00
Duplex ................................................................................$3,058.00
Multiple 3-4 .......................................................................$3,042.00
Multiple5-9 .......................................................................$2,120.00
Multiple 10+ .....................................................................$2,317.00
Mobile Home .....................................................................$2,230.00
Nursing/Assisted Living Facility(per room) .....................$1,117.00
Etiwanda Drainage Area (Master 9) Fee
Etiwanda Drainage Area(Master 9)Fee ...........................$26,900/acre
5
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 10 of 63
F-xh1191f
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
MAXIMUS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
User Fee Study
Engineering Department
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by:
X4tXjMT TS
HELP/NG GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE'
January 2006
Daniel B. Edds,MBA
4320 Auburn Blvd,Suite 2000
Sacramento,CA 95841
425.639.1919
1400 1121h Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page I of20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 11 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
MAXIMUS
TABLEOF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................2
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................3
1.1 BACKGROUND AND APPROACH......................................................................................3
1.2 COSTING METHODOLOGIES...........................................................................................3
1.2.1 Process Analytics........................................_................ ............._........................ 3
1.2.2 Productive Hourly Rates.......................................................____. .................... 4
1.2.3 A Definition of Full Cost....... ......................................._..................._........_....... 4
1.3 OPPORTUNITIES FOR REVENUE IMPROVEMENT...........................................................4
1.4 REVENUE PROJECTIONS FOR BUDGETING PURPOSES............................................5
1.5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS..................................................................................................5
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..........................................................................6
2.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE........................................................................................6
2.2 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT.............................................................................................6
2.3 ABOUT MAXIMUS..........................................................................................................6
3. FACTORS LIMITING THE FULL RECOVERY OF COSTS..........................................7
3.1 INACCURATE LABOR RATES............................................................................................7
3.2 RELIANCE ON TIME&MATERIAL(HOURLY) FEES.........................................................7
3.3 INCOMPLETE ESTIMATES OF LABOR UTILIZATION......................................................... 8
3.4 INCOMPLETE FEE SCHEDULES.......................................................................................8
3.5 PAST PRACTICES TO SUBSIDIZE USER FEES.................................................................8
4. DEPARTMENTAL SPECIFIC FINDINGS&RESULTS.................................................9
4.1 PUBLIC WORKS-ENGINEERING DIVISION RESULTS................................................9
4.1.1 Summary Description........................................................................................... 9
4.1.2 Steps in Analysis................................................................................................... 9
4.1.3 Quality Checks and Calculate Future Revenues.......... ......... ...._ ... ..... IO
4.1.4 Findings....................._.......... ................ ..._........................................................ II
5. USER FEE CONCEPTS AND PHILOSOPHY............................................................... 12
5.1 GENERAL FEE PRINCIPLES.......................................................................................... 12
6. MAINTAINING FEE SCHEDULES AND RELATED REVENUES............................. 14
6.1 BENEFITS OF REGULARLY UPDATE FEES..................................................................... 14
6.2 METHODS OF UPDATING FEES..................................................................................... 14
6.2.1 Multi-Year Fees(Updates)._....... _.... ...............__.........._..............._.__......... 14
6.2.2 Alternative 1: Update the Fee Model Annually...... ............. __......—... 14
6.2.3 Alternative 2. City Labor Costs(Recommended Alternative)..._................. 15
7. COSTING METHODOLOGIES........................................................................................ 16
7.1 GENERAL COSTANALYSIS&APPROACH......... - - ___... ................___................ 16
7.1.1 Process Analytics.._......._....._..................._ ...........,.................................. ...... 16
7.1.2 Definitions of Common Terms.............._............_........................................... 17
7.1.3 Summary of the Process Analytics Approach_._.................__.._........_...._.. 18
7.1.4 Steps in the Process Analytics(methodology)......_.................. ...___..... ... 18
8. APPENDIX—DETAILED FEE SCHEDULES................................................................20
1400 112"Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 2 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 12 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
Y
MAXIMUS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 BACKGROUND AND APPROACH
The City of Rancho Cucamonga engaged MAXIMUS, Inc. to
conduct a detailed review of its Engineering fees. As part of this
project, the City desired to reduce or eliminate its reliance on
valuation based fees, which are coming under legal challenge.
These valuation based fees are not standing up under challenge as
the "nexus" between price and cost is difficult, if not impossible, to
create.
MAXIMUS employed proven and objective methodologies to
calculate the actual cost of services, and used our experience to
guide the City regarding the appropriate costs to be included in the
development of full cost fees. City leaders can use this information
to make more informed decisions and set fees to meet the fiscal
and policy goals and objectives of the City.
Through this study, we determined the cost of services offered by
the specific areas for which user fees are currently being charged
or could be charged. This "cost," includes all legitimate direct and
indirect costs associated with providing each service, including
direct support costs from other divisions. However, it does not
include City Wide Overhead, as the City is not currently charging
these overhead expenditures against other services.
1.2 COSTING METHODOLOGIES
Detailed descriptions of the methodology used are available in
section 8 of this report. However, in summary the following
methodologies were utilized to arrive at the cost.
1.2.1 Process Analytics
For this study a methodology called Process Analytics was utilized.
Process Analytics is deeply rooted in the principles of Activity
Based Costing. It is a rigorous and superior methodology to a more
traditional approach, which utilizes direct and indirect costs only.
Process Analytics, which calculates indirect costs, has the added
benefit of mapping processes within a citywide system of service
1400 112"Ave SE,Bellevue; WA 98004 Page 3 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 13 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga-Final Report
MAXIMUS
delivery. For example, as part of this study MAXIMUS was able to
map the resources consumed by Engineering by the actual
processes that are used in the delivery of services. Process
Analytics has the following steps:
1. Identify of the work related processes required to
complete each service.
2. Defining each process by specific activities and tasks.
3. Develop time estimates with staff for each process as
it related to a specific fee.
4. Calculate a Productive Hourly Rate for each division
and by each position. These rates are then applied to
time estimates provided by staff. Assign overhead to
each fee.
5. Calculate the model.
1.2.2 Productive Hourly Rates
In all fees, Productive Hourly Rates were used to calculate the cost
of services. These costs included salary, benefits, vacation time,
sick leave, holiday time, training time, routine meetings,
administrative support, etc.
1.2.3 A Definition of Full Cost
For the purpose of this study and report, "Full Cost" shall mean all
program direct expenses, cross-departmental support, divisional
and department overhead. It does not include City Wide Overhead.
1.3 OPPORTUNITIES FOR REVENUE IMPROVEMENT
The results of this study revealed significant opportunities to
increase revenues through fees. Specifically, opportunities come
from a variety of factors, which are commonly found within these
studies:
1. Increasing Productive Hourly Rates to full cost.
2. Acknowledging the total time to provide a service from
the City wide system of service delivery.
3. Adding new fees, (while eliminating others).
1400 112"Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 4 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 14 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
MAXIMUS
1.4 REVENUE PROJECTIONS FOR BUDGETING
PURPOSES
As part of this study, the City and MAXIMUS recommend some new
fees and restructuring some existing fees. Specifically, valuation
based fees have been replaced by flat fees wherever feasible. The
reason for this is that the valuation model is proving difficult to
defend, as it does not create the required relationship between
price and cost.
Due to these many structural changes to the fees, it is imprecise to
compare the calculated costs with current fees to determine exact
existing subsidies or surpluses. For some fees, the fee
categories/types are different, the existing activity volume statistics
no longer apply, and the current fee levels are no longer
comparable. This limitation affects the individual fee comparisons,
as well as the total revenue that results from all fees over time or
during a fiscal year.
As a result of these issues, there are some limitations to the utility
of the "potential revenue" figures indicated in our summary
worksheets. However, every effort has been made to make a
reasonable and conservative projection of new revenues if the City
adopts fees at full cost recovery.
1.5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
In all departments and divisions studied, MAXIMUS identified an
overall current subsidy provided by the City to the fee-payers as a
whole, whereby the City was charging less than the full actual cost
of providing the services. The results of the MAXIMUS cost
analysis demonstrate the actual full cost of providing each of the
fee-related services included in the study. By annualizing and
combining the results for each fee, we identified the estimated
revenue from the current fees, the potential revenue if the fees
were set at the (100%) cost and the resulting subsidy. The -
following table details this information:
Annual Revenue Project Revenue at Current Over Recovery
(actual) Full Cost or(Subsidy)
$ 1,379,684 $ 2,044,483 $ 664,798
1400 1 12"Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 5 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 15 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
MAXIMUS
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1 2.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The principal goal of this study was to calculate the cost of
providing the services, including all direct, indirect, and support
costs associated with individual services. Secondary objectives of
the study included:
a Restructure the fee schedule with an objective to
eliminate valuation based fees.
■ Ensure a connection between fees and the cost of
services provided.
■ Ensure the fees are logical and defensible.
■ Provide a revenue projection based on the cost recovery
model.
2.2 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The results of this study are documented in a series of worksheets
found in the appendix. This report summarizes the results of the
study, presents conceptual information regarding fee
establishment, and provides a description of the methodologies
used to conduct the analysis. As a summary document, this report
is not intended to provide all of the detail related to the study
process or outcomes.
2.3 ABOUT MAXIMUS
The Cost Services Division of MAXIMUS is part of a nationwide
consulting firm specializing in cost analysis and revenue
enhancement studies for state and local government. The Western
Region Office is headquartered in Sacramento, California, with
other offices in Oakland, Irvine, Denver, and Seattle. Our Western
Region has provided services to hundreds of cities and counties in
the West. In addition to being the industry's volume leader in cost
analysis studies, we have pioneered approaches to fee analysis.
1400 112`h Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 6 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 16 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report 501_
3. FACTORS LIMITING THE FULL RECOVERY MAXIMUS
OF COSTS
:- Several factors were found that limited the full recovery of costs. All
of these factors are commonly found in similar studies and
comparable jurisdictions.
a
U
3.1 INACCURATE LABOR RATES
a3u ° One of the primary reasons limiting the full recovery of costs are
labor rates that do not capture 100% of costs. The following is a list
of costs that are commonly not fully accounted for in rate
calculations:
1. Annual accrual of sick leave.
2. Annual holiday leave.
3. Time associated with management leave.
4. Time associated with routine management& staff meetings.
5. Expenses associated with divisional and/or departmental
overhead.
6. Expenses associated with administrative staff support.
3.2 RELIANCE ON TIME & MATERIAL(HOURLY) FEES
Theory would suggest that the most equitable way to charge a
client for a service would be to track the total time and charge an
hourly rate based upon the personnel cost of the person(s)
providing the service. The reality is that this system is seriously
flawed. Several factors make this system unreliable.
1. Times assigned to projects are nearly always
underestimated without a precise time tracking and
automated tool that monitors 100% of staff time.
2. Hourly rates are habitually too low and fail to capture:
a. Overhead expenses, vacation, sick leave, holiday and
other"non-productive" time.
b. Time spent on support activities such as counter duty,
database maintenance, general administration,
training and meetings.
3. Divisions are typically not asked to set measurable
objectives on billable hours that one might see in the
private sector with similar professional disciplines.
1400 1 12'"Ave SE,Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 7 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 17 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
MAXIMUS
While not all of the factors have been observed with all divisions of
the City in general, these are all contributing factors to the under
recovery of costs.
3.3 INCOMPLETE ESTIMATES OF LABOR UTILIZATION
There are two primary reasons why estimates of labor utilization for
any given service are inaccurate.
1. They fail to identify the work processes, activities and
tasks associated with the service. Therefore, estimates of
time are typically under estimated by a significant margin.
Because of this MAXIMUS takes an extra step to first
identify and define the work processes that actually
produce City services.
2. They fail to capture cross-departmental support or
system wide labor utilization. This was an important
factor in reviewing City services and every effort was
made to identify and capture these additional costs.
3.4 INCOMPLETE FEE SCHEDULES
Outdated or incomplete fee schedules are often a primary reason
why a City does not fully recover its costs. Because of this,
MAXIMUS spends additional time with each department to identify
those services that should be added, those that should be deleted
and splitting those large fees into sub categories that more
accurately reflect the City services.
3.5 PAST PRACTICES TO SUBSIDIZE USER FEES
Many jurisdictions establish unwritten policies or encourage a
practice of subsidizing user fees. Often the objective is to keep user
fees low to encourage economic development. While there is little
evidence that user fees on the whole have any impact on economic
development the result of these policies or practices is often the
inability for staff to keep up with workloads. As economic
development occurs, the ability for the City to finance these
services is severely constrained.
1400 112'"Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 8 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 18 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report Y `-
MAXIMUS
4. DEPARTMENTAL SPECIFIC FINDINGS &
RESULTS
4.1 PUBLIC WORKS -ENGINEERING DIVISION RESULTS
4.1.1 Summary Description
The Land Development Section of the Engineering/Public Works
Division is responsible for the engineering review and inspection of
development projects submitted to the City from the initial concept
plan submittals, to the completion of construction of each public
infrastructure project. This process includes checking for
compliance with city codes and policies, protection from flood
hazards, compliance with,the City's Storm Drain Master Plan, and
technical checking of maps, street, storm drain and public
landscape plans. The development process also includes
construction permit issuance and inspection. The Land
Development Section provides public assistance related to plans,
documents, and construction standards associated with public
rights-of-way and improvements.
The goal of the Land Development team is to provide excellent
customer service assisting the development community, general
public, contractors and other agencies while ensuring the prudent
and equitable application of development-related codes, policies,
infrastructure design, and construction guidelines.
4.1.2 Steps in Analysis
As previously described, the methodology used to calculate the
cost of services is called Process Analytics and it is based on the
rigorous data requirements of Activity Based Costing. Specifically,
the project involved five steps:
1. Identification of division specific processes. In
addition, each process was defined so that all staff
estimated their time according to the same
understanding of what defined an activity.
2. Time estimates. Engineering staff were asked to
estimate the time required to complete each activity
relative to each service. This resulted in a
1400 112"'Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 9 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 19 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga-Final Report
MAXIMUS
comprehensive study of time utilization for the entire
division. For quality purposes, a check was made to
verify that estimated activity time was relatively equal
to actual time available for productive work.
3. Input labor and budget data. Computerized financial
models created in MS Excel assisted this project. Into
this model, time estimates were uploaded along with
all direct and indirect financial expenses.
4. Review of existing fees, add new fees and
eliminate fees. This step was actually a subset of
each and every part of the project. Throughout the
project, services were evaluated for current
applicability to the City.
5. Calculate Productive Hourly Rates. For those
services that cannot be calculated with a flat fee, an
hourly rate was established. This rate calculates the
cost of departmental time, less vacation time, sick
leave time etc and then removes additional hours for
activities that cannot be cost recovered such as
administration and public information. This becomes
the fully loaded hourly rate that will be charged to
users of Engineering services when a flat fee is not
possible.
6. Revenue projection. Once the cost of individual fees
were calculated a revenue estimate was prepared to
compare the revenue at the current fee level with the
potential revenue if fees were set at full cost.
4.1.3 Quality Checks and Calculate Future Revenues
MAXIMUS prides itself in thorough analysis. Because of this, we
take extra steps to insure that total (potential) revenues match total
costs and that total time assigned matches total time available. If
time available does not match time assigned and total revenue
does not match total costs, then core data needs to be reviewed.
This activity has additional activities such as:
• Match service revenue with service costs to determine
subsidies and/or revenue surpluses.
• Review cost, revenue, and subsidies with department
leadership.
• Revise Analysis as required.
1400 112`"Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 10 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 20 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
MAXIMUS
4.1.4 Findings
The analyses of Engineering services that are cost recoverable
indicate a significant opportunity to increase cost recovery.
Currently, the City is under recovering its costs by approximately
$817,949.
The actual summary and fee schedule can be found in the
appendix.
1400 112"Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page I I of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 21 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
MAXIMUS
5. USER FEE CONCEPTS AND PHILOSOPHY
5.1 GENERAL FEE PRINCIPLES
Local governments are funded from a variety of sources, with the
primary sources being taxes, subventions, fees, special charges,
fines, and grants. As the traditional provider of basic services,
cities and counties are constantly struggling with securing sufficient
funding to pay for the services expected/demanded/desired by the
citizenry. Many local government services are 'global* in nature
(e.g., police and fire protection, library, recreation, open space,
etc.). Other services benefit a particular segment of the population,
most often providing a direct monetary or personal benefit to the
recipient. It is in this latter group that subsidy and recovery issues
are brought to the fore. Given the nature of government financing,
if specialized services are not cost recovered sometimes there
must be a decrease in funding for other public good activities.
User fee services are those services provided by a governmental
agency on behalf of a private citizen or group. The assumption
underlying most fee recommendations is that costs of services
benefiting individuals, and not society as a whole, should be borne
by the individual receiving the benefit. Setting user fees, therefore,
is equivalent to establishing prices for services. Making a profit is
not an objective for local government in providing services to the
general public. It is commonly felt that fees should be established
at a level that will recover the cost of providing each service, no
more, and no fess.
It is generally accepted that recovery of costs should be in direct
proportion to the individual/specific gain for services. This means
that if a developer wants to rezone farm land for a housing
development,. the City may not want to charge that business a fee
less than full cost, since to do otherwise would require a subsidy
paid by the general citizenry who do not share in the particular
benefit. Where new development causes an increase in
infrastructure requirements, that increase should logically be
shared pro rata with the existing area proportionate to the degree
that the new development benefits from the infrastructure.
Conversely, a recreation program could logically be subsidized
from the general tax base in order to promote the overall well being
1400 112"Ave SE,Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 12 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 22 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
of the general public, or to achieve specific socio-economic MAXIMPS
objectives.
If there were alternative tax options available to fund government
services subsidy issues would not be stressed. However, this has
not been the case in recent years. MAXIMUS recognizes, however,
that there are circumstances and programs, which probably justify a
subsidy (e.g., youth, senior, and disadvantaged recreation
programs, certain classifications of code enforcement, library
services, etc.)
1400 112"'Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 99004 Page 13 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 23 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga-Final Report
MAXIMUS
6. MAINTAINING FEE SCHEDULES AND
RELATED REVENUES
6.1 BENEFITS OF REGULARLY UPDATE FEES
#�{ Updated Master Fee Schedule. MAXIMUS regularly and routinely
q finds significant errors and/or omissions in fee schedules. For many
( jurisdictions these errors contribute to significant under recovery of
costs and open the possibility of legal liability.
Maintaining Revenues. The traditional method of increases fees
with an annual CPI factor works for 2-3 years. Specific reasons are
elaborated below but in summary, increases based on inflation
factors fail to capture cost increase in workloads due to regulatory
requirements and the resulting changing processes.
6.2 METHODS OF UPDATING FEES
6.2.1 Multi-Year Fees(Updates)
MAXIMUS develops fee analysis on the most accurate up to date
budget data available. Once fee adjustments are implemented, we
recommend updating the fee calculations periodically to account for
changes in costs over time. The development and use of an
automatic fee increase mechanism normally provides a level of
convenience and efficiency, because staff does not have to take
the time to recalculate cost recovery percentages each year, yet
the fees will increase to recover some of the budget increases.
However, the use of a sub-optimal approach can result in cost
increases significantly outpacing the fee increases.
In order to ensure that jurisdictions receives appropriate fee
increases that reflect the actual growth in cost, MAXIMUS has
identified a series of alternatives:
6.2.2 Alternative 1: Update the Fee Model Annually
The most accurate method to ensure accurate fee increases is to
recalculate fees based upon new staffing and expenditure numbers
each year. However, this approach would likely be the most time
1400 112"'Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 14 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 24 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
MAXfMUS
consuming (and expensive) of the alternatives, as it requires
significant financial analysis and a repeat of the approval process.
6.2.3 Alternative 2: City Labor Costs (Recommended
Alternative)
Labor costs comprise the bulk of expenses for most government
services. Consequently, changes in labor costs drive the overall
change in division costs.
To better recover increased costs, jurisdictions can insert into the
rate schedule a fee increase factor that is based upon known and
anticipated labor cost increases, such as programmed cost of living
raises, association agreements, salary step increases, benefits
increases, and other salary or benefit enhancements.
Labor costs are generally easier to predict than most other costs,
since most agencies have greater control over its internal costs.
Furthermore, common CPI factors are not specific to the regional
economies of many communities. As a result, MAXIMUS believes
that a factor based upon specific labor costs would be the most
accurate indicator of overall divisional cost increases.
1400 1 12"Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 15 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 25 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
MAXIMUS
7. COSTING METHODOLOGIES
7.1 GENERAL COST ANALYSIS & APPROACH
The purpose of a user fee study is to determine the full cost of
services offered by the agency for which user fees are currently
being charged or could be charged. The full cost can usually be
compared to current revenues to determine the existing amount of
subsidy (or occasionally, overcharge). With this knowledge a City
can make informed decisions concerning appropriate fee
adjustments. MAXIMUS is able to assist in understanding fee-
related issues and trends. However, in the final analysis, the actual
decision to increase or decrease fees (or the costs included in a
fee) is a local decision.
The underlying rationale to charge full cost for services is simply
this: the City is providing a distinct service or product to a business
or individual who is gaining a monetary, personal, or recreational
benefit. Equity says that others who do not participate in that
benefit should not subsidize individuals or businesses who benefit
directly from services. For example, why should a long-term
resident living in a central part of a City contribute towards a
subsidy to a developer opening up a new subdivision on the edge
of a City?
Our methodology for developing fee-for-service calculations is to
create a standard cost model for each current and potential fee.
We believe that a service qualifies for the "fee' designation when
the activity primarily benefits a specific individual or group, as
opposed to the public at large. For example, a development activity
clearly fits the definition — whether the beneficiary makes a near-
term profit or not — as opposed to police patrol or parkland
maintenance, which benefit the community as a whole
7.1.1 Process Analytics
Process Analytics is an advanced costing methodology that
generates extraordinarily detailed and involved cost analysis.
Founded on the principals of Activity Based Costing (ABC) Process
Analytics, a powerful technique that measures the cost and
performance of activities and processes and the products or
1400 112"Ave SF, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 16 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 26 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
services generated from those activities. In very simple terms it M8XIMt1S
seeks to answer these questions:
• What are the operational processes associated with
the output of any organization?
• What are the costs of those operational processes?
• What are the relationships of processes to
organizational output?
■ What are the costs of organizational output based on
the work activities & processes?
Answering the first question identifies the work that staff provides
on a daily basis and provides the ability to calculate the cost of
activities that directly links to output. Answering the second
question calculates the costs of those processes for future
performance initiatives. The third question maps the relationships
between processes and output. The fourth question calculates the
cost of output.
7.1.2 Definitions of Common Terms
MAXIMUS uses some common terminology in the development and
discussion of costing models and results, including:
• Resources: Resources are the assets of the
organization and the costs incurred performing
various specific activities. Examples of resources
include dollars, personnel, facilities, and capital
equipment.
• Cost Drivers: The Cost Driver is the
measurable output identified for each activity. The
drivers determine how resources are consumed by
activities and how activities are consumed by the
services. Examples of drivers are the number of
hours to perform an activity or service, the number of
permits issued, or square footage occupied.
• Activities: An activity is the work or specific task
performed within an organization. Examples include
purchasing supplies, plan check review/screen check,
general maintenance, and attending public meetings
1400 112"Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 99004 Page 17 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 27 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report ��`-�--
MAXIMUS
• Activity Driver: An Activity Driver is the measurable
output of an activity. It is the measure of consumption
by services of activities. An example might be the
number of times a public information counter is
accessed for information.
• Service: A "service" is any product, customer,
work unit, or service that is to be analyzed. In this
study, likely services include, an hourly rate for plan
checking, project management, and issuing permits.
7.1.3 Summary of the Process Analytics Approach
The "Process Analytics" diagram below illustrates the components
of an ABC system and how costs flow through the model:
Process Activities
Services
Resources aActivity
service I
General LMger Budget Unit l Activity
Fined Assets Service 2
Budget Unit 2
Personnel Service 3
Budget Uni[3
Service4
Drivers Drivers
Costs start with the resources and then are assigned to the
activities via resource drivers. The costs in activities are then
assigned to the cost objects via the activity drivers. The diagram
also illustrates how a single resource or activity can be assigned to
multiple activities or cost objects.
7.1.4 Steps in the Process Analytics (methodology)
In order to conduct this portion of the study, MAXIMUS employed
the steps listed below:
1400 112"Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page I8 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 28 of 63
The City of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report �0`— -
MAXIMUS
1. Project kick-off and orientation meetings (to establish
project goals and identify unique services and
structures within the County);
2. Build the structure of the costing model in state of the
art modeling software (work with staff and
management to match the business processes of the
division);
3. Develop staff resource consumption data (determine
how much time it takes to perform specific tasks and
services);
4. Develop the cost of staff(hourly rate
S. Distribute other expenses (other direct and indirect
costs of providing services),
6. Collect volume data; and
7. Run the model (calculate the hourly rates and other
costs).
1400 112°i Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Page 19 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 29 of 63
The Cicy of Rancho Cucamonga—Final Report
MAXIMUS
8. APPENDIX - DETAILED FEE SCHEDULES
1400 112'h Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 99004 Page 20 of 20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 30 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga
USER FEE STUDY
ACTUAL COST RESULTS
ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS,DIVISION - - ,-
UNIT COSTS REVENUE IMPACTS li. .
Actual Annual Actual Annual
Unit cost) Per Unit Revenue Annual Cost Revenue
Annual Current Potential Surplus) at Current IPotential Surplus
Fee# Fee or Service Nama I Description puanli Unit Fee Fee $ubsid Fee Revenue Deficit
EL Amentling Map 1 Project S 1,190 $1,678.56 $ (488.56) § 1,190 $ 1,679 $ (489)
LD#2 Bond Substitution 0 Project $ 420 $1,985.86 $ 1,565.86) S E $
LD#3 Certificate of Compliance 30 Pro act $ 1,190 $2,149.48 $ (959.48 E 35,700 § 64,484 E (28,784
ED#4 Certificate of Correction 6 Pre act $ 256 $1,337.85 $ 1,081.85 $ 1,536 § 8,027 $ (g,ggl)
LD#5 Flood Hazard Letter 0 Pro ect $ 314 § 117.75 $ 1]2.25 § § $
ED#6 Lot Line Adjustment 0 Project E 1,190 $1,729.33 $ 539.33 $ E E
LD#7 Private Slreel Designalion 0 Project $ 495 $2,999.23 $(2,504.23) $ $ $
Reapportionment Map(two street parce#trsck
LO#8 map;$30 each additional sheet) 0 Project $ 600 $1,552.43 $ (952.43 $ $ $ _
LD#9 Reimbursement Agreement-Ston Drain 0 Project $ 2,227 $4.555.96 $ 2,328.96) E E §
Reimbursement Agreement-Shanxi and
ILD#10 UBlities 0 Pro act $ 2,827 $5,164.32 E 2,337.32) j $ - $
LOW Release of LienA reemenl 0 Project $ 298 $1,034.21 E (736.21) § - $ - $
LD#12 Standard Agreement/Doc7Doc.Processing 29 Project If 298 $ 989.87 If 691.87 $ 8,642 $ 28,706 $ 20,064
LD#13 Street Vacation 1 Project $ 1,156 $7,506.08 $ 2,350.08 $ 1,156 $ 3,506 $ 2,350
ED914 Traffic Stud Revlew(Dev.Prof. 0 Pro act E 751 $ 198.61 $ 552.39 E § $
LD#15 Plan Chackin -Pro en Legal Description 58 Pro act $ 584 $1,242.05 $ (658.05 $ 33,872 $ 72,039 § 38,167)
LD#16 Map Checking-residential parcel maps(base) 0 Project $ 1,370 $3,856.19 $(2,486.19) $ E $
Map Checking-residential parcel maps(per
LD#17 parcel) 2 Project $ 180 $ 217.04 $ 37.04 $ 360 $ 434 $ 74
Tract Maps 8 Non Residenbal(PM over 10
ED#18 lots) 22 Project $ 1,750 $4,50627 $ 2,756.27 $ 38,500 $ 99,138 $ (60,638)
Map Checking-Track Maps and Non-
LD#19 Residential Parcel Map>10 Lots(base) 25 Project $ 2,070 $4,854.65 $(2,784.65) $ 51,750 $ 121,366 $ (69,616)
Map Checking-Track Maps andfir)
Parcel Map>10 Lots(per
LD#20 parcelAot 0 Project $ 35 $ 268.46 $ (2_37.46)_ S - § $
LD#21 Map Erring 0 Project E J3 $ $ 33.00 E - $ - $ -
Improvement Plans-Widening of existing
LD#22 streets(per LF) 0 Pro act $ 1 $ 0.59 S 0.76 $ - E $
Improvement Plans-Interior Streets 1-2
ED#23 sheets 74 Project $ 1,370 $3,249.16 $(1,879.16) $101,380 $ 240.438 $ (139,058)
Improvement Plans-Interior Streets 3-5
ED#24 sheets(sheets 1-2) 30 Project $ 2,740 $3,939,60 $ 1,199.60) $ 82,200 $ 118,188 S (35,988)
LD#25 Interior Streets 3-5 sheets(sheets 3-S) 27 Project $ 3,600 $1,132.19 $ 2,467.81 E 97,200 $ 30,569 S 66,631
Improvement Plans-Interior Streets 6-10
ED 926 sheels(sheets i-5) 70 Project $ 6.340 $7,041.57 $ (701.57) $443800 S 492,910 $ (49,110)
LD#271nterior5lreelsfi-ID heets(sheets 6-10) 0 Project $ - $1,132.19 $(1,132.19) $ $ $
Improvement Plans-Interior Streets>11 ED#26 sheefs(sheetsl-10) 0 Project $11,815i�# $ 7,;gq,8fi $ g §
Storm
_
LD#29 or Streets sheens $ -
Storm Oraln Plans i
- nterior Streets 1-2 sheets 0 Project $ 1,025 $1,132.19 $ (107.19) $ $
1930 (COMBINE) 0 Project $ 2,740 $ - $ 2740.00 S $ - $
Storm Drain Plans-Interior Streets 3-5 sheets
LO#31 (sheets 1-2) (COMBINE) 0 Project $ 1,200 $ - $ 1,200.00 $ $ E -
Interior Slreels 3-5 sheets(sheets 3-5)
LD#32 (COMBINE) 0 1 Project $ 6,340 $ - $ 6,340.00 $ $ $
MAXIMUS Page t of Revenue Summary
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 31 of 63
Actual Annual Actual Annual
Unit Cost/ Per Unit Revenue Annual Cost Revenue
Annual Current Potential Surplus at Current IPotential Surplus
Fee# Fee or Service Name/Description Doing Unit Fee Fee (Subsidy) Fee Revenue Deficit
Storm Drain Plans-Interior Streets 6-10
LO#33 sheets(sheets 1-5) (COMBINE) 0 Project S 1,095 $ - $ 1,095.00 $ E E
Interior Streets 6-10 sheets(sheets 6-10)
LD '34 COMBINE) 0 Project $11,815 $ - $11,815.00 $ $ f
Slone Drain Plans-Interior Streets>11 sheets
'D 35 (sheets i-10) (COMBINE) 0 Project $ 1,025 $ - $ 1,025.00 $ § $
LO#361nterior Streets>1 l sheets (COMBINE) 0 Project $ 400 $ - $ 400.00 E $ $
landscape and Irrigation Plans for City-
LO#37 maintained areas 140 Pro ed $ 400 $1,154.61 $ (754.61 $ 56,000 $ 161,645 $ (1 OS,fi15
Hydrology S;W y:Drainage acres up l0 150
LD#38 acres 47 Pro ed $ 1,370 $2,870.46 $(1,500.46 $ 84,390 $ 134,912 $ 70,522)
LO#39 H drology Study:Drainage acres> 150 acres 10 Project $ 2,740 $3,913.26 $(1 17326) $ 27,400 $ 39,133 $ 11,733
LD#40 Monumentation(refundable)-base 0 Project $ 2,400 $ - $ 2,400.00 E f $
LD#41 Monumentation refundable)-per lel 0 Project E 50 $ - $ 50.00 $ $ $
LD#42 Expedited Im pavement Plans 0 Pro ect $ 1
LD#43 Revisions to Approved Plans 66 Protect § $ - $ $ $ E
PW Construction Permit:up to§25,000
LD#44 valuation DELETE) 0 P 'act $ 0 $ - $ 0.05 $ $ E
PW Gonsimction Permit:next$
75,000
LD#45 valuation 0 Pro ect $ 0 $ - $ 0.04 $ $ $
PW Construction Permit:>5100,000 valuation
LD#46 (DELETE) 0 Project $ 100 $ - E 100.00 $ $ $
Under-grounding Overhead Utilities:1986 or
LD#47 before(DELETE) 0 P 'ed $ 135 $ - S 135.00 A$ $ $
LD#48 Unde rounding Overhead Utilities:1987 0 Pro ed $ 128 It - E 128.00 S $ S
Underyrountling Overheatl Utilities:1988 and
LD#49 a8-r 0 Protect $ 75 $ - f 75.00 $ $ $
LD#50 Undergroundin OSerhead Utilities:Telephone 0 Project $ 10 $ - $ 10.00 S $ S
"WLS
Untla rounding Overheatl Utilities:Cable TV 0 Project E 5,000 $ - $ 5,000.00 E E $
Inspection:Drainage Catch Basin W=04' 3 EA $ - $ 61.31 S (61.31 5 - E 184 E 164Inspection:Contra a Catch Basin W=OT 21 EA $ - $ 81.31 f 61.31) E $ 1,288 E 1,288Ins edion:Dmina a Catch Basin W=21' 15 EA $ - S 61.31 $ (81.31) § - $ 920 $ (920)
Inspection:Drainage Collar Pipe PCC 15 EA $ - $ 20.44 $ 20.44) $ $ 307 $ (307)
Inspection:Drains a Headwa1148"lMng EA E - E 40.87 E 40.87) $ E $Inspection:Drainage Junction Structure w/oanhole 39 Fel E - S 27.25 S (27.25) $ S 1,O6J f (1,063nspection:Drainage Junction Structure wiManhcte 42 1 f $ 27.25 $ 27.25 $ - $ 1.144 S 1,144)
nsection:Drainage RCP 78" 1614 LF E - $ 12.26 E 12.26) S $ 19,791 E 19,791
LD#60 Inspection:Drainage RCP 24' 1845 LF $ - S 12.26 $ (12.26) $ - $ 22,623 f 22,623)
LD#61 Inspection:Drainage RCP 36" 7404 LF $ - $ 12.26 $ (12.26) $ $ 90,787 $ (90,787)
LD 962 1 Inspection Drainage RCP 48" 336 LF $ - $ 12.26 $ 12.26) $ E 4,046 E 4,046)
LD#83 Inspection:Drainage RCP 54" 0 LF $ - $ 12.26 $ 12.26) $ $ E
LD#64 1 Inspection:Drainage RCP 60" 0 LF 5 - $ 20.44 $ 20.44 $ $ $
LD#65 Ins ection:Drainage RCP 72" 0 LF $ - $ 20.44 E 20.44 $ $ S
LD#66 Inspection:Drainage RCP 84' 0 LF $ - $ 20.44 $ (20.44)_ $ E E
LD#67Fpection:Drainage RCP 96' 0 LF S - $ 20.44 E (20.44 $ f f
LD#68 ction:EV-Ditch 0 LF § - E 4.09 $ 4.09 $ S EPer
ction: pe Cobblestone/Boulders cccuran
LD#69000sdditional 1000plus1hour) 9 ce $ - $ 326.99 $ (326.99 $ $ 2,943 $ (2,943
LD#70ction: pe Concrete Header 0 LF E - $ 1.36 $ (1.36 $ $ $Per
LD#71ction: pe Decomposed Granite 0 occuran $ $ 8175 $ (81.75)_ $ E $
LO#72ction: pe Fence Tubular Steel 0 lF $ - g 5.45 S (5.45 § $LD#73tion: pe Gates Tubular Steel 0 EA $ - 8 13.fi2 E (13.62) $LO#74tion: pe Irngatior System 1947 LF $ - $ 2.04 $ 2.04) $ E 3,979 $ (3,979
LD#75tion:Landscape Maintenance 180 Day_ 6 Total $ - $ 653.97 $ (653.97) $
MAXIMUS Page 2 of 4 Revenue Summary
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 32 of 63
Actual Annual Actual Annual
Unit Cost Per Unit Revenue Annual Cost Revenue
Annual Current Potential Surplus at Current IPotential Surplus/
J# FseFee or Service Name I Descri tion Ouanti Unit Fee Fee Subsid Fee RevenueDeficitpection:Landscape Masonryumn/Pilaster 0 EA $ - $ 10.90 $ (10.90) $ - $ _ection:Landscape Mulch Shredded 04' 2070 CV E - $ 2.86 $ (2.86 $ - $ 5,923ection:Lantlscape Pavers 0 SF $ - $ 2.72 $ (2.72) $ - $ _ection Lantlscape Shrub 01 Gallon 0 EA E - $ 1.36 E 1.36 SE
ection:Landscape Shrub 05 Gallon 96 EA § - $ 1.36 $ (1.36 $ - $ 131 E (171
ectio¢Lantlscape Slope Erosion Control
Want Jute MaDing) 0 SF $ - $ 0.68 $ (0.68) $ $ $ _
LO#82 Inspection:Landscape Trail Fence PVC 2-rail 0 LF $ - $ 5.45 $ (5.45 $ E $
LD#83 Inspection:Landscape Trail Fence PVC 3-rail 0 LF E - $ 5.45 E 5.45 E E $
LD#84 Ins ection:Lantlsca a Trail Gate 0 EA $ - $ 81,75 $ (81.75) $ S _ §
LD#851ns ection:Landscape Tree 05 Gallon 120 EA $ - § 12.26 $ (72.26) E - $ 1,471 $ 1,471)
LD#86 Inspection:Land a Tree 15 Gallon 876 EA $ - $ 12.26 $ 12.26 $ - $ 10,741 $ 10,741)
LD#87 Inspection:Landscape Tree 24"Box 207 EA E - S 16,35 $ 16.35 $ S 3,384 $ 3,384
LD#88 Inspection:Landscape Tree Palm 21 EA $ - E 27.25 $ 27.25 S - $ 572 E (572)
. .
LD#89 Ins ection:Landscape Vine 05 Gallon 0 EA E - $ 136 $ 736 $ g §
LD 990 Inspection:Landscape Wall Gamen O6' 0 LF $ - $ 10.90 E 10.90 E § $ _
J# I Inspection:Landscape Wall Retaining 03' 0 LF $ - $ 10.90 $ 10.90) S § $
LD#92 Ins ection:Landscape Wall Retaining Drain $ 6.81)
LD#93 Ins ection:Landscaping DELETE 0 a LF $ - $ 6.87 DELETE $ - E 2.72 § (2.72 $$ - E$ 16 $$ 18)
LD#94 Inspection:Removal Clear and G rub 9 LS $ - E 61.31 E 61.31) $ $ 552, $ 552)
Inspection:Removal Cold Plane Existing
LD 095 Pavement 42420 SF $ - $ - E - It
LD#96 Ins ection:Removal of AC Berm 735 LF $ - $ 0.68 $ 0.68) $ - $ 501 $ (501)
LD#97 Inspection:Removal of AC Pavement 166077 SF E - $ - $ S S E
LD#98 Ins ection:Removal of PCC Curb 9018 LF $ - S 0.65 j 0.65) S - E 5,898 $ (5,898
LD#99 Inspection:Removal of PCC Sidewalk 18363 SF E - S 0.33 $ 0.33 § - $ 6,004 E 6,001)
LD#100 Inspection:Removal Tree 147 EA j - E 29.92 $ (29.92) S S 1.398
LD#1011nsperbon:Street AC each 1000 LF 22 LF $ - $ 61.31 E 61.31 S $ 1,349
LO#102 Inspection:Street AC(per 100 W DELETE 1 TN $ - $ 61.31 $ (61.31)
Inspection:Street AC(over 1300 tourist
LO#103 DELETE 1 TN § - $ 61.31 $ 61.31
Inspection:Street AC(under 500 tons)
LID#104 DELETE 1 TN
LD#105 InspecSon:Street Access Ram 81
LO#106Ins ection:Street Adjust Manhole to Gratle 69 EA E - E 6.81 E (6.81 S $ 470 $ (470)
LD#107 Inspection.Street Adjust VaNes/CO to Grade 94 EA $ - E 6.81 S (5.81)_ E - E 572 $ 572)
- - Inspection:Street Aggregate Base(per 1000
LO#108 LF) 21.981 LF $ - $ 61,31 $ (61.31) $ S 1,348 $ (1,368)
LD#109 Inspection:Street Barricades 0 LF S - E 1.18 E 1.36) b E §
LD#110 Inspector:Street Berm AC 78 10fi $ -
LD#111 Inspection:Street Cmssgulter 5556 SF $ - $0.47 E (0.41) 2,271 § (2,271)
06
LD#112 Inspection:Street Curb B Gutter 06" 28370 LF E E0.25 $ 0.25) $ - g 6,951 $ 6,958)
LO#113 Inspectan:Street Curb S Goner 08' 15393 LF $ - $0.29 $ 0.29 4,404 $ 6,404)
LD#114 Inspection:Streei Curt 8 Gutter 12' 0 LF $ - S 0.33 E 0.33 S - E - j
LD 9115 Inspection:Street Curb 8 Gutter Cobble 0 LF2.04 $ E E
inspection:Street Curb Core(30 min for fimL
LO#116 5 minutes for each additional) 1 EA $ - $ 40.17 $ 40.87) $ $ 41 E
LD#117 Inspection:Street Curb Only 1770 LF (41)
$ - $ 0.34 S (0.34) $ - $ 603 $ (603)
LD#118 Inspection:Street Curb Rolled D LF $ - $ 0.68 $ 0.68) $ § $ -
LD#119 In spectun.Street Curbside Drain STD 107-A 12 EA $ - $ 122 62 $ (122 fit) § $ 1,471 $ (1,471)
LD#120 Ins ection:Street Curbsitle Drain STD 107-B 9 EA $ - $ 122.62 E (122,62)_ $ - $ 1,104 $ (1,104)
LD#121 Inspection:Street Curbside Drain ST0107-C 9 EA $ $ 122.62 S 122.62) $ - $ 1104 $ (1104)
Per
LO#122 Inspection:Street Drive Approach Commercial 54 occuran E - $ fi1.31 $ (61.31) S $ 3,311 $ (3,311)
MAXIMUS Page 3 of 4 Revenue Summary
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 33 of 63
Actual Annual Actual Annual
Unit Cost/ Per Unit Revenue Annual Cost Revenue
Annual Current Potential Surplus/ at Current /Potential Surplus/
Fee 11 Fee or Service Name/Descrl t(on Quanli Unit Fee Fee (Subsidy) Fee Revenue Deficit
Inspection:Street DMT Approach Reslden0al Per
(first drive=30 plus 10 min for each occuran
LD#123 additional) 999 cc $ - $ 30.00 $ 30.001 f $ 29,971 $ (29,971)
Inspedlon:Street LighUSignal lntercennect
LD#124 Conduit 32190 LF $ - $ 0.49 E 0.491 $ $ 15,788 $ 15.788)
10#12 51ns action:Street Lights 258 EA $ - § 6.81 S (6.51) $ E 1,758 f (1]58)
Inspection:Street Right Tum Lane/Busbay Per
LD#126 PCC tib" 9 000u ran $ - $ 408.73 $ (408.73) $ - E 3,679 $ (3,679)
LO#127 Inspector:Street Sidewalk PGC 04' 280776 SF $ - S 0.15 S 0.15) S $ 41,314 $ 41,314
Inspection:Street Subgrade Preparation/Fine
LD#128 Grading 25232 LF $ - $ 0.16 $ (0.16) $ - $ 4,125 $ (4,125)
LD#129 InSpeNon:Traffic Pavement Markings 189 EA E - E 0.68 E 0.68) $ $ 129 $ 129
Per
LD#13D Inspector:Traffic Pavement Striping 33 occuran $ - $ 167.49 $ 163.49) $ $ 5,395 $ (5,395)
Per
LD#131 Inspection:Traffic Reflectors and Posts 3 occuran $ - $ 40.87 $ 40.87 $ $ 123 E 123
LD#132 Inspection:Traffic Signal 3 Eu S - $4,577.79 $(4.577.79) § § 13,733 $ (13,733
LD#133 Ins actor:Traffic Signal Modiflca6on 9 LS $ - $2,043.66 S 2,043.56 $ S 18,393 $ (18,393
LD#134 Ins ecdon:Traffic Street Sign 96 EA $ - $ 6.81 E 6.81 § $ 654 E 654
Inspection:Utility Fiber Optic Conduit 8
LD#135 Trench 5559 LF $ - $ 2.04 $ 2.04) $ - $ 11,361 E 11,361
Inspection:Utility Underground Existing
LD#136 Electral 14874 LF $ - $ 2.04 $ 2.04 $ - $ 30,397 $ 30,397)
Inspection:Utility Underground Existing
LD#137 Telecom 14874 LF $ - 5 2.04 $ (2.04 E - S 30,397 S ---
Other bspecticns not listed above,inspectors
LD#138 Hourtyrate 0 $ 5 - $ $ $ $
Inspedlon:Misc.
H#142
B. 0 $ - $ - $ $ $ $
Inspection:Misc.
C. 0 $ - $ - $ $ $ $
Inspection:Misc.
ILD 0 $ $ - $ $ $ E _
Inspection:Misc.
E. 0 $ $ - $ $ $ 5
Inspecibn:Misc.
ILD#143 F. _
Fee Non-User Fee Activities 10 f - $ - $5 $ $ E
TOTALS: I #I###### $ 2,044,487 1 S (999,407
LEGEND: ACTUAL PROJECTED TI p###### $ 2,044,487 $ (664,798)
Fee# A reference number to facilitate discussion
Fee or Service Name/Description The services and/of fees included in the MAXIMUS stu
Annual Quanti The annual number of each service provided,as reported by the CI
ty
Actual Unit Cost/Potential Fee The actual cast of each service,as calculated by MAXIMUS
Current Fee The current fee charged by the Ci for each service,i/ap livable
Per Unit Surplus/(Subsid The difference between the Actual Unit Cast and the Current Fee for each service
Total Actual Annual Cost/Potential Revenue The potential revenue If the City charged the Actual Unit Cast for each service at the Annual Quantity
for that service(Unit Cost x Annual Quantity)
Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if Ole City chargM Ne Curtenl Fee br earh service al me Annual Quantity for
that service(Current Fee x Annual Quantity)
Total Annual Revenue Surplus/(Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual CosUPotential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current
Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy(based on actual cost),the City provides to fee-
payers/customers for each service,or the amount of overcharge.
Volume Data Volume data is based on a 4 month sample.
Given the major restructuring of fees it is impractical to calculate current revenues based on current volume.Therefore,the projection in revenue is
based on budgeted revenue for the current fiscal year.
MAXIMUS Page 4 of 4 Revenue Summary
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 34 of 63
F.XhibC �
Park Impact Fee Study
Prepared for:
City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California
January 16, 2006
Prepared by:
TscWe ise
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 35 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,C,ih ornia Pack Impact Fcc Study- January 16,2006
Table of Contents
Tableof Contents.......................................................................................................................................2
ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................................3
LEGALFRAMEWORK.........................................................._...................................................3
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY...... . . . .... ......................6
Packs...........................................................................................................................................................8
STUDYAREA................................................................................................................................8
DEMAND VARIABLE AND METHODOLOGY................................................................8
PARKLAND-MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS..............................................................................10
Parkland(Major Subehirmans)-LAS Anolyru......................................................................................................t0
Parkland(Major Subdluirionr)-Coit Analyrir........................................................................................................13
PARKAMENITIES....................................................................................................................14
Park Amenities(Minor SuMmanr and Non-Subdivision Projertr)-IAS Ana#sis...._..............._........____.........14
Park Awmaies(MinorSnbdiruionr and Non-Snbdrlisinn Proj at)-Can Anar#rir........._....................................15
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES..............................................................................................16
Reanational Pasha(MinorSubdiurionr and Non-rubdiurioa pmjeRr)-LASAnalyrir_....._...............................16
Remational Fariaaer(Minor Subdlvirionr and Non projrrb)-Cort Analyrir....._..................................17
PARKLANDIN-LIEU FEE......................................................................................................17
PARK IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE................................................................................19
Appendix 1:Implementation and Administration...................................................................................21
ADOPTION......................__............_..........-.......................................................................... .21
ADMINISTRATION..................................................................................................................21
2
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 36 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Executive Summary
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has retained TischlerBise to prepare this study to update the
City's Park Impact Fees. This report documents the data, methodology, and results of the
fee study. Impact fees are one-time payments used to fund system improvements needed to
accommodate development. As documented in this report, the methods used to calculate
impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees,
including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution,and the California
Miugation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq., including the Quimby Act
(Government Code Section 66477).
I FGA_L FRAAMEWORK
U S Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact
fees, are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for
public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the
imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation,
provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. To comply
with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially
advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is in the
Protection of public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that development is not
detrimental to the quality of essential public services.
There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees,although other rulings on
other types of exactions (e.g.land dedication requirements)are relevant In one of the most
important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency
imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the
exaction and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987).
In a more recent case(Dolan P. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court mled that an exaction also
must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. However, the Dolan
decision appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than
for monetary exactions such as impact fees. Constitutional issues related to impact fees will
be discussed in more detail below.
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local
governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police
power is the source of authority for a wide range of regulations, including the authority to
impose impact fees on development to pay for infrastructure and capital facilities. Some
impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without
voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA, which was added by Proposition 13 in 1978.
That objection is valid only if the fees exceed the cost of providing capital facilities needed
to serve new development. If that were the case, then the fees would also run afoul of the
U. S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act. Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added by
Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some "property-related fees," but
csempt "the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development."
The Mitigation Fee Act. California's impact fee stamte originated in Assembly Bill 1600
during the 1987 session of the Legislature,and took effect in January, 1989. AB 1600 added
several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time
the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled
3
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 37 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,C. foinia Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
the "Miugation Fee Act." Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report
are from the Government Code.
The Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be
charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public
services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the
Mitigation Fee Act,other provisions of the Government Code(see Section 65913.8)prohibit
the use of impact fees for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated
in this report are based on capital costs only.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term "mitigation fee" except in its official title.
Nor does it use the more common term "impact fee." The Act simply uses the word "fee,"
which is defined as "a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, ... that is
charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development
project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to
the development project ...... To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses
the widely-accepted term "impact fee," which should be understood to mean "fee" as
defined in the Mitigation Fee Act.
The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing
impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the
collection and expenditure of fees, and require annual reports and periodic re-evaluation of
impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the
Implementation Chapter of this report Certain fees or charges related to development are
exempted from the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Among them are fees in lieu of
park land dedication as authorized by the Quimby Act (Section 66477), fees collected
pursuant to a reimbursement agreement or developer agreement, and fees for processing
development applications.
Requited Findings. Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing or
imposing impact fees,must make findings to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee;and,
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed;and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project. (Applies only upon imposition of fees.)
Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below.
Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect the
public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The
specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund the construction of certain
capital improvements identified in this report. Those improvements are needed to mitigate
the impacts of additional development in the City, and thereby prevent deterioration in
public services that would result from additional development if impact fee revenues were
4
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 38 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study—January 16,2006
not available to fund such improvements. Findings with respect to the purpose of a fee
should state the purpose of the fees as financing development-related public facilities in a
broad category,such as street improvements or water supply system improvements.
Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to finance
public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used
for that purpose, but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in the General Plan, a
Specific Plan, or in other pvbfir documents. Impact fees calculated in this study are based on
specific capital facilities identified in this report. We recommend that this report be
designated as the public document identifying the use of the fees.
Reasonable Relationship Requitement As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that,
for fees subject to its provisions,a"reasonable relationship"must be demonstrated between:
1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;
2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is
imposed;and,
3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on
which the fee is imposed.
These three reasonable relationship requirements as defined in the statute are closely related
to "rational nexus" or "reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of
state courts. Although the term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the
standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U. S.
Consurution, we prefer a formulation that recognizes three elements: "impact or need"
"benefit,"and "proportionality." The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the
first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by
the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case.
The reasonable relationship language of the statute is considered less strict than the rational
nexus standard used by many courts. Of course, the higher standard controls. We will use
the nexus terminology in this report for two reasons: because it is more concise and
descriptive, and also to signify that the methods used to calculate impact fees in this study
are intended to satisfy the more demanding constitutional standard. Individual elements of
the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
Demonstrating an Im ae. All new development in a community creates additional
demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of
factwics is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public
services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the
cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a
consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the
principle that development exactions may be used only to rrutigate conditions created by the
developments upon which they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees.
In this study, the impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of
quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific
facilities,based on applicable level-of-service standards. "Phis report contains all information
needed to demonstrate this element of the nexus.
Demonstrating a Benefit A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee
revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the
5
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 39 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study- January 16,2006
fees were charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by
the fees must serve the development paying the fees. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or
California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively
to development paying the fees.
Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation
Fees Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expeditiously or refunded.
All of those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact
fees they are required to pay. Thus,an adequate showing of benefit must address procedural
as well as substantive issues.
Demonstrating Proportion /iN The requirement that exactions be proportional to the
impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case
(although the relevance of that decision to impact fees has been debated) and is logically
necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures
used to identify development-related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate
impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. Inthisstudy, the
demand for facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of
development For example, the need for road improvements is measured by the number of
vehicle trips generated by development.
In calculating impact fees,costs for development-related facilities are allocated in proportion
to the service needs created by different types and quantities of development. The following
section describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees in ways
that meet the proportionality standard.
Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. It is important to note that impact fees calculated
using the cost recovery method (described below) may be used to pay for existing facilities,
provided that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the
capacity to do so. In other words,such fees must satisfy the same nexus requirements as any
other impact fee.
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION M THODO O( Y
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a
particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements
for the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a
particular situation, and to some extent they are interchangeable, because they all allocate
facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.
Reduced to its simplest temcs,the process of calculating impact fees involves only two steps:
determining the cost of development-related capital improvements, and allocating those
costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of
impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in
defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following
paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating impact fees and how those methods
can be applied.
Plan-Based Impact Fee Calculation. The plan-based method allocates costs for a
specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. The improvements
6
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 40 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,Catifouda park Impact Fec Study- January 16,2006
are identified by a facility plan and the development is identified by a land use plan. In this
method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per
unit of demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand
per unit of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building area) in each category
to arrive at a cost per unit of development.
The plan-based method is often the most workable approach where actual service usage is
difficult to measure(as is the case with administrative facilities),or does not directly drive the
need for added facilities (as is the case with fire stations). It is also useful for facilities,such
as streets, where capacity cannot always be matched closely to demand. This method is
relatively inflexible in the sense that it is based on the relationship between a particular
facility plan and a particular land use plan. If either plan changes significantly, the fees
should be recalculated.
Cost Recovery Impact Fee Calculation. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is
that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of
facilities from which new growth will benefit. To calculate an impact fee using the cost
recovery approach, facility cost is divided by ultimate number of demand units the facility
will serve.
Incremental Expansion Impact Fee Calculation. The incremental expansion method
documents the current level-of-service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both
quantitative and qualitative measures, based on an existing service standard such as square
feet per capita or park acres per capita. The level-of-service standards are determined in a
manner similar to the current replacement cost approach used by property insurance
companies. However, in contrast to insurance practices, Rancho Cucamonga will not use
the funds for renewal and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, the City will use the
impact fee revenue to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate
new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities
that will be expanded in regular increments,with LOS standards based on current conditions
in the community. In this study, the incremental expansion method is used for all
components of the parks and recreation impact fee.
All costs in the impact fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation
rate over time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the recommended annual
evaluation and update of impact fees. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction
costs by means of an index like the one published by Engineering News Record (ENR).
This index could be applied against the calculated impact fees. If cost estimates change
significantly, the fees should be recalculated.
7
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 41 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study- January 16,2006
Parks
This chapter presents the methodology used to update the 1991 City of Rancho Cucamonga
Park Impact Fees. Based on discussions with City staff,major subdivisions of more than 50
parcels will be assessed a parkland in-Geu fee and minor subdivisions of 50 or less parcels
will be assessed a park improvement impact fee.
The parkland in-lieu fee is governed by the State's Quimby Act. When acquiring parkland as
a condition of development approval, the Act allows the City to require either dedication of
land or payment of in-Geu fees based on the value of the land. The Act applies to
subdivisions of more than 50 parcels.Smaller projects(50 parcels or less)will be assessed the
park improvement impact fee,which includes park amenities and recreational facilities.
STUDY AREA
The smdy area for this update is the City of Rancho Cucamonga.As the City's parks all have
attributes that serve the City as a whole, impact fees are calculated on a citywide basis. The
City's existing and planned parks are well distributed throughout the City and it is assumed
that future parks will be sited so that all existing and new city residents will have reasonable
access to City parks.
DEMAND VARIABLE AND METHODOLOGY
The demand for parks is considered a function of population. In 2003, the California
Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit estimated population for the City of
Rancho Cucamonga at 146,700, a 15% increase from the 2000 Census. In 2005, the State
estimates a population of 161,830,an increase of 10%since 2003.As shown in Figures 1 and
2, all park capital costs are allocated to residential development only and standards are
shown on a per capita basis.
Figure 1:Parkland In-Lieu Fee Methodology Chart
Residential Development
Persons Per Housing Unit
multiplied by
Parkland Capital Cost Per Pelson
8
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 42 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study—January 16,2006
Figure 2: Park Improvement Impact Fee Methodology Chart
Residential Development
Persons Per Housing Unit
multiplied by
Capital Cost Per Person
Park Amenities
Cost Per Person
Recreational Facilities
Cost Per Person
The incremental expansion, or standards-based, methodology is used to calculate this fee.
The incremental expansion method documents the current level-of-service (LOS) for the
selected public facilities, based on current service standards such as park acres per capita or
recreational facility square feet per capita.
Persons per housing unit is used to differentiate the demand for parks by type of housing.
Figure 3 illustrates persons per housing unit in Rancho Cucamonga by housing type as
reported in the 2000 Census. For nursing/assisted living facihtics, this figure is not available
through the Census. When calculating the impact fees,TischlerBise conservatively estimates
one person per nursing/assisted living facility room or unit.
9
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 43 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study—January 16,2006
Figure 3:Persons Per Housing Unit in Rancho Cucamonga
Cumbined Renter and Owwr
units in Persons vacant Total Penore
Steelton, Peramn Households Per Hae Unit Hse Uni Per
Household Housing Unit
1 detached(SFD) 961263 28,662 3.36 6z 2, 6 3.29
1 attached(SFA) 6=71 2444 1 2.47 9 4.c 238
W91 229 IRS 274
34 4,252 1,532 2.98 z 272
5-9 4,911 2321 2.03 .6z d 190
10-19 2,921 1,334 2.19 a 2.02
2649 K124,117
299 2.43 1 215
M. 2fl20 2.20 I 2.09
Moble flame(MIT) 1,312 2.05 1 200
Other 20 1.95 1.95
Taal SF3 Sample Data 40,996 3.04 1,253 2.95
SR IORP,reent Data 40,963 42,134
29/% Vacancy Rah
2000 Persons Per Dousing Unit bg Housing Type
Per. Households PPH Vacant retail PPHU Hse Unit Mix
Hnc unuts Hsa Units
Single Family Detached 96,263 28,662 3.36 624 29,286 3.29 69%
Single Family Attached 6,07 2444 2.47 94 2,538 2.38 6%
Duplex 649 229 2R3 8 237 2.94 1%
Mulliple3-0 4,252 1,532 2.78 29 1,561 272 4%
Multiple 5-9 4,711 2321 2.0 161 2482 1.90 6%
Multiple 10a 9,953 4,451 221 299 41, 0 207 Il%
Moble Home ;705 1,317 205 M 1,355 2.00 3%
Other 39 20 1.95 0 20 1.95 0%
TOTAL Less Group Quarles 124.509 4;203 295 1004W
Gmup Quarters 3,626
Sample Difference (392) (113) (95)
TOTAL 12,135
storm 1W lls.Gum
PARKLAND—MAJOR SU1312IVISIONS (MORE THAN 50 PARCELS)
The Quimby Act provides that a City may require residential subdividers to dedicate land for
future parks or to pay fees in lieu of dedication. The Acts states that requirements for land
dedication or in-heu fees are to be based on a population ratio of 3.0 to 5.0 acres per
thousand added residents,depending on the existing ratio.
The incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate this in-lieu fee. The first step
of calculating the incremental expansion methodology measures the current level-of-service
(LOS) being provided to existing development. The second step involves determining the
cost per person to provide this LOS.
Parkland(Major Subdivisions)—LOS Analytic
Figure 4 lists the City of Rancho Cucamonga's community, neighborhood and undeveloped
parkland, totaling 405 acres. The Quimby Act requires that the level-of-service calculation
be based on the City's population from the most recent Census. Therefore the 2000 Census
population of 127,743 is used. Since residential development creates 100% of the demand
for parkland, the residential proportionate share factor is 100%. To calculate the current
parkland LOS, the total park acreage of 405 acres is multiplied by a residenual demand of
10
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 44 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,Cahfon.a Pack Impact Fcc Study—January 16,2006
100%. That number,405,is divided by the 2000 Census population of 127,743. This results
in 3.17 acres parkland per 1,000 persons or .00317 acre per person. According to the
Quimby Act, the City is authorized to base its dedication/in-Leu fee requirement on this
ratio,as it does not exceed five acres per thousand residents.
17
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 45 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Smdv— January 16,2006
Figure 4: Parkland LOS Standards
#of Acquisition Acquisition
Park acres Cost/Acre- Cost
Community Parks
Etiwanda Creek Park 12 $425,000 $5,100,000
Heritage Community Park 40 $425,000 $17,000,000
Red Hill Community Park 44 $425,000 $18,700,000
Sports Complex 42 $125,000 $17,850,000
Central Park 20 $425,000 $8,500,000
Neighborhood Parks
Bear Gulch Park 5 $425,000 $2,125,000
Beryl Park East 10 $425,000 $4,250,000
Beryl Park West 10 $425,000 $4,250,000
Church Street Park 6.5 $425,000 $2,762,500
Coyote Canyon Park 5 $425,000 $2,125,000
Day Creek Park 11 $425,000 $4,675,000
Ellena Park 5 $425,000 $2,125,000
Golden Oak Park 5 $425,000 $2,125,000
Hermosa Park 10 $425,000 $4,250,000
Kenyon Park 6.5 $425,000 $2,762,500
La Mission Park-Ralph M.Lewis 8 $425,000 $3,400,000
Lions Park 1.5 $425,000 $637,500
Milliken Park 10 $425,000 $4,250,000
Old Town Park 5 $425,000 $2,125,000
Spruce Ave.Park 5 $425,000 $2,125,000
Victoria Grove Park 6.5 $425,000 $2,762,500
Vintage Park 6.5 $425,000 $2,762,500
West Greenway Park 5 $125,000 $2,125,000
Windrows Park 8 $425,000 $3,400,000
Mountain View Park 5 $425,000 $2,125,000
Victoria Arbors Park 8 $425,000 $3,400,000
Undeveloped Parkland
Central Park 83 5425,000 $35,275,000
Etiwanda Creek Park 16 $425,000 $6,800,000
South Etiwanda 5.5 $425,000 $2,337,500
TOTAL 405 $171,125,000
12
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 46 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study-January 16,2006
Proportionate Share
Residential 1 W%
Demand Units
Population(2000) 127,743
LOS
Acres per person .00317
Acres per 1,000 persons 3.17
'Source:CUy of Rancho Cucamonga,bated on study rnndueled by.1 William Murphy andArronotes
Parkland Major Subdivisions)-Cort Analyrir
The City estimates it costs $425,000 to acquire an acre of residential land for parkland. This
estimate is based on an August 1, 2005 appraisal study conducted by J. William Murphy and
Associates expressly for this purpose. The study presents an estimated value per acre for
undeveloped land in each of the City's residential land use zones.The City anticipates that in
the future it will acquire land in the areas zoned `very low" and "low" density. Therefore,
the midpoint of these two appraisal values is used - $425,000 (`very lows' density had an
estimated value of$400,000 and `lour" density a value of$450,000). Using this figure, the
total acquisition cost is $172,125,000 for 405 acres (405 acres x $425,000 = $172,125,000).
As shown in Figure 5, the total cost per person to provide additional parkland for new
residential development is $1,347.43. This is calculated by multiplying the current LOS of
.00317 acre per person by$425,000 per acre(.00317 x$425,000 =$1,347.43).
13
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 47 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,Cafimme,Park Impact Fee Study—January 16,2006
Figure 5: Parkland Cost Standards (Subdivisions)
Level of Service
Acres per person .00317
Acres per 1,000 persons 3.17
Cost Factor
Cost per acre $425,000
Cost
Per Person $1,347.43
PARK AMENITIES (MINOR SUBDIVISIONS OF 50 OR LESS
PARCELS. AND NON-SUBDIVSION PROJECTS)
The incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate the park amenities component
of the Parks Improvement Impact Fee. The first step of calculating the incremental
expansion methodology measures the current level-of-service (LOS) being provided to
existing development. The second step involves determining the cost per person to provide
this LOS.
Park Amenities(Minor Subdivisions and Non-Subdivision Projects)—LOS Anafysir
Figure 6 summarizes the acreage for the City's two developed park categories—community
and neighborhood — and provides the City's estimated cost per acre for park amenities.
Undeveloped park land is not included in this section as no amenities are provided on these
sites. The City estimates a cost of$400,000/acre for its prototype community park, which
typically include restroom facilities, play area/tot lot, exercise/jogging course, group picnic
shelter,2 full basketball courts, 3 lighted ballfields and on-site parking. The City estimates a
cost of $300,000 an acre for neighborhood parks that typically include restrooms, 160'
unlighted ballfreld, play area/tot lot, exercise/jogging course, 1 full basketball court, picnic
shelter with tables and barbeque grills and on-site parking. As neighborhood parks offer
amenities that are accessed by residents throughout the City,particularly for ballfields, these
parks are considered as serving the entire City. Of the City's developed park acreage,
community and neighborhood parks represent 158 and 142.50 acres,respectively.
Since residential development creates 100% of the demand for park amenities, a residential
proportionate share factor of 100% is used. To calculate the current park amenities LOS,
300.50 developed acres is multiplied by 100% residential demand. That number, 300.50, is
divided by 161,830 persons.This results in .00186 developed acres per person.
14
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 48 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,Califorma Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Figure 6: Park Amenities LOS Standards
Acres Unit Total
replacement replacement
Park Type cost" cost
Community Park 158.00 $400,000 $63,200,000
Neighborhood Park 142.50 $300,000 $42,750,000
TOTAL 300.50
$705,950,000
Proportionate Share
Residential 100
Demand Units 2005
Population 161,830
LOS
Developed acres per person .00186
*Source:City of Rancho Cucamonga
Park Amenities Minor Subdivisions and Non-Subdivision Prorecrr)—Cort Anafyrir
As shown in Figure 6, the City estimates the current inventory of park amenities to have a
total replacement value of$105,950,000. As shown in Figure 7, this results in an average
amenity cost of$352,579 per acre ($105,950,000 / 300.5 acres = $352,579 per acre). The
cost per person is calculated by multiplying the current LOS of.00186 developed acres per
person by the amenity cost of$352,579 per acre which results in a cost factor of$654.70 per
person.
Figure 7: Park Amenities Cost Standards
Leve!of Service
Developed acres per person .00186
Cost Factor
Cost of amenities/acre $352,579
Cost
Per Person $654.70
15
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 49 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study—January 16,2006
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (MINOR SUBDIVISIONS OF 50 OR
LESS PARCELS AND NON-SUBDIVSION PROJECTS)
The incremental expansion methodology is used to calculate the recreational facilities
component of the Park Improvement Impact Fee. The City will use the impact fees to
provide new/expanded facilities of a similar type. The fust step of calculating_ the
incremental expansion methodology measures the current level-of-service (LOS) being
provided to existing development. The second step involves determining the cost per
person to provide this LOS.
Recreational Facilities(Minor Subdivisiwu and Non-rubdiui.rion project))—LOS Anal sir
Figure 8 lists the City's recreational facilities. As residential development creates 100% of
the demand for recreational facilities, a residential proportionate share factor of 100% is
used. To calculate the current recreational facilities LOS, 167,895 square feet of recreational
facility space is multiplied by 100% residential demand.That number, 167,895,is divided by
161,830 persons.This results in 1.037 square feet per person.
Figure 8: Recreational Facilities LOS Standards
Facility" Square Replacement Cast Replacement
Feet Per Sq.Ft' Cost'
Lions West Community Center 10,228 $439 $4,487,223
Lions East Community Center 12,000 $439 $5,264,634
RC Family Sports Center 34,000 $439 $14,916,464
Central Park Community Center 57,000 $371 $21,172,650
Heritage Park Equestrian Center 3,045 $439 $1,335,901
Victoria Gardens Cultural Center 73,850 $506 $37,368,100
TOTAL 167,895 $74,793,132
Proportionate Share
Residential 100%
Demand Units
Population 161,830
LOS
Square feet per person 1.037
'Soarre:Car of Randa Cucamonga -
"Neigbborhood Center Meted at 9791.4rrom f lighmay(former Senior Center)fear not been in luded in the hil of recreational
f nililies),enrbeg furtherpo6ry deenions on use and final disporition of thu jiaihty to be determined by The City Conmril
16
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 50 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study—January 16,2006
Recreational Facilities (Minor Subdivisions and Non-subdivision projects)—Cost Analysis
As shown in Figure 8, the City estimates its recreational facilities have a total replacement
value of$74,793,132 or an average replacement cost of$445.48/square foot.' The cost per
person is shown in Figure 9 and is calculated by multiplying the current LOS of 1.037 square
feet per person by the average cost per square foot of$445.48 which results in a cost factor
of$462.17 per person.
Figure 9: Recreational Facilities Cost Standards
Level of Service
Square feet per person 1.037
Cost Factor
Cost Per Square Foot g445g8
Cost
Per Person $462.17
PARKLAND IN-LIEU FEE (FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS)
Figure 10 provides a summary of the level of service and cost factors used to calculate the
Parkland In-Lieu Fee for subdivisions of more than 50 parcels. This component of the fee is
assessed on new development when the City opts to require payment in-lieu of land
dedication.
Per Quimby Act requirements, the level of service standard is based on the ratio of current
parkland acreage to the 2000 Census population for the City. This results in 3.17 acres of
parkland per 1,000 persons. Figure 10 shows the capital cost for parkland for subdivisions is
$1,347 per person. Persons per housing unit (or per room for nursing/assisted living
facilities) are multiplied by the capital cost. Using single family housing units as an example,
3.29 persons per housing unit is multiplied by the cost per person. This results in a parkland
in-lieu fee of$4,429 for a single fancily detached housing unit(3.29 persons per housing unit
x $1,347 capital cost per person = $4,429). This calculation is repeated for the remaining
housing categories.
' Replacement cost per square foot for the recently-constructed Central Park Community Center(May 2005)
and the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center(currently under construction)are current construction costs plus
15%for design and construction management.Replacement costs for the other faciliries are an estimate based
on the average construction cost per square foot for the new Central Park and Victoria Gardens facilities,or
$38150(($323+S440)/2=$381,50).Fifteen percent is added to this figure to account for design and
construction management,resulting in an estimated replacement cost oFS438.72 for the Lions West and Lions
Last Community Centers,the RC Family Sports Center and the Heritage Park Equestrian Center.
17
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 51 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study—January 16,2006
Figure 10: Parkland In-Lieu Level of Service and Cost Summary (Major Subdivisions)
Standards:
Persons Per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached 3.29
Single Family Attached 2.38
Duplex 2.74
Multiple 34 2.72
Multiple 5-9 1.90
Multiple 10+ 2.07
Mobile Home 2.00
Persons Per Room
Nursing/Assisted Living Facility 1.00
Level Of Service
Park Acreage per 1,000 People 3.17
Park Land Cost per Acre $425,000
Park Land Cost per Person $1,347
Capital Cost Per Person $1,347
Maximum Supportable Impact Fee per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached $4,429
Single Family Attached $3,205
Duplex $3,690
Multiple 311 $3,670
Multiple 5-9 $2,558
Multiple 10+ $2,795
Mobile Home $2,690
Nursing/Assisted Living Facility(per room) $1,347
18
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 52 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,Cahforma Park Impact Fee Study—January 16,2006
PARK IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FE (MINOR SUBDIVISIONS
AND NON-SUBDIVISION PROJECTS)
Figure 11 provide a summary of the level-of-service and cost factors used to calculate the
Park Improvement Impact Fee for minor subdivisions and non-subdivision projects. This
fee includes capital costs for recreational facilities and park amenities. As the Quimby Act
does not apply to minor subdivisions of 50 parcels or less, the level of service standard is
developed using the 2005 estimated population for the City. Figure 10 shows the capital cost
for park improvements of$1,117 per person. Of this, $462 is for recreational facilities and
$655 for park amenities. Persons per housing unit (or per room or unit for nursing/assisted
living facilities) are multiplied by the capital cost. Using single family housing units as an
example,3.29 persons per housing unit is multiplied by the cost per person. This results in a
park improvement impact fee of $3,671 for a single family detached housing unit (3.29
persons per housing unit x $1,117 capital cost per person = $3,671). This calculation is
repeated for the remaining housing categories.
19
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 53 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
Figure 11:Parkland Improvement Impact Fee Level of Service and Cost Summary
(Minor Subdivisions and Non-subdivision projects)
Standards:
Persons Per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached 3.29
Single Family Attached 2,38
Duplex 2.74
Multiple 3-4 2.72
Multiple 5-9 1,90
Multiple 10+ 2.07
Mobile Home 2.00
Persons Per Room
Nursing/Assisted Living Facility 1.00
Level Of Service
Recreational Facilities Cost per Person $462
Park Amenities Cost per Person $655
Capital Cost Per Person $1,117
Maximum Supportable Impact Fee per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached $3,671
Single Family Attached $2,657
Duplex $3,058
Multiple 3-4 $3,042
Multiple 5-9 $2,120
Multiple 10+ $2,317
Mobile Home $2,230
Nursing/Assisted Living Facility(per room) $1,117
Developers may be eligible for site-specific credits or reimbursements only if they provide
system improvements that have been included in the fee calculation schedule. Project
improvements normally required as part of the development approval process are not
eligible for credits against impact fees.
20
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 54 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fce Study— January 16,2006
Appendix 1: Implementation and Administration
This section of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of a
impact fee program based on this study, and for the interpretation and application of impact
fees recommended herein. Statutory requirements for the adoption and adtrtinismition of
fees imposed as a condition of development approval are found in the Nbugation Fee Act
(Government Code Sections 66000 eI reg.).
ADOPTION
The form in which development impact fees are adopted, whether by ordinance or
resolution, should be determined by the City Attorney. Typically,it is desirable that specific
fee schedules be set by resolution to facilitate periodic adjustments. procedures for adoption
of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public hearing requirements,
are specified in Government Code Section 66016. Such fees do not become effective until
60 days after final action by the Governing body. Actions establishing or increasing fees
subject to the Mitigation Fee Act require certain findings,as set forth in Government Code
Section 66001 and discussed in Section 1 of this report summarized below.
ADMINISTRATION
Several requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections
66000 of reg.) address the administration of impact fee programs, including collection and
accounting procedures, refunds, updates and reporting. References to code sections in the
following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.
Imposition of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act,when the City imposes an impact
fee upon a specific development project,it must make findings to
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee;and
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a- The use of the fee and the development type on
which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the
fee is imposed;and
C. The amount of the fee and the facility cost
attributable to the development project.
Most of those findings would normally be based on an impact fee study, and this study is
intended to provide a basis for all of the required findings. According to the statute, the use
of the fee (2., above) may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General plan, or
other public document. This study is intended to serve as a public document identifying the
use of the fees.
21
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 55 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,CaLforrua Park Impact Fee Study- January 16,2006
In addition, Section 66006,as amended by SB 1693,provides that a local agency,at the time
it imposes a fee For public improvements on a specific development project,"... shall identify
the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." For each type of fee calculated
in this report, the improvements to be funded by the impact fees are identified.
Consequently, this report provides a basis for the notification required by the statute. The
City Attorney should be consulted as to the specific method of notification to be provided.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require payment
of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance
of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs First. However, "utility service fees" (not
defined) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a residential development
project of more than one dwelling unit, the agency may choose to collect fees either for
individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final
inspection of the first dwelling unit completed.
An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be used to
reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made,or for improvements or facilities for
which money has been appropriated. The agency must also have adopted a construction
schedule or plan for the improvement. These restrictions on the time of collection do not
apply to non-residential development.
Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, many cities routinely collect impact fees for all
facilities at the time building permits are issued,and builders often Find it convenient to pay
the fees at that time. In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building
permits, Section 66007 provides that the city may require the property owner to execute a
contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a Gen against the property until the
fees are paid.
Credit for Improvements provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a
condition of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees
have been,or will be,charged, the impact fee imposed on that development project, for that
type of facility, should be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of those facilities or
improvements. If the reimbursement would exceed the amount of the fee to be paid by the
development for that type of facility, the City may wish to negotiate a reimbursement
agreement with the developer.
Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or
intensification of previously existing development,impact fees should be applied only to the
portion of the project which represents an increase in demand for City facilities,as measured
by the demand variables used in this study. Since residential service demand is normally
estimated on the basis of demand per dwelling unit, an addition to a single family dwelling
unit t}Pically would not be subject to an impact fee if it does not increase the number of
dwelling units in the structure. If a dwelling unit is added to an existing stmc tne,no impact
Fee would be charged for the previously existing units. A similar approach can be used for
other types of development.
Earmarking of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 specifies that fees shall be deposited with
other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to
22
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 56 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,Catiforma Park Impact Fee Srudy—January 16,2006
avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except
for temporary investments. Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which the fee
was collected. Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account
and used for the same purpose.
The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the
improvement' refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g.,
street improvements). We are not aware of any city that has interpreted that language to
mean that funds must be segregated by individual projects. As a practical matter, that would
make it exceedingly difficult to accumulate enough funds to construct any improvements
funded by impact fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for
impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, traffic signals, or park improvements),
but not for individual projects. We recommend that approach.
Reporting. As amended by SB 1693 in 1996, Section 66006 requires that once each year,
within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the
public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee
revenues:
1. The amount of the fee;
2. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
3. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;
4. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the
amount of the expenditures on each improvement,including the percentage of the
cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
5. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public
improvement will commence,if the City determines sufficient funds have been
collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;
6. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund,
including interest rates,repayment dates,and a description of the improvement on
which the transfer or loan will be expended;
7. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001,
paragraphs (e) and (0.
That information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public
meeting,but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public.
Findings and Refunds. Prior to the adoption of Government Code amendments
contained in SB 1693, a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or
commit the fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the _
money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 changed that requirement in
material ways.
Now, Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth Fiscal year following the first deposit of any
impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006, and every five
23
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 57 of 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Park Impact Fee Study— January 16,2006
years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue
that remains unexpended,whether committed or uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;
Z Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which
it is charged;
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of
incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used;
4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete
financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or
fund.
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If
such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency must refund the
moneys in the account or fund. Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been
collected to complete an incomplete improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be
used,it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which
construction of the public improvement will be commenced. If the agency fails to comply
with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to
procedures specified in the statute.
Costs of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee program is
not included in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include the staff time
involved in applying the fees to specific projects, accounting for fee revenues and
expenditures,preparing required annual reports, updating the fees,and preparing forms and
public information handouts. We recommend that those costs be included in user fees
charged to applicants for processing development applications.
Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 provides that if a local
agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must
be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public
hearing. The alternative is to identify improvements in other public documents. Since
impact fee calculations in this study include costs for future facilities to be funded by impact
fees, we believe it is to the City's advantage to use this report as the public document in
which the use of impact fees is identified. In that event, we believe the City would not be
required to update its CIT annually to satisfy Section 66002.
Indexing of Impact Fee Rates. The fees recommended in this report are stated in
current dollars. Fees should be adjusted annually to account for construction cost escalation.
The Engineering Never Record Building Cost Index is recommended as the basis for indexing
the cost of yet to be constructed projects. It is desirable that the ordinance or resolution
establishing the fees include provisions for annual escalation.
Updates of This Study. Generally, bnpact fees should be reviewed and updated about
every five years, unless significant changes in land use or facility plans make it necessary to
update the fees more often.
24
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 58 of 63
EXHIBIT"WD
CONTRACT AMENDMENT A-001
CONTRACT NO. CO-92-013
Exhibit"A"of Contract CO-92-013 (Dated: March 4, 1992)is hereby replaced in its
entirety with Contract Amendment A-001
Hourly charges will be billed at the following rates, with maximum charges set forth below:
A. REGULAR
B. RUSH (Rates submitted by consultant)
MAXIMUM CHARGES
1. Residential Parcel Maps:................ . ....... ....... . ...... ..........$1,543.00 +$87.00 per Parcel
2. Tract Maps and Non-Residential
Parcel Maps over ten lots......................................................$1,802.00 +$107.00mlotorpareel
3. Tract Maps and Non-Residential
Parcel Maps of ten lots or less..............................................$1,942.00
4. improvement Plans—
A. Widening of existing streets:.................. ......... .....................$ 0.24 per LF+sheet charge
B. Interior Streets—
Interior Streets— 1 Sheet.................................................$1,300.00 Ls
Interior Streets-2 Sheets...............................................$1,575.00 Ls
Interior Streets—Sheets 3 and 4........................................5453.00 EA
Interior Streets—5 Sheets...............................................$2,816.00 LS
Interior Streets—Sheets 6 through 9..................................$453.00 EA
Interior Streets— 10 Sheets........................._..................$5,284.00 Ls
Interior Streets—Sheets I 1 and more................................$453.00 EA
C. Storm Drain Plans: Same as for"Interior Streets"
D. Hydrology Study: Drainage areas up to 150 acres.........$1,148.00 (per system)
Drainage areas over 150 acres..........$1,565.00 (per system)
.. E. Legal Descriptions:............... .. ..... .. ... . .... .. ..............$497.00 EA
5. Maximums for rush jobs will be 50%greater than those listed above.
6. These charges will be effective sixty(60) days from the City Council approval of the
contract amendment.
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 59 of 63
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Contract Amendment
this 1"day of February 2006.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEER
Dan Guerra & Associates
William J. Alexander, Mayor Daniel E. Guerra, Principal
ATTEST:
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
James L. Markman
City Attorney
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 60 of 63
CONTRACT AMENDMENT A-001
CONTRACT NO. CO-99-001
Exhibit"A" of Contract CO-99-001 (Dated: January 6, 1999)is hereby replaced in its
entirety with Contract Amendment A-001
Hourly charges will be billed at the following rates, with maximum charges set forth below:
A. REGULAR
B. RUSH (Rates submitted by consultant)
MAXIMUM CHARGES
1. Residential Parcel Maps:....................... ........ ......................$1,543.00 +$97,00per Parrel
2. Tract Maps and Non-Residential
Parcel Maps over ten lots........................... ..........................$1,802.00 +$107.00perlotorParcel
3. Tract Maps and Non-Residential
Parcel Maps of ten lots or less..............................................$1,942.00
4. Improvement Plans—
A. Widening of existing streets:............... ... ..............................S0.24 per,LF+sheet charge
B. Interior Streets—
Interior Streets— 1 Sheet.................................................$1,300.00 Ls
Interior Streets-2 Sheets...............................................$1,575.00 Ls
Interior Streets—Sheets 3 and 4........................................$453.00 EA
Interior Streets— 5 Sheets........._.........._........................$2,816.00 1s
Interior Streets—Sheets 6 through 9..................................$453.00 EA
Interior Streets— 10 Sheets.............................................$5,284.00 Ls
Interior Streets—Sheets 11 and more................................$453.00 EA
C. Storm Drain Plans: Same as for"Interior Streets"
D. Hydrology Study: Drainage areas up to 150 acres .........$1,148.00 (per sysmm)
Drainage areas over 150 acres... ......$1,565.00 (per system)
E. Legal Descriptions:....................... ... ... ........... ......$497.00 EA
5. Maximums for rush jobs will be 50% greater than those listed above.
6. These charges will be effective sixty(60) days from the City Council approval of the
contract amendment.
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 61 of 63
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract Amendment
this 1"day of February 2006.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEER
AUFBAU CORPORATION
William J. Alexander,Mayor Vartan V. Vartanians, President
ATTEST:
Debra J.Adams, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
James L.Markman
City Attorney
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 62 of 63
EXHIBIT 44F,;
CONTRACT AMENDMENT A-001
CONTRACT NO. CO-98-021
Exhibit"A"of Contract CO-98-021 (Dated: May 6, 1998) is hereby replaced in its entirety
with Contract Amendment A-001
Charges will be billed with maximum charges as set forth below.
MAXIMUM CHARGES
I. Regula
Landscape Architectural Plan Check: ........ ...... . .............$462.00 per sneer
2. Rush
Landscape Architectural Plan Check:......... ....... .............$693.00 per sneer
3. Landscape plans and irrigation plans which occur on the same sheet shall be considered
two(2)sheets and charged accordingly.
4. These charges will be effective sixty(60)days from the City Council approval of the
contract amendment.
5. The "LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT"reserves the right to renegotiate billing and maximum
charge rates on an annual basis.
The above rates apply to those projects which take up to three plan check reviews of originally
submitted plans. Design changes to the original submittal may require additional plan checks. If
authorized by the CITY, additional plan checks will be billed at the hourly rates below submitted
by consultant. Maximums for rush jobs will be 50%greater than the hourly rates noted.
Consultant services will be at the hourly rate noted.*
Principal........................................................5100.00
per hour
Senior Project Manager...................................$75.00 per hour
Project Manager..............................................$65.00 per hour
CAD Draftsman..............................................$55.00 per hour
Clerical...........................................................$35.00 per hour
*hourly rates have not been amended. Rates reflected hereon areas approved by City Council
by Resolution No. 02-052, February 20, 2002.
Resolution No. 06-032
Page 63 of 63
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Contract Amendment
this 1"day of February 2006.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Architerra Design Group
William J.Alexander, Mayor Richard W. Krumwiede, President
ATTEST:
Debra J.Adams, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
James L. Markman
City Attorney