Loading...
CC Resolution 1999-080 DIFd_[#d RESOLUTION NO.99-80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBERS 85-26, 87-39, AND 97-70, AMENDING THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE FEE POLICY TO A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE POLICY WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1 982; and WHEREAS, since its incorporation, the City has been and continues to experience significant development pressure in the form of applications and proposals for new residential and commercial land development within the City; and WHEREAS, there is a lack of public improvements and facilities, including a deficiency in public safety facilities, and the City is responsible for maintaining an appropriate level of service to the present and future citizens of La Quinta; and WHEREAS, the City's existing circulation system is inadequate to handle current and future traffic patterns and it is essential to widen City streets which have inadequate width, improve the circulation system to accommodate an anticipated increase in traffic, and improve and develop bridges and traffic signals suitable for traffic flow and to minimize conflicts between vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; and WHEREAS, the continued and cumulative development of the City, with the consequent increase in population and demand for the use of public facilities, will impose increased requirements for such facilities, including but not limited to park and recreation facilities, major thoroughfares and bridges and traffic signalization, public safety facilities and other public buildings; directly from new development and the need cannot be met and financed from ordinary City revenues; and WHEREAS, the most practicable and equitable method of paying for such needed facilities is to impose a fee upon new development within the City and the payment of such a fee enable the City to fund a construction program to provide such public facilities as they are required and demanded; that when a development pays the Development Impact Fee established by this policy, the City Council will be able to find that all necessary public facilities and services will be available concurrent with the need and, in the event such finding cannot be made, the City Council will be required to disapprove the development as being inconsistent with the General Plan; and BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#dResoluUon No.99-SO Development Fees Adopted: 6115199 Page 2 WHEREAS, on March 1 9, 1 985, the City Council deemed it necessary and desirable to establish a policy regarding the requirements which must be met before the City Council will find that the Public Building and Facilities Element has been satisfied and to establish a policy that will allow development to proceed in an orderly manner while insuring that the requirements of the Public Building and Facilities Element will be satisfied by establishing a fee to fund the cost of the above stated City provided facilities which will insure the availability of said facilities concurrent with need. Said policy was the subject of Resolution No.85-26 and was entitled the Community Infrastructure Fee Policy"; and WHEREAS, the City Council established the fee in an amount reduced from the recommended fee amount in order to reduce the cost of housing in La Quinta and to make housing more affordable, and the City Council contemplated that said Infrastructure Fee, as established, would be reviewed periodically to determine whether amendments were necessary to provide sufficient funds for needed capital improvements; and WHEREAS, Resolution 87-39 was adopted by the City Council on August 4, 1987; and WHEREAS, Resolution 87-39 was based upon an Infrastructure Fee Report dated June 1, 1 987 and June 18, 1987, which at that time accurately stated the need of and lack of ability to provide for the described public buildings, facilities, and services to serve new development; and WHEREAS, Resolution 87-39 became effective on October 5, 1 987 and remained in effect for a period of ten years, at which time it was to be repealed, provided; however, that such period of time shall be extended by any period of time during which a residential development moratorium was in existence within the City; and WHEREAS, Resolution 97-70 was adopted by the City Council on August 5, 1997; and WHEREAS, Resolution 97-70 extended the Community Infrastructure Fee Program beyond October 4, 1 997 until the program is replaced by the proposed updated Development Impact Fee Program; and WHEREAS, in 1 989 the California Statute took effect which governs the establishment, increase, and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#dResolution No.99-SO Development Fees Adopted: 6/15/99 Page 3 of development project approval for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project"; and WHEREAS, public facilities are defined in the statute to include public improvements, public services, and community amenities?; and WHEREAS, these requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as ABi 600" requirements after the 1 987 Assembly Bill in which they originated; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66001, 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; 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of a fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and type of development on which the fee is imposed; c. The amount of the fee and the public facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides authority to the City to regulate all Municipal affairs under Article 1 Section 1 00; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this fee program and procedures as set out in this Resolution is formed to be a matter of local concern to implement in a timely manner public infrastructures; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted further studies relative to future community infrastructure needs; the funds necessary to meet said capital improvement needs; and the relationship between those needs and future development; and based upon said studies and reports, the City Council hereby amends said Resolution No.85-26, 87- 39, and 97-70 to be replaced in their entirety as provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA DOES HEREBY FINDS AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Findings. Each WHEREAS paragraph, set forth above, is hereby adopted as a specific finding of this City Council. The City Council further finds thBt: BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#dResolution No 99-80 Development Fees Adopted: 6/15199 Page 4 a. The report entitled Development Impact Fee Study," dated May 1 999 the Fee Study"), accurately states the City's need of and lack of ability to provide for the described public buildings, facilities and services to serve new development. The Fee Study sets forth a necessary and reasonable method of funding said buildings and facilities. The Fee Study shows that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the projected types of development; the need for the various public facilities by the projected types of development pursuant to the City's General Plan; and the amount of the fee and the proportionate facility cost related to the development. The Fee Study is hereby approved and incorporated herein by this reference. b. The categories of community infrastructure and the percent of said infrastructure fee attributed to each category of infrastructure in the Fee Study are as follows: Transportation 39.47% Parks 17.31% Civic Center 26.86% Library 10.18% Community Centers 4.59% Street/Park Maintenance 1.59% c. In order to allow residential and commercial land development to proceed in an orderly manner, while insuring that all new development is consistent with the General Plan, including the Public Building and Facilities Element, it is necessary and appropriate to establish the following Development Impact Fee to be imposed upon new development. Said fee will assist the City in funding a construction program to provide such needed public buildings and facilities as they are required and needed. 2. Development Imoact Fee Policy Amount. Prior to approval of any zoning, re zoning, subdivision, or development proposal, the applicant shall pay or agree to pay a Development Impact Fee in the following amount for the following type development: a. Residential Single Family Detached $1,907 per equivalent dwelling unit EDU) b. Residential Single Family Attached $1,569 per EDU BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#dResolution No.99-80 Development Fees Adopted: 6/15/99 Page 5 C. Residential Multi Family Other $1,201 per EDU d. Office/Hospital $1,475 per 1,000 square feet of floor area KSF) e. General Commercial $1 117 per KSF f. Tourist Commercial $543 per room g. Golf Courses $204 per acre The fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building permit. 3. Use of Funds Capital Outlay. All proceeds from fees collected pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Policy shall be paid into special capital outlay funds to be established by the City. Said fund or funds shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring, building, improving, expanding and equipping public property and public improvements and facilities described as community infrastructure in this Resolution, as the City Council may deem necessary and appropriate. Designation of expenditures of funds available from the special capital outlay fund(s) shall be made by the City Council in the context of approval of the City's annual operating and capital improvements budget or at such other time as the City Council may direct. 4. Exclusions and Exceptions. There is excluding from the fees imposed by policy, the following: a. Any person when imposition of such fee upon that person would be in violation of the constitution and laws of the United States or the State of California. b. The construction of any building by the City of La Quinta, the United States or any department or agency thereof or by the State of California or any department, agency or political subdivision thereof. BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#dResoluton No. 99-So Development Fees Adopted: 6/15/99 Page 6 5. Credits. Other Methods of Providing Infrastructure. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, the Development Impact Fee shall be in addition to and not in lieu of other valid exactions imposed upon new development through the subdivision or other approval processes. Provided; however, that payment of the Development Impact Fee shall be in lieu of payment of the public facilities and equipment and traffic signalization funds pursuant to La Quinta Municipal Code, 3.17.020. Provided further that in the event developer is required to directly provide infrastructure improvements specifically provided for in the fee structure developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against the fee. The City hereby determines that the infrastructure fee is not intended to be the exclusive method of installation of needed public buildings and facilities and the City will consider alternative proposals to provide needed infrastructure to particular development and? to the extent such alternative proposal is discretionary approved by the City Council, developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against payment of the Development Impact Fee. Any developer seeking alternative methods of installation shall submit such proposal to the City at the time of submittal of an application for development. 6. Validity. Severance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid, such holding or holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. In determining the amount of Development Impact Fee, the City Council has been guided by the Fee Study mentioned in paragraph one hereof. In the event any category of such fee shall be declared invalid, such determination shall not affect the validity of any other category. The City Council further finds, declares and determines that the Development Impact Fee on all remaining valid fee categories shall be increased by the amounts of the fee categories declared invalid. Provided; however, that the amount of the remaining valid fee categories shall not be so increased over and above the amount recommended by said report for each category. BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d Resolution No. 99-SO Development Fees Adopted. 611 5/99 Pege 7 7. Administration and Enforcement. Effective Date.Repealer. The Community Development Director shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this policy. His decision may be appealed to the City Council whose decision shall be final. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute necessary agreements for the administration of this policy. This Resolution shall become effective August 1 6, 1 999. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 1 5th Day of June 1 999 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Pena ABSTAIN: None JOHN PENA, yor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: City Clerk City of La Quinta, CalifornIa APPROVED AS TO FORM QI? DAWN C HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d CITY OF LA QUINTA, CA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY MAY, 1999 Prepared DMG-MAXIMUS 4320 Auburn Blvd. Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95841 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY COUNCIL John Pena, Mayor Terry Henderson, Mayor Pro Tern Don Adolph, Council Member Ron Perkins, Cowicil Member Stanley Sniff, Council Member CITY MANAGER Thomas P. Genovese CITY STAFF Building and Safety Department Thomas Hautung, Building and Safety Director City Attorney's Office Dawn C. Honeywell, City Attorney City Manager's Office Mark Weiss, Assistant City Manager Community Development Department Jerry Herman, Community Development Director Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Community Services Department Dodie Horvitz, Community Services Director Finance Department John Falconer, Finance Director John Risley, Accounting Supervisor Public Works Department Cbris A. Vogt, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer OTHER ASSISTANCE Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Dan Miller DMG-MAXIMUS STAFF Joseph Colgan, AICP, Project Manager May, 1999 DMG-MAA7MUS BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary A. Organization of the Report S-i B. Facilities Addressed in this Report S-I C. Development Projections S-2 D. Impact Fee Analysis 5-2 E. Recovery of Study Cost 5-5 F. Summary of Impact Fees S-s G. Projected Revenue S-6 F. Implementation S-6 Section 1 Introduction A. Legal Background 1-1 B. Purpose of the Fees 1-3 C. Use of the Fees 1-3 D. Reasonable Relationship Requirement 14 E. Impact Fee Methodology 1-5 F. Facilities to be Addressed 1-8 G. Relationship to the General Plan 1-8 Section 2 Land Use and Development Potential A. Background and Setting 2-1 B. Study Area and Time Frame 2-2 C. Residential Development and Population 2-2 D. Non-Residential Development 2-4 E. Measures of Development 2-4 F. Existing and Forecasted Development 2-6 Section 3 Transportation Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 3-1 B. Level ofService 3-1 C Demand Variable 3-2 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 3-2 E. Impact Fees 3-7 Section 4 Parks and Recreation Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 4-1 B. Level of Service 4-1 C. Demand Variable 4-3 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 4-3 E. Impact Fees 4-3 May 1999 DMG-MAX7MUS Page i BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Con I'd) Section 5 Civic Center Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 5-I B. Level of Service 5-I C. Demand Variable 5-I D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 5-3 E. Impact Fees 54 Section 6 Library Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 6-1 B. Level of Service 6-1 C Demand Variable 6-2 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 6-2 E. Impact Fees 6-3 Section 7 Community Center Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 7-1 B. Level of Service 7-1 C. Demand Variable 7-1 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 7-2 E. Impact Fees 7-2 Section 8 Maintenance Facility Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 8-1 B. Level of Service 8-1 C. Demand Variable 8-1 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 8-2 E. Impact Fees 8-3 Section 9 Implementation A. Adoption 9-1 B Administration 9-1 C. T?aining and Public Information 9-7 Appendix A Detailed Cost Estimates for Street Improvements Appendix B Fire Protection Impact Fees May. 1999 DMG-MAA7MUS Page ii BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared for the City of La Quinta by DMG-MAXIMUS, INC. formerly David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd.) It is intended to satisf? the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) which is commonly known as AB 1600", and to support findings necessary to satisf? both statutory and constitutional standards for the establish- ment and imposition of development impact fees. A. ORGANIZATION OFTHE REPORT Section 1 of this report provides an overview of impact fees. It discusses legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees as well as methods used in this study to calculate the fees. Section 2 contains information on existing and planned land uses and development in La Quinta, and organizes that data in a form that can be used in the impact fee analysis. Sections 3 through 8 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities. Those sections identif? fa- cilities eligible for impact fee funding and calculate recommended impact fees for each type of facility. Section 9 discusses procedures and legal requirements for implementing an impact fee program under California law. It addresses adoption, administration, and training. B. FACILITIES ADDRESSED IN THIS REPORT The types of public facilities covered by this report are listed below, along with the report sec- tions in which they are addressed. Transportation Improvements Section 3) Parks and Recreation Facilities Section 4) Civic Center Section 5) Libraries Section 6) Community Centers Section 7) Maintenance Facilities Section 8) May, 1999 DMG-MAAJMUS Page S-i BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[# d City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study C. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS Development projections used in this study are intended to represent all additional development expected to occur in La Quinta from 1998 to buildout of the City under the current General Plan? It is not necessary for purposes of this study to forecast the time at which buildout will occur. Estimated development potential of the study area was evaluated by the La Quinta Community Development Department and is based on the current La Quinta General Plan. Other data on de- velopment and demographics were taken from the 1990 Census, Departrnent of Finance Popula- tion estimates, and the Residential and Commercial Development Status Reports prepared periodically by the Community Development Department. As shown in Section 2 of this report, La Quinta's population and developed acreage at buildout are expected to reach more than three times their current levels. The number of vehicle trips gen- erated in the City is projected to increase to more than three times the current lev?. The extent of that growth potential has important implications for fliture City facility needs. D. IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS Each type of facility addressed in this report was analyzed individually. In each case, the rela- tionship between development and the need for additional facilities was quantified in a way that allows impact fees to be calculated for various categories of development. For each type of facil- ity, a specific, measurable attribute of development was used to represent the demand for addi- tional capital facilities. Recommended impact fees for all types of facilities are summarized in Table S-I. The impact fees calculated in this report cover only capital costs. They do not in- clude any ongoing costs for maintenance or operations. The following paragraphs briefly discuss factors considered in the analysis of each type' i facility Transportation Improvements. The recommended impact fees for street system improve- ments are based on the cost of improvements to major and primary arterial streets, bridges and interchanges, traffic signals, and sound attenuation walls required to serve filture development in La Quinta. Those fees assume that developers would continue to be directly responsible for May. 1999 DMG-MAX7MUS Page 5-2 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study internal streets, and for certain arterial street improvements in cases where a project fronts on an arterial. Specific improvements to be flinded by the impact fee are listed in the report. The rela- tionship between development and the need for additional street capacity is defined in the study as a flinction of additional peak hour trip-miles generated by development See Section 2 for a discussion of peak hour trip-miles). Park and Recreation Improvements. The recommended impact fee for park and recreation im- provements is based on the cost of improvements needed to maintain the existing level of serv- ice, defined as the ratio of park acreage to population. The impact fee analysis addresses neighborhood and community parks only. The proposed impact fees do not include the cost of land acquisition, and are intended to be imposed in addition to land dedication or fee-in-lieu re- quirements under the Quimby Act. Since the need for park acreage is defined in terms ofpopula- ti on, the impact fee for park improvements will apply only to residential development. Civic Center. The impact fee analysis for the civic center assumes that the existing facility and a planned expansion will be adequate to serve existing and filture development in La Quinta. Im- pact fees were calculated by allocating total costs for the civic center facility on the same basis to all existing and fliture development. That method allows civic center costs to be shared propor- tionately by all users. As it turned out, the share of cost initially attributed to fliture development in the study is somewhat greater than fliture flinding needs, so the impact fees were reduced to correspond to the lesser amount. The relationship between development and the need for addi- tional space in the civic center is complex and indirect. For reasons explained in the body of the report, this study uses developed acreage to represent the demand for facilities civic center. Libranes. The impact fee for libraries was based on the cost of facilities needed to serve new development at a level of service somewhat lower than the standard specified in the La Quinta General Plan. The adopted standard calls for 0.5 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capita. The impact fee analysis is based on 0.22 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capita, and assumes that the City will ultimately construct a 20,000 square foot library to serve May, 1999 DMG-MAA7MUS Page 5-3 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d C?ty of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study both existing and future development. Because of the deficiency in existing facilities relative to the standard used in the study, the City will have to contribute approximately $1 76 million from non-impact fee sources to justify impact fees at the recommended level--even after allowing a credit for the value of the collection in the existing storefront library. Because library facility needs are defined in terms of population, impact fees for library facilities would apply only to residential development. Community Center FsciIities. Impact fees for community center facilities are based on the cost of maintaining the City's current level of service in terms of square feet per capita. The only cx- isting community center facility identified in the study is the multi-purpose room at the Senior Center. Because community center facility needs are defined in terms of population, impact fees for those facilities would apply only to residential development. Maintenance Facibties. Impact fees to fund capital costs for development-related street and park maintenance facilities and equipment are based on the City's current level of investment relative to existing development. Costs for street and park maintenance facilities are a?ocated separat?y, in a manner that reflects differences in their relationship to development. Costs for street maintenance facilities are aUocated on the same basis as the cost of street improvements, using peak hour trip-miles to represent demand. Costs for park maintenance facilities and equip- ment are allocated on the same basis as the cost of park improvements, using population to repre- sent demand. As a result, impact fees for street maintenance facilities apply to aU types of development while impact fees for park maintenance facilities apply only to residential development. Table 5-1 summariZeS the impact fees calculated in later sections of this report. Fees are shown for one unit of development, by facility type and land use category. As discussed below, the fees shown in table S-I have been adjusted to incorporate the cost of preparing this study. May, 1999 DMG-MAA1MUS Page S-4 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study E. RECOVERY OF STUDY COST As with other types of analysis needed to obtain flinding for capital facilities, the cost of prepar- ing this study may be recovered through impact fees. The fee summary shown in Table S-i on the next page is based on the fees calculated in Sections 3-8, but the fees have been adjusted to incorporate the cost of this study. That adjustment assumes it will be necessary to update the study in five years, and that the City will coUect an average of $2 million per year in impact fees. Thus, the $53,000 cost of the study is divided by $10 million the projected five year total of all impact fees to be collected by the City) to determine the percentage increase needed to recoup the cost of the study. That percentage is 0.53%, so the fees have been increased by just over one- half percentage point to account for the cost of the study. To make that adjustment, fees calcu- lated in subsequent sections of this report have been multiplied by 1.0053 to arrive at the fees shown in Table S-i, below. F. SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEES Table S-i summarizes the recommended impact fees by development category and facility type. The amounts shown in that table based on the analysis in subsequent sections of this report. Table S-i Summary of Calculated Impact Fees per Unit of Development i?l- d? t.;':.;': Res(SFD)' DU4 $ 568 $402 $569 $236 $107 $ 19 $6 $1,907 kes(SFA)2 DU $ 568 $281 $457 $166 $ 74 $ 19 $4 $1,569 Res(MFO)3 DU $ 332 $368 $169 $217 $ 98 $ 11 $6 $1,201 Office/Hosp KSF $1,092 $346 $ 37 $1,475 General Corn KSF $ 890 $197 $ 30 $1,117 Tourist Corn Room $ 288 $245i- $ 10 $ 543 GolfCourses Acre $ 106 $94?- $ 4 $ 204 Residential single family detached. 4 DU dwelling Unit 2 Residential single family attacbed KSF 1000 square feet of gross building area. 3 Residential multi-family and other May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page S-5 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study As indicated above, the fees shown in Table S-i have been adjusted slightly to include the cost of preparing this study. That adjustment increases the total recommended impact fee for a single family dwelling by $10.00--ftom $1897 to $1,907. For other land use categories, the increase ranges from $3.00 to $8.00 per unit of development. G. PROJECTED REVENUE Table 5-2 shows projected total revenue from impact fees, from now to buildout, assuming that the fees are adopted as recommended and that all development anticipated in this report actually occurs. Note that projected revenue is given in current dollars. Table S-2 Projected Impact Fee Revenue Libraries $ 4,850,994 Community Centers $ 2,184,389 Street?Park Maintenance $ 759,252 Total $47,641,562 Projected Revenue in current dollars. H. IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of an impact fee program raises both practical and policy issues. Section 9 of this report points out many practical and procedural issues related to the implementation of City?s impact fee program, and outlines administrative procedures mandated by the Government Code with respect to impact fees. Topics covered in that section include adoption and collection of fees, accountability for fee revenues, expenditure time limits, reporting and reflinding require- ments, updating of fees, and staff training. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 5-6 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impaci Fee Study From the point of view of the City Council, important policy choices must be made regarding the share of facility costs to be flinded by impact fees, and other sources of flinding to be used for those facilities not flinded by the fees. The development impact fees calculated in this report are intended to represent the maximum impact fee amount justified by the analysis. Of course, the City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recommended. In that event, it is impor- tant that the Council identi? which facilities are to be flinded by the reduced impact fees, and the share of total cost to be recovered through the fees. It should also be emphasized that all costs used in this report are in current dollars. To the extent that costs for capital improvements escalate over time, the impact fees should be adjusted to keep pace with that inflation. We recommend annual adjustments based on changes in the Engineer- ing News Record Building Cost Index. If the fees are not escalated for inflation, the City could experience a significant shortfall in anticipated flinding over several years. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page S- 7 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta De"e?pment Impact Fee Study SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The City of La Quinta retained DMG-MAXIMUS, INC. formerly David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd.) to analyze the fiscal impacts of anticipated development on certain public facilities, and to prepare a schedule of development impact fees based on that analysis. This study is intended to sau'sf' the legal requirements governing such fees, including but not limited to those portions of the California Government Code known as The Mitigation Fee Act Sections 66000 et seq.) which govern the establishment and imposition of fees levied as a condition of development project approval. Development impact fees are one-time charges imposed on development projects to recover capital costs for public facilities needed to serve those new developments and the additional residents, employees, and visitors they bring to the community. The use of impact fees has become widespread in California in the last decade as a response to local government budget strains brought on by tax limitations, reallocation of revenues, and a loss of federal and state financial assistance. Many communities have increased their reliance on dev?opers for flinding of development-related public facilities. California law does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees can be charged. However, with a few minor exceptions, it does prohibit the use of impact fees for ongoing maintenance or operating costs see Government Code Section 65913.8). Consequently, the fees recommended in this report are based on capital costs only. A. LEGAL BACKGROUND The legal authority to impose fees on development may be specifica?y granted by statute, or it may be found in general grants of authority to local governments under most state constitutions. California's impact fee statutes do not contain specific enabling language, so cities and counties in this state depend on their police power or home rule powers for the authority to levy such fees. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 1-1 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City of La Quznta Deveiopme"t i?npac* Fee Study Constitutional Considerations. Like all exactions on development, impact fees are subject to constitutional limitations. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of development impact fees as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided they meet certain standards. Those standards are intended to insure, among other things, that impact fees do not violate Fifth Amendment limitations on the taking of private property. To be constitutionally valid, development regulations must advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the provision of adequate public facilities so that development does not cause deterioration in the quality of essential public services. However, the U. S. Supreme Court has found that an agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an essential nexus" between such an exaction and the government's legitimate interest. See Nollan V. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case Dolan V. City of Tigard, 1994), the Court made clear that an agency also must show that an exaction is roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. It should be noted that Dolan is less significant for impact fees than for other types of exactions e.g. mandatory dedication of land) because proportionahty is inherent in the proper calculation of impact fees, and legal scholars are debating the application of Dolan to fee payments. California Law. In 1989, a California statute took effect which governs the establishment, increase and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project...." Public facilities are defined in the statute to include public improvements, public services and community amenities." These requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act, Go rnment Code Sections 66000 et seq.) and are cornmoniy known as AB 1600" requirements, after the 1987 Assembly Bill in which they originated. The statute establishes procedures for adopting and justifying impact fees. It also includes restrictions on the collection and expenditure of fees, and a provision requiring the reflinding of fees under certain conditions. Annual reporting of activity in impact fee accounts is also required, May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 1-2 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study as is a more complete reconciliation every five years. Reporting requirements were revised by the Legislature in 1996 as part of AB 1693, and are discussed in more detail in the Implementation Section of this report. To satisfy the requirements of Section 66001, 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. Those requirements are discussed in detail below. B. 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 recommended in this study is to lund the construction of certain capital improvements which are identified in this report. Those improvements are needed to mitigate the impacts of expected development in La Q??nta, and to prevent deterioration in public services that would result from additional development if impact fee revenues were not available to flind those improvements. C. USE OF THE FEES If a fee subject to Government Code Section 66001 is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that pwpose, but is not May, 1999 DMG-MAX7MUS Page 1-3 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City of La Quinra Development Impact Fee Study mandatory if the facilities are identified in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. This report is intended to fulfill that requirement. Specific facilities used to calculate impact fees in this study are identified in subsequent sections of the report. D. REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP REQUIREMENT As discussed above, Government Code Section 66OO? 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 closely resemble the benefit," impact," and proportionality" elements, respectively, of the nexus standard which has evolved in the courts to test the validity of development exactions. In our opinion, reasonable relationship" as defined by these requirements is identical to nexus" as a practical matter. We will use the nexus terminology in this report because it is more concise and descriptive, but the methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satis? either formulation. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. Impact Relationship. All new development in community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality of public services for the entire community deteriorates. The improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development in La Quinta are identified in subsequent sections of this report. The need for those improvements is analyzed May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 1-4 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study in terms of quantifiable relationships between development and the demand for various type of facilities, based on applicable level-of-service standards. Benefit Relationship. A reasonable benefit relationship requires that fee revenues are expended to provide the facilities for which they are collected, and that those facilities are available to serve the development on which the fees are imposed. Nothing in the law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to developments paying the fees. However, the proximity of facilities to the developments paying impact fees to construct them has been an issue in some cases. Procedurally, statutory provisions governing the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues, and the requirement for refunding of fees not expended in a timely fashion, are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Proportionality Relationship. A reasonable proportionality relationship must be established through the procedures used in calculating impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. As a practical matter, compliance with both statute and case law requires an agency to show that impact fees will be used to pay for capital facilities needed to serve new development, and that the amount charged to different types of development is fairly related to the demands imposed on public facilities. It is well-established that impact fees may not be used to mitigate pre-existing deficiencies in public facilities, to subsidize level-of-service improvements for the existing community or to solve problems not created by the development paying the fee. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions, including impact fees, may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the i'?elopments upon which they are imposed. Methods of allocating facility costs and calculating fees to meet the proportionality requirement are discussed below. E IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY In general, any one of several approaches may be used in calculating impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends on the service characteristics of the facility being addressed and the May, 1999 DMG-MAMMUS Page 1-5 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee study availability of information on facility plans and fliture development. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a partiCUlar situation, and to a limited extent they are interchangeable. Reduced to its simplest elements, the process of calculating impact fees involves only two steps: determining the cost of improvements needed to serve development, and allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees is complicated by complex relationships between development and facility needs, and by limited information about future conditions. Below we discuss three approaches to calculating impact fees, and their applicability to certain situations. Plan-based Impact Fees. This method is used in this study to calculate impact fees for streets and certain community facilities. It is most appropriate where the estimated costs for a specified set of improvements facility plan) are being allocated to all development represented by a specified land use plan. Costs are allocated in proportion to the relative intensity of demand represented by each type of development. This method assumes that the entire service capacity of the planned facilities will be absorbed by projected development, or that excess capacity is necessarily related to serving future development. For example, it may be necessary to widen a street from two lanes to four lanes to serve planned development, but some capacity may remain unused after that development occurs. The plan-based method is often the most workable approach where it is difficult to measure the actual service consumed by development--for example, with respect to administrative and law enforcement facilities. It is also usefill for facilities such as streets, where capacity cannot always be matched closely to demand. Capacity?based Impact Fees. The capacity-based method was not a' plied in this study and is discussed here to only provide additional background. It is most appropriate where the cost and capacity of a facility or system are known, and the amount of capacity used by a particular quantity of development can be measured or estimated. The total amount of development to be served need not be known to calculate the fee, so this method is not dependent on a specific land use plan or a specific set of development projections. This type of fee is established as a rate, or May 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 1-6 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study cost per unit of capacity, and can be applied to any type or amount of development--provided that adequate capacity remains uncommitted in the facilities on which the fee is based. Capacity-based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems. To calculate a capacity-based impact fee rate per unit of demand, facility cost is divided by facility capacity. To apply the rate to a development project, or to produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building area), the rate is multiplied by the amount of capacity needed to serve a particular quantity and type of development. Standard-based Impact Fees. The standard-based method was used in this study to calculate impact fees for parks, libraries, and community and senior centers. The standard-based method is related to the capacity-based approach in the sense that it is based on a rate, or cost per unit of demand. With the standard-based approach, costs are initially determined on a generic unit-cost basis, and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the amount of capacity to be made available per unit of development. This approach differs from the capacity-based approach which typically determines unit cost by dividing the cost of a planned or actual facility by its capacity. The standard-based method is useflil where facility need is defined in terms of a service standard, and where unit costs can be determined without reference to the total size or capacity of a facility or system. Parks fit that description. It is common for cities or counties to establish a service standard for parks in terms of acres per thousand residents. Also, the cost per acre for a certain type of park can usually be estimated without know? the location of a particular park or the total acreage of parks in the system. This approach is also useful for buildings such as libraries or administrative offices, where it is possible to estimate a generic cost per square foot before a building is actually designed. One advantage of this approach is that a fee can be established without committing to a particular size of facility. Facility size can then be adjusted based on the amount of development that actually occurs, avoiding excess capacity. It should be noted that May 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 1-7 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study this method may not be well-suited to specialized recreation facilities such as swimming pools, gymnasiums, or ball diamonds, which have fairly rigid size requirements. F. FACILITIES TO BE ADDRESSED Public facilities, equipment and infrastructure improvements relating to the following flinctions will be addressed in this study: * Transportation Improvements Parks and Recreation Facilities * Civic Center * Fire Protection Facilities * Libraries * Community Centers * Maintenance Facilities G. RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN Much of the analysis in this report is based on information contained in the City of La Quinta 1992 General Plan, with particular emphasis on the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, the Park and Recreation Element, and the Infrastructure and Public Services Element. However, data on existing development has been updated to April, 1998 by the La Quinta C6rnmunity Development Department. Projections of fliture development used in this study are intended to reflect the development potential of all undeveloped land covered by the City of La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element. Except for specific applications noted in subsequent sections, no growth rate or buildout date is assumed. May, 1999 DMG-MAMMUS Page 1-8 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinia Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 2 LAND USE, DEMOGRAPHICS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Land use, demographics and development potential, both existing and projected, must be ana- lyzed in preparing the City1s impact fee program. This section of the report organizes and corre- lates information on existing land use, population and employment, as Well as projected development, to form a basis for the impact fee analysis contained in subsequent sections of the report. The information in this section provides a framework for deflning levels of service, for projecting public facilities needs, and for allocating the cost of new capital facilities between ex- isting and fliture development, and among various types of new development. Information on land use and demographics for this study was prepared with the assistance of the La Quinta Community Development Department. Sources of data include the 1992 La Quinta General Plan, the 1990 U.S. Census, California Department of Finance population estimates, and the Residential and Commercial Development Status Reports prepared periodically by the Community Development Department. Data on existing land use, demographics and develop- ment used in this report have been updated to April, 1998. A. BACKGROUND AND SETTING La Quinta is located in the desert resort area of the Coachella Valley in south-central Riverside County. The City is located along State Route 111, just east of Indian Wells, and just west of In- dio. In places, La Quinta is contiguous with both of those communities. Existing development in the City is primarily residential, and includes both conventional residential development and gated residential and resort communities, some of which contain one or mor? golf courses. Although a relatively small portion of the land in La Quinta is designated for commercial use, major regional commercial development is occurring along Highway 111, and more is planned. A significant portion of the City's total land area lies on the steep slopes of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains, and much of that land is reserved as open space. May 1999 DMG-MA?7MUS Page 2-1 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study B. STUDY AREA AND TIME FRAME The analysis in this study addresses all development expected from the present time to buildout of the area encompassed by the 1992 La Quinta General Plan as amended. The impact fee analy- sis in this report does not depend on the rate or timing of development, so development projec- tions in this section do not make assumptions about when buildout will occur. C. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION In this study, residential development is classified in one of three categories: Single-Family De- tached, Single-Family Attached, which include condominiums and townhouses, and Multi- Family/Other which includes apartments and mobile homes. That breakdown is consistent with existing and anticipated patterns of residential development in La Quinta. Dwelling units are used as the basic measure of the amount of residential development in each category. According to the City?s Residential Status Report, single-family detached units accounted for about 67% of all residential units at the end of 1996, with single-family attached units making up about 27%. Thus, together, the two categories make up approximately 94% of La Quinta's existing residential units. Forecasts of fliture residential development indicate the percentage of single-family de- tached units at buildout will increase to 72%, with single-family attached and multi-family/other units accounting for 19% and 9% respectively. Population. Estimates of existing population and projections of fliture population in La Quinta are used this study. Those estimates and projections are based on existing and forecasted dwell- ing units, and the average number of persons per dwelling unit. Demographic data from the 1990 Census and Department of Finance population estimates have been used in developing population stimates and forecasts. Population in group quarters makes up an insignificant percentage of the existing population, and is not addressed in population the forecasts. La Quinta's January, 1998 population, as estimated by the state Department of Finance, was 20,445. That number represents permanent residents. However, as is the case for other desert re- sort communities, La Quinta's population increases considerably during the winter months, owing May. 1999 DMG-MAX1MUS Page 2-2 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study to an influx of seasonal residents. The 1990 Census, taken on April 1, showed that 39% of all residential units in La Quinta were vacant, including 26% which were for seasonal, occasional, or recreational" use. The Community Development Department estimates that the City's total population may exceed the permanent population by as much as 50% during peak periods. Figure 2-A illustrates the growth of La Quinta's permanent population, which has Permanent Population 24000 doubled since the City's incorporation in 18000 1989--an average growth rate of 8.1% per 12000 year. The population figures shown in Fig- 6000 ure 2-A are Deparrment of Finance esti- 0 mates for January 1 of each year, except for 1989199C 1>99?1992199Y3e1ar9941995 i996 1997 1998 the U.S. Census population in 1990. Figure 2-A Potential Population. For purposes of the present study, permanent population is not especially use? as a measure of the demand for public services. Because of seasonal fluctuations in the population of La Quinta, the number of permanent residents of the City seriously understates the actu? service demand represented by residential development in the City. Once a dwelling unit has been approved and constructed, the City is committed to serve the demand created by that unit. It has no control over whether, or when, such units are occupied. Thus, to better represent the City's service commitments, this study uses potential population" as the basic measure of de- mand for population-related public services and the facilities that support them. As used in this report, potential population" means the number of people who would reside in the City if all dwelling units existing at a particular time were occupied. The potential population is estimated for each category of residential development by multiplying the number of dwelling units in that category existing or fliture) by the average number of persons per occupied unit for that type of development. Potential population for the City as a whole is the sum of the potential populations for all categories of residential development. This study employs 1990 Census data May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 2-3 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City of La Qu?nta Development Impact Fee Study to establish the average number of persons per occupied dwelling unit for each category of resi- dential development. Those factors are used in estimating potential population as of April 1998, and at buildout. Henceforth, unless otherwise indicated, when the term population" is used in this report it will mean potential population." D. NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT In this study, private, non-residential development will be classified in three categories: Office, General Commercial, and Tourist Commercial. The office and tourist commercial categories are equivalent to classifications used in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The General Commercial category used in this study encompasses all other types of commercial development addressed by the Land Use Element Mixed/Regional, Community, Neighborhood, Commercial Park, and Village). La Quinta has no existing industrial development, and none is planned. For purposes of impact fee analysis, commercial development can be measured in a number of ways. In this report, the basic measure of development for office and general commercial uses is gross building area, in thousands of square feet SF). Tourist commercial development, which consists of hotels and associated uses, is measu?ed in terms of guest rooms. Data on existing non- residential dev?opment are taken from the Commercial Development Status Report. Forecasts of filture non-residential development to buildout were prepared with the cooperation of the City's Community Development Department. E. MEASURES OF DEMAND Certain attributes of development, including acreage, population, trip generation, and trip length will be used in the imp fee analysis to represent demand for certain public services, and to pro- vide a yardstick for determining service levels for various types of facilities. Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 later in this section present estimates of existing development and forecasts of fliture de- velopment in La Quinta, as measured by various relevant attributes. The numerical values of those factors used to measure those attributes for various types of development are shown in the May. 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 2-4 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study footnotes to Table 2-I. Population and potential population were discussed above. The following paragraphs discuss other measures of demand used in this report. Acreage. Acreage is a basic attribute of all development. In this report, gross acreage is used as a measure of demand for fire protection facilities and general government facilities. Trip Generation. The number of trips generated by various types of development is commonly used as a basis for allocating the cost of road improvements to various types of development. In this study, we have used peak hour trips, rather than average daily trips, in allocating improve- ment costs. Peak hour trips relate more directly than 24-hour trip generation to the need for addi- tional street capacity. The number of peak hour trips related to a particular development is estimated by applying standard trip generation factors to units of development, such as acres, dwelling units, or square feet of building area. The trip generation rates used in this study are taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE) manual Trip Generation. The 6th edi- tion was used as the primary source, supplemented by data from the 4th edition). Trip Length and Peak Hour Trip-Miles. Both the number of trips generated by development and the length of those trips affect the amount of peak hour roadway capacity needed to serve de- velopment. Peak hour trip-miles the product of peak hour trips and average trip length, by devel- opment type) will be used in this study as an index of demand for roadway capacity. The best available information on average trip lengths by land use type are published by the San Diego Association of Governments SANDAG) in its publication, Traffic Generators. Although the L1? lengths presented in that publication do not apply specifically to La Quinta, we believe they reasonably represent the relative relationship of trip lengths for various types of develop- ment. Because the cost of street improvements is allocated to development projects in proportion to their relative share of total demand, it is the relative relationship, rather than actual trip length, that is important here. May, 1999 DMG-MAXJMUS Page 2-S BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[# d City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study It should be noted here that the Coachella Valley Association of Governments CVAG) has devel- oped trip length data for the Coachella Valley. However, those trip lengths are calculated by trip purpose rather than by land use type. In addition, they are intended to reflect travel on regional facilities, and do not include the portion of trips on loCal street networks. Consequently, the CVAG trip length information is not useful for purposes of this analysis. F. EXISTING AND FORECASTED DEVELOPMENT Summaries of existing and forecasted development in La Quinta, by land use type, are presented in Tables 2-? through 2-3, beginning on the following page. Charts on this page illustrate graphi- cally the relationship of existing development from Table 2-1) Residential to future development from Table 2-2). g?dd?d Figure 2-B, at left, shows residential development in terms of dwelling units by type. As that chart illustrates quite clearly, the number of dwelling units anticipated in the future is signifi- cantly greater than the number of units currently existing, for all types of residential development in La Quinta Figure 2-B Figure 2-C shows existing and future non-residential devel- NonResidential opment in terms of square feet. That chart makes it clear that the magnitude of anticipated future commercial development j????iii in La Quinta is very large relative to the amount of existing development in the City. Consequently, the impacts of fu- ture development on the demand for City servir 5 and public facilities will also be proportionately large. Figure 2-C May, 1999 DMG-MAXJMUS Page 2-6 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#!d BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#"d Czty ofLa Quinta De'dopme"t impact Fee Study Table 2-2 Forecasted New Development April 1998 to Buildout Residential Multi/Other) 281 DU 3,149 8,660 1,858 14,677 Office Inci Hospitals) 29 KSF 159 291 2,473 General Commercial 708 KSF 6,822 21,626 86,503 Tourist Commercial 185 Rooms 1,429 772 5,865 Public Facilities 24 KSF 187 1,485 8,909 Schools 143 Acres 143 186 744 Developed Parks 92 Acres 92 308 1,664 GolfCourses 1,726 Acres 1,726 518 2,589 TOTALS 8,688 61,869 46,642 278,248 otC: For footnotes, see Table 2-1. Table 2-3 Ultimate Development at Buildout Residential SF Detached) 6,085 DU 21,298 63,894 21,511 169,937 Residential SF Attached) 1,868 DU 8,406 17,653 8,490 67,071 Residential Multi/Other) 353 DU 3,530 9,708 2,083 16,453 Office mci Hospitals) 41 KSF 5 299 547 4,651 General Commercial 805 KSF 7,821 24,793 99,170 TouristCommercial 250 Rooms 2,070 1,118 8,495 Public Facilities 94 KSF 433 3,438 20,628 Schools 225 Acres 225 293 1,170 DevelopedParks 125 Acres 125 419 2,261 GolfCourses 3,680 Acres 3,680 1,104 5,520 TOTALS 13,526 91,254 63,795 395,357 Notes: For footnotes, see Table 2-1. May, 1999 DMG-MAXiMUS Page 2-8 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[##d City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Table 2-3 on the previous page shows the forecasted ultimate development in La Quinta at buildout, as contemplated in the City of La Quinta General Plan. It represents the sum of existing development from Table 2-1 and forecasted fliture development from Table 2-2. Totals shown in Table 2-3 may differ slightly from the sum of figures in the other two tables due to the effects of rounding. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 2-9 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#$d City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 3 TRANSPOR TA TION IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for street system improvements needed to handle traffic that will be generated by future development in La Qrnnta. The capital projects covered by the recommended impact fees involve only the arterial street system, and include street improve- ments, bridges, traffic signals, sound attentuation walls, and right-of-way purchases. Improve- ments to collector and local streets are not included in the impact fee analysis. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME This study addresses only improvements to the arterial street system, which serves the entire City. Consequently, the City will be treated as a single service area for purposes of calculating traffic impact fees. The time frame covered by this analysis is not defined as a certain number of years, but rather as the span of time required for build out of the undeveloped land designated for devel- opment in the La Quinta General Plan, as amended. That time frame depends on the rate at which development occurs, and the timing of development fluctuates according to economic conditions and other factors. Since the rate of development does not affect the calculation of impact fees ad- dressed in this section of the report, assumptions about that rate are unnecessary here. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service on the components of a circulation system is evaluated by transportation planners in terms of traffic flow on streets and operational conditions at intersections. As stated in the Cir- culation Element of the La Quinta General Plan, level of service is a qualitative measure of traffic flow and driver satisfaction. Level of service LOS) is graded on a scale from A'? to F." LOS A is characterized by free flowing traffic and no delay at intersections. US F represents over- saturated conditions resulting in serious congestion and significant intersection delays. Policy 3-2. 3 of the Circulation Element establishes LOS D as the minimum standard for streets in La Quinta, and provides that, no development project shall be approved, without adequate miti- gation, if it will create conditions that violate that standard. The Circulation System Policy May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-1 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#%d City of La Quinta Deveiopmemt Impact Fee Study Diagram, which is part of the Circulation Element, identifies the street improvements that will be needed to serve anticipated development at the adopted minimum level of service standard. The Diagram is based on traffic modeling done in conjunction with preparation of the Circulation Ele- ment. The capital projects to be fimded by traffic impact fees recommended in this section are consistent with the Policy Diagram, and do not include improvements needed to correct existing deficiencies in La Quinta's circulation system. C. DEMAND VARIABLE The demand variable used to represent the impact of development on La Quinta?s circulation sys- tem is peak hour trip-miles. That variable, which is discussed in Section 2 of this report, is the product of the number of peak hour trips per unit of development and average trip length by devel- opment type. The use of peak hour trip-miles as a demand variable is intended to reflect the need for additional street system capacity resulting from new development. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The development-related improvement costs to be flinded by impact fees calculated in this study include street widening and extension projects including right-of??way acquisition), bridge con- struction, new traffic signals, and sound attenuation walls. Collector and local streets needed to serve new development are assumed to be constructed by developers as project improvements. The list of street projects on which the impact fee analysis is based assumes that developers will be directly responsible for constructing the outside travel lane, plus curb, gutter, and sidewalk on arte- rial streets fronting their projects. In residential areas this requirement wi? also include a parking l?ne. As a result, the impact fees for arterial streets will cover only the cost of additional travel lanes e.g. the two inside lanes on a four-lane arterial), as well as median improvements, on those arterials where they do not already exist. Impact fees for street improvements are intended to cover only the cost of improvements that do not currently exist and wm not be constructed by de- velopers as a condition of project approval. Estimates of costs for bridges and traffic signals to be covered by impact fees assume that a portion of the cost of some improvements will be contrib- uted by other agencies, such as the City of Indio or Riverside County. May. 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-2 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#&d City ofLa Quinta Development impact Fee Study Tables 3-? through 3-5 identif? the street system capital improvements attributable to fliture devel- opment. Total costs for development-related street-system improvements are shown in Table 3-6. A detailed breakdown of cost estimates is included in Appendix A. Table 3-1 Estimated Street System Improvement Costs Major Arterials Jefferson Street $184,800 $87,120 $490,000 $0 $4,90,000 $2,463,640 $220,770 $2,684,410 See Appendix A for detailed cost estimates. Table 3-2 Estimated Street System Improvement Costs Primary Arterials Avenue 54 $654,720 $0 $654,720 Avenue 58 $966,620 $0 $966,620 Eisenhower Drive $500,080 $0 $500,080 Adams Street $282,000 $0 $282,000 Dune Palms Road $249,100 $0 $249,100 Madison Street $1,874,400 $0 $1,874,400 Monroe Street $372,240 $0 $372,240 TOt2I $6,472,550 $0 $6,472,550 See Appendix A for detailed Cost estimates For entirely new bridges, 27% of the City?s cost is attributed to existing development and 73% is attributed to future development. That split is based on the shares of total buildout trip generation May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-3 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#'d OLty of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study contributed by existing and future development. For bridge widening projects, the entire cost is attributed to future development because all bridge widenings covered by this analysis are required only to serve future development. Table 3-3 Street System Improvements Bridge Improvements \:\`;:.:...."`...y;.. S..... a?........................k.: Avenue 50 at EvacuationChannel' $2,940,000 73% $2,146,200 Eisenhower Drive at Evac Channel 630,000 100% $630,000 Avenue 52 at All-American C? $6S0,000 100% $680,000 Avenue 50 at AU-American Canal $315,0002 100% $315,000 Jefferson Street at WWR Channel $3,564,000 73% $2,631,720 Totals $8,129,000 $6,372,920 New Bridge. 2 Half of total Cost to be paid by the City of Indlo. 73% of City cost for new bridges attributed to new development based on shares of total buildout traffic volume See Tables 2-2 and 2-3). Table 3-4, on the following page, shows the cost of traffic signals needed to serve future develop- ment. As noted in the table, costs for some of those signals will be shared with other jurisdictions. With the exception of the citywide central control system, all of the signals on the list will be needed entirely as a result of future dev?opment. As indicated in the Ta?e 3-4, 73% of the cost of the citywide central control system is attributed to future development, based on shares of total buildout trip generation contributed by existing and future development. May, 1999 DMG-MAX?MUS Page 3-4 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#(d City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Table 34 Street System Improvements Traffic Signals \;?::.. Washington Street and Sage Brush $120,000 100% $120,000 Wasliington Street and La Fonda $120,000 100% $120,000 Jefferson Street and Miles Avenue 2 $30,000 100% $30,000 Jefferson Street and Westward Ho 2 $60,000 100% $60,000 Jefferson Street and Avenue 53 $120,000 100% $120,000 Adams Street and Fred Waring $120,000 100% $120,000 Dune Palms Road and Fred Waring $60,000 100% $60,000 Dune Palms Road and Westward Ho 2 $90,000 100% $90,000 Eisenhower and Calle Tampico $120,000 100% $120,000 Eisenhower and Montezuma $120,000 100% $120,000 Eisenhower and Avenue 52 $120,000 100% $120,000 Avenida Benmudas and Calle Tampico $120,000 100% $120,000 Avenida Bermudas and Avenue 52 $120,000 100% $120,000 Calle Tampico and Civic Center Way $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison Street and Avenue 50 2 $30,000 100% $30,000 Madison Street and Avenue 52 2 $90,000 100% $90,000 Madison Street and Avenue 53 $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison Street and Avenue 54 $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison Street and Airport Blvd $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison Street and Avenue 58 $60,000 100% $60,000 Madison Street and Avenue 62 $60,000 100% $60,000 Monroe Street and Avenue 53 2 $30,000 100% $30,000 Monroe Street and Avenue 54 $60,000 100% $60,000 Monroe Street and Airport Blvd $30,000 100% $30,000 Citywide Central Control $500,000 73% $365,000 Development-Related Costs $2,660,000 $2,525,000 Cost to be shared with Riverside County. 2 Cost to be shared with City of Indio TabI 3-5, on the following page, shows the cost of sound attenuation walls expected to be re- quired as a result of future development. The cost of sound walls adjacent to developed property will be included in the impact fee calculations because the City has determined that future devel- opment will increase traffic noise levels to a point where sound affenuation will be required. The cost of sound walls for undeveloped property will be handled case-by-case, as part of the develop- ment approval process. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-5 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#)d City of La Quinta Deve'opmen* Impact Fee Study Table 3-5 Street System Improvements Sound Affenuation Walls East Washington Street at La Quinta D? Oro Vacant $0 $135,000 East Washington Street Vacant $0 $117,000 West Washington Street opposite Lake LQ Vacant $0 $234,000 West Washington Street at Laguna de La Paz $139,500 $0 West Washington Street at Montero Estates $180,000 $0 East Washington Street at Sagebrush, Bottlebrush, Saguaro $58,500 $0 East Wasliington Street North of Avenue 50 Vacant $0 $54,000 West Washington Street at Jacumba, Iloilo Area $54,000 $0 South Fred Waring Drive at Jefferson Street Vacant $0 $58,500 North Fred Waring Drive at Dutch Parant Vacant $0 $180,000 West Jefferson Street Vacant $0 $180,000 West Jefferson Street Westward Ho to S. of Vista Grande $iog,OOo $0 East Jefferson Street Westward Ho to S. of Vista Grande $72,000 $0 East Jefferson Street Westward Ho to S. of Vista Grande $22,500 $0 East Jefferson Street Vacant $0 $418,500 East Jefferson Street Vacant $0 $337,500 West Jefferson Street at Heritage Vacant $0 $117,000 West Jefferson Street Vacant $0 $346,500 South Avenue 52 at Heritage Vacant $0 $720,000 South Avenue 52 at Heritage Vacant $0 $189,000 South Avenue 52 at Heritage Vacant $0 $729,000 Totals $742,500 $3,816,000 Costs of walls adjacent to developed property will be included in impact fees. Studies indicate projected development will increase traffic noise to a level requiring attenuation. Table 3-6 shows the total cost of development-related capital improvement from Tables 3-1 through 3-5. The overall total in that ta?e wi? be Lised as the basis for the impact fee calculation. May, 1999 DMG-MAMMUS Page 3-6 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#*d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-6 Street System Improvements for Future Development Summary by Type E. IMPACT FEES Table 3-7 shows the calculation of a unit cost per peak hour trip-mile. To establish that unit cost, the total cost of development related improvements from Table 3-6 is divided by the projected vol- time of peak hour trip-miles to be added by new development, from in Table 2-2, Section 2. Table 3-7 Street System Improvements Cost per Peak Hour Trip-Mile I $18,797,380 278,248 67.56 SecTablc3? 2 SeeTable2-2. Improvement cost per peak hour trip total eligible improvement cost I added peak hour trip miles. Table 3-8, on the next page, V. 1-iows the conversion of the cost per peak hour trip-mile from Table 3-7 into standardized impact fees per dwelling unit for each category of development. This con- version is based on the estimated number of peak hour trip-miles per unit of development for each land use category. As discussed in Section 9, Implementation, we recommend that the impact fees be formally adopted in terms of the cost per trip, as shown in Table 3-7. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-? BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#+d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-8 Standardized Impact Fees Street Improvements +?.....x.w..:..?' *. ResidentialSFD DU 7.98 $6756 $539 Residential SFA DU 7 98 $67 56 $539 Residential MFO DU 4 66 $6756 $315 Office/Hospital KSF 15.56 $67.56 $1,051 General Commercial KSF 12.68 $67.56 $857 Tourist Commercial Room 4.10 $67.56 $277 Public Facilities Acre 47.64 $67.56 $3,219 Schools Acre 5.20 $67.56 $351 Parks Acre 18.09 $67.56 $1,222 GolfCourseS Acre 1.50 $67.56 $101 See Table 2-I, Notes 3 and 4. 2 SeeTable 3-7. 3 Fee per Unit of development peak hour tri?miles per unit of development x cost leer peak hour trip mile. Fees rounded to e nearest dollar. The standardized fees shown in Table 3-8 allocate a portion of the cost of future street improve- ments to future public facilities, schools, and parks, reflecting the fact that those land uses do gen- erate traffic. However, since those public facilities will be constnicted to serve future private development, the traffic they generate is also attributable, indirectly, to future private develop- ment. To reflect that reality, the costs allocated to public facilities in table 3-9 will be reallocated to private development. All of the costs attributed to schools and parks will be reallocated to resi- dential development, because those facilities serve only residential development. Costs attributed to other public facilities will be reallocated to all development. The method used to redistribute the costs attributed to public facilities i? quite simple. First we calculate the total cost allocated to each public facility category. To do that, we multiply the fee per unit of development from Table 3-8 by the number of units of development shown in Table 2-2. Next, we divide that amount by the sum of all peak hour trip-miles generated by the receiving group of private land use categories. In the case of parks, for example, that would be only the resi- dential categories. The resulting cost per peak hour trip mile is then added to the fees shown in May, 1999 DMG-MAX7MUS Page 3-8 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#,d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee study Table 3-8 for each of the receiving categories. Table 3-9 summarizes the adjustments to allocated cost per trip mile. Table 3-9 Adjusted Cost Allocations Residential SFD DU $67 56 $2 26 $0 30 $0 66 $70 78 Residential SFA DU $67 56 $2 26 $0 30 $0 66 $70 78 Residential MFO DU $67 56 $2 26 $0.30 $0 66 $70 78 Office/Hospital KSF $67.56 $2.26 $69.82 Gener? Commercial KSF $67.56 $2.26 $69.82 Tourist Commercial Room $67.56 $2.26 $69.82 Public Facilities KSF Reallocated $0.00 Schools Acre Reallocated $0.00 ParIts Acre Reallocated $0.00 GolfCourses Acre $67.56 $2.26 $69.82 See Table 3-9. 2 Reallocated Public Facilities Cost 187 KSF of Future Public Facilities x 47.64 Pk Hr Tri?Miles per KSF x Initial Allocation of $67.56 per Pk Hr Trip?MiIes I 266,931 Pk Hr. Tri?Miles generated by all receiving development an increase of $2.26 per Pk Hr Tri?Mile for receiving development. Reallocated Schools cost 143 Acres of Future Schools x 5.2 Pk Hr Trip-Miles per Acre x Initial Allocation of $67.56 per Pk Hr Trip-Mile/I 69,501 Pk Hr Trip.Miles generated by all receiving residential only) development an increase of $0.30 per Pk Hour Trip Mile for receiving development. 4 Reallocated Parks cost 92 Acres ofFuture Parks xl 8.09 Pk Hr T??M?le5 per Acre x Initial Allocation of $67.56 per Pk Hr Trip-Miles/l69,50l Pk Hr Trip-Miles generated by all receiving residential only) development an increase of $0.66 per Pk Hr Tri?Mile for receiving development. 5 Adjusted cost per Pk Hr Tri?Mile the sum of initial cost per Pk Hr Trip-Mile plus the reallocated public facility, school and park costs for each land use category. Finally, the adjusted cost per peak hour trip-mile from Table 3-9 can be substituted for the initial cost per peak hour trip-mile in Table 3-8 to arrive at ae final adjusted impact fee per unit ofdev?- opment. The adjusted fees are shown in Table 3-10 on the following page. The difference be- tween the initial fees, and adjusted fees can be seen by comparing the impact fees in Tables 3-8 and 3-10. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-9 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#-d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-10 Adjusted Standardized Impact Fees Street Improvements Residential MFO Office/Hospital $69.82 $1,086 General Commercial KSF 12.68 $69.82 $885 Tourist Commercial Room 4,10 $69.82 $286 Public Facilities Acre 47.64 $0.00 $0 Schools Acre 5.20 $0.00 $0 Parks Acre 18.09 $0.00 $0 G?fCotrses Acre 1.50 $69.82 $105 See Table 2-l,Notes3 and4. 2 See Table 3-9. 3 Fee per unit of development peak hour tri?miles per unit of development x cost per peak hour trip mile. Fees ounded to the nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost this study. See Executive Surm??. Table 3-11, below projects the impact fee revenue that would be realized from future development, if these fees were applied to all development projected in Table 2-2. Table 3-11 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development *.A'? 4 Residential SFD DU $565 13,845 $7,822,425 Residential SFA DU $565 5,559 $3,140,835 Residential MFO DU $330 3,149 $1,039,170 Office/Hospital KSF $1,086 159 $172,674 General Commercial KSF $885 6,822 $6,037,470 Tourist Commercial Room $286 1,429 $408,694 Public Facilities Acre $0 187 $0 Schools Acre $0 143 $0 Parks Acre $0 92 $0 GolfCourses Acre $105 1,726 $181,230 $18,802,498 See Table 3-10. 2 See Table 2-2. 3 Impact fee revenue adjusted fee per Unit of development x future units of development. May. 1999 DMG-MAAJMUS Page 3-10 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#.d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 4 PARKS & RECREATIONIMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for parks required to serve future development in La Quinta. Land or fees in lieu of land) for future parks, will be acquired by the City from subdividers under the provisions of the Quimby Act Government Code 66477). Park impact fees calculated in this section of the report are intended to cover only the cost of park improvements, and will be levied in addition to any land dedication or fee-in-lieu requirements imposed pursuant to the Quimby Act. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section include both neighborhood and community parks. Functionally, neighborhood parks are intended to serve a specific part of the City while community parks serve the entire City. However, some parks in La Quinta serve both functions. As a result, the impact fees calculated in this section are based on a combined level of service standard for neighborhood and community parks. Those fees will be calculated on a citywide basis, and applied to new development in all parts of the City. No specific time frame is specified in this analysis because the method used to calculate park impact fees does not depend on the timing of dev?opment or the total amount of development to be served. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE At present, parks and recreation facilities in La Quinta are provided both by the City, and by the Coachella VaHey Recreation and Parks District CVRPD). Because parks owned by both entities were funded by residents of La Quinta, all existing facilities will be considered in establishing the existing level of service. This study does not distinguish between neighbo?iood and community parks because only basic park improvements are covered by the impact fees. The City?s existing parks include a community sports complex, two developed neighborhood parks, and a mini-park. Fritz Burns Park, which is currently under development, will be treated as a developed park in this analysis because the City has committed funds to complete improvements w?l beyond the basic park improvements used as the basis for the fees calculated here. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 4-1 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#/d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Table 4-1 lists La Quinta's existing parks. Not included is 845-acre Lake Cahuilla Regional Park, which is located in La Quinta, but owned by Riverside County. The regional park will not be considered in calculating park impact fees. Table 4-1 Existing Parks Fritz Burns Park2 NeighborhoodlConrnunity 4.0 Adams Park Neighborhood 3.7 Avenue 50 Sports Complex 3 Community 18.2 Total 32.7 Owned by Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District 2 Land owned by City. Partly developed. Funds budgeted for completion. 3 Land owned jointly with the Desert Sands Umfied School District. Development costs funded by the City The existing level of service for parks in La Quinta will be defined in terms of acres of existing developed park land per 1,000 population. Table 4-2 computes the existing level of service. Policy 5-1.1.2 in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan esta?ishes a standard of 3.0 acres of improved neighborhood and cornmunity park acreage per thousand residents. However, the existing level of service, as shown in Table 4-2, will be used to calculate the impact fees for parks and recreation facilities. Table 4-2 Existing Level of Service Improved Park Acreage SeeTable4-l. 2 See Table 2-1. Population figures used in this study are based on 100% occupancy of all existing dwelling units. May. 1999 DMG-MAA7MUS Page 4-2 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#0d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study C. DEMAND VARIABLE As indicated above, population is used here as the variable representing the need for parks in La Quinta. Population is almost universally accepted as the proper basis for establishing level-of- service standards for parks, and is used in the Quimby Act, in the City's Gener? Plan, and by the National Recreation and Parks Association. As used in this section, population is defined as the potential population of the City, if all dwelling units were occupied. See Section 2). D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION In this study, the need for park improvements is defined in terms of park acreage per capita as discussed above. The cost for required park facilities is established on a per capita basis, and park impact fees per dwelling unit are based on the average number of residents per dwelling unit for each category of residential development. No park impact fees will be charged to non- residential development. The average cost of basic park improvements for Fritz Burns Park and Adams Park was $123,333 per acre. An estimated cost of $120,000 per acre will be used to calculate the park development impact fee. It should be noted that the estimated cost used in this analysis covers only basic park improvements such as landscaping and irrigation, picnic facilities and playgrounds. It does not include the cost of facilities such as tennis courts or swimming pools, which would have to be flinded from other sources. E. IMPACT FEES Table 4-3 shows the calculation of the cost per capita for park improvements described above, using the level of service standard previously described. May. 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 4-3 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#1d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Table 4-3 Park Improvements Cost per Capita Cost estimate by City of La Quinta Public Works Department for improvements only. 2 ee Table 4-2. 3 See Table 2-2. Table 4-4 shows the conversion of the cost per capita from Table 4-3 into standardized impact fees per dwelling unit for the three categories of residential development. This conversion is provided for administrative convenience. However, for reasons explained in Section 9 Implementation) we recommend that the impact fees be formally adopted in terms of the cost per capita shown in Table 4-3. Table 44 Standardized Impact Fees Park Improvements Residential MFO $133.20 $366 See Table 2-1, Note 3. 2 See Table 4-3. 3 Fee per Unit of Development Demand per Unit of Development x Cost per Unit of Demand. Fees rounded to nearest dollar Note that these fees must be increased bv factor of 0.0053 to incorDorate the cost this studv S? Executive Suinrn?. Table 4-5, on the following page, projects total revenue from the park impact fees. That is the amount, in cttrrcnt dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for park improvements. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 4-4 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#2d City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Table 4-5 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development Residential SFD DU $400 13 845 $5,538,000 Residential SFA DU $280 5 559 $1,556,520 Residential MFO DU $366 3 149 $1,152,534 Office/Hospital KSF General Commercial KSF 6,822 $0 Tourist Commercial Room 1,429 $0 Public Facilities Acre 187 $0 Schools Acre 143 $0 Parks Acre 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre 1,726 $0 $H,247,054 See Table 4?. 2 See Table 2-2. 3 Impact fee revenue impact fee per unit ofdevelopment x future units of development. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 4-5 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#3d City ofLa Quzn? Development Impact Fee study SECTION 5 CIVIC CENTER IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for the La Quinta Civic center. The existing civic center was completed in 1993. It has adequate space to serve a portion of the City's anticipated growth, but expansion will be required prior to buildout. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The civic center has a citywide service area, so the impact fees for that facility will be calculated on a citywide basis. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through buildout of all development contemplated in the General Plan B. LEVEL OF SERVICE For facilities of the type addressed in this section, level of service standards are generally implied rather than explicit. That is, decisions are typica?y made to build required facibties without for- mally adopting a standard. The level of service used in establishing impact fees will be based on specific existing and proposed facih ties, and will be discussed in more det? later in this section. C. DEMAND VARIABLE In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand varia?es are used to represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facil- ity. Demand variables are r"?asurable attributes of development which drive, or at least correlate with, the need for additional capital improvements. For facilities such as water and sewer Systems, service usage can be physically measured and at- tributed to specific types of development. However, the relationship between dev?opment and the need for Civic center facilities is complex and, in some cases, indirect. May, 1999 DMO-MAXiMUS Page 5-1 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#4d C?ty ofLa Quinra Development Impact Fee Study It is self-evident that the need for administrative facilities in any city generally increases as the city grows. Nevertheless, the relationship between specific types of development and the need for administrative facilities is difficult to quantify. In La Quinta, the civic center houses staff from all City departments. Given the multiplicity of services supported by the civic center, and the indirect relationship between development and the demand for some of those services, no sin- gle attribute of development neatly represents the effect of development on space needs in that facility. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to use a generalized measure of development to approximate service demand for purposes of calculating impact fees. Table 5-1 Developed Acreage xcluding Public Facilities) Aftaust \?\`- * A.. A Residential, Single Family Detached 1,927 4,158 6,085 Residential, Single Family Attached 526 1,342 1,868 Residential, Multi family/Other 72 281 353 Office Including Hospitals) 12 29 41 General Commercial 97 708 805 Tourist Commercial 65 185 250 Golf Courses 5% of total acreage) 98 86 184 Total 2,797 6,789 9,586 % ofTotal 29.2% 70.8% 100.0% SeeTable2-1. 2 SeeTable2-2 3 Sec Table 2-3. Acreage is the most general measure of development, and is applicable to all types of develop- ment, and developed acreage will be used here as the demand variable ir analyzing impact fees for the Civic Center. If all fliture developed acreage were included in the cost allocation formula, a portion of the cost for Civic Center facilities would be allocated to parks, schools, and other public facilities. In Table 5-I, acreage devoted to those uses is excluded from the cost allocation in this section, because those public uses do not create a demand for the services supported by the Civic Center facilities. In the case of golf courses, only the portion of course acreage devoted May, J999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 5-2 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#5d City of La Quinta De'elopmen? impact Fee study to the clubhouse and related facilities will be considered developed for purposes of this analysis. The City estimates that portion to be 5% of total acreage. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The existing La Quinta civic center, which was completed in 1993, contains 33,000 square feet of gross floor area. That existing space is adequate to serve the City's current needs. The origi- nal building plans call for the addition of 15,000 square feet in the future. The resulting 48,000 square foot building is expected to serve the City's needs weU into the future. Although addi- tional facilities may be needed prior to buildout, this study makes the conservative assumption that the existing civic center and the proposed expansion will serve the City's needs to brnldout. Because the civic center serves both existing and future development, the costs of the entire facil- ity will be allocated on the sarne basis to both existing and future development. Credit will be given in the analysis for non-impact fee contributions to the cost of the facility. As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in allocating civic center costs is devel- oped acreage. Table 5-1 tabulates developed acreage for existing and future development, using data from Section 2. As indicated in Table 5-I, future development accounts for 70.8% of total developed acreage at buildout. Consequently, 70.8% of eligible civic center costs will be as- signed to future development in this analysis. Table 5-2, on the next page, shows the total cost of the existing civic center, which is defined in this analysis as the sum of past and future cash outlays, plus the present value of future debt serv- ice payments on bonds used to finance construction. The present value calculation discounts all expenditures for inflation at an assumed 3.5% annual rate, resulting in an effective re? interest rate of approximat?y 3% per year on outstanding debt. The share of civic center costs, including debt service, paid by the redevelopment agency RDA) and by future general fund contributions is not included in the cost basis for impact fee calculations. The cost of a future civic center cx- pansion is estimated on a square footage basis in current dollars. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 5-3 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#6d City ofLa Quinla Development Impact Fee Study Table 5-2 Civic Center Costs Civic Center General Fund cash outlays) 1,407,182 Future Civic Center Expansion 2 2,850,000 2,850,000 Total 23,613,282 12,800,281 Futare Development Share 16,718,204 3 12,800,281 Based on 1999 present value of debt service payments, discounted for inflation at 3.5% per year. 2 Assumes a total project cost of$190 leer square foot. 3 Based on 70.8% share of total eligible cost. See Table 5-I. Table 5-2 summarizes civic center costs, and the portion of that cost to be funded in the future. Typically, costs eligible to be recovered through impact fees would be based on the percentage of total cost attributable to future development, based on the percentage of total demand created by that development. That amount is also shown in Table 5-2. However, since the equitable share of costs attributable to future development exceeds the amount remaining to be funded in the fil- ture, the City has chosen to use the lesser amount as the basis for calculating impact fees. E. IMPACT FEES Table 5-3 shows the civic center future funding needs, from Table 5-2, divided by the developed acreage of future development to establish the average cost per developed acre. Table 5-3 Civic Center Cost Allocation See Table 5-2. 2 SeeTable 5-I. May, 1999 DMG-MAA1MUS Page S-4 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#7d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Table 5-4, on the next page, shows the conversion of cost per developed acre from Table 5-3 into standardized impact fees per unit of development for various land use categories. Table 54 Standardized Impact Fees Civic Center ResidenflaiMFO 281 $188?44 $529809 3,149 DU $168 Office/Hospital 29 $1 889 44 $54 678 159 KSF $344 General Commercial 708 $1 88? 44 $1,334 892 6,822 KSF $196 Tourist Commercial 185 $1 88944 $348806 1,429 Room $244 GolfCourse 86 $1,885.44 $162,148 1,726 Acre $94 See Table 2-2. For Golf Courses, developed acreage is assumed to 5% of total acreage. 2 See Table 5-3. 3 Cost for Category Future Developed Acres x Cost per Developed Acre. This column represents the total cost allocated to each larid use category. 4 See Table 2-2. 5 Fee per Unit of development Cost for Ca?egory I Future Units of Development Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by factor of0.0053 to incornorate the cost this study See Executive Summarv). Table 5-5, on the next page, projects total revenue from the impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from fliture development to pay for Civic Center im- provements, and equals, within 0.022%, the cost allocated to future development See Table 5-2). May. 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page S-S BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#8d City ofLa Quinta Development Jmpact Fee study Table 5-5 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development Residential MFO DU $168 3,149 $529,032 Office/Hospital KSF $344 159 $54,696 General Commercial KSF $196 6,822 $1,337,112 Tourist Commercial Room $244 1,429 $348,676 Public Facilities Acre $0 187 $0 Schools Acre $0 143 $0 Parks Acre $0 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre $94 1,726 $162,244 $12,797,375 See Table SA. 2 See Table 2-2. Impact fee revenue impact fee per Unit of development x future units of development. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 5-6 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#9d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 6 LIBRARYIMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for library facilities required to serve future devel- opment in La Quinta. Library service in the City is currently provided by the Riverside City- County Library System. Existing libraries serving La Quinta include a leased storefront facility in the City and branch libraries in adjacent communities. The City-County Library System has no plans to construct a library in La Quinta. This study assumes that the City will construct a library to serve its residents, and that any library constructed in La Quinta will have to be flinded by the City. It is not clear at this time whether La Quinta will ultimately choose to operate its own li- brary, or make arrangements with the Riverside City-County Library System to operate a library owned by the City, but that decision does not affect the capital costs or the impact fee calculations. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME The fac?ities addressed in this section have a citywide service area, so impact fees will be calcu- lated for the City as a whole. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through buildout of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE The Public Facilities element of the La Quinta General Plan includes the following planning stan- dard for libraries: 0.5 square feet of library space per capita and 1.2 volumes, per capita. However, for purposes of establishing impact fees, the City has chosen to use a lower standard of 0.22 square feet of library space per capita, which equates to a 20,000 square foot library to serve the popula- tion proj?c?d at buildout. That standard will be use?(o esta?hsh an impact fee fbrjibrary build- ings in La Quinta. The adopted standard of 1.2 volumes per capita will be used for library materials. It is important to note that the City's existing level of service is lower than the standard used in this analysis. That existing deficiency w?l be addressed later in this section. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 6-1 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#:d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study C. DEMAND VARIABLES In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specif? formulas that quanti? the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility. Population is the universally accepted basis for defining library facility needs, and will be used as the demand variable in allocating the cost of those facih ties. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION Table 6-1 shows costs for library facilities needed to meet the planning standard defined above for the projected City of La Quinta population at buildout. Table 1 Library Costs A' A..? DcsignlConstnlcflon 20,000 GSF $4,700,000 91,254'.'?"' $51.50 Land 2.0 Acres $261,360 2 91,254 $2.86 Materials 110,008 Volumes $2,200,160 3 91,254 $24.11 Total $7,161,250 91,254 $78.47 Based on total project cost of $235 per Sq. Ft. 2 Based on a cost of $3.00 per square foot. 3 Based on average cost of $20.00 per volume. 4 See Table 2-2. As discussed above, the City does not now have a permanent library facility, and does not, at pre- sent, meet the level of servic standard used in this analysis. However, the City does have certain capital assets which will be contributed to development of a branch library in the fliture. By virtue of its contributions to flinding of the library system, and by agreement with the Riverside City- County Library System, the City has rights to the collection currently housed in the storefront h- brary in La Quinta. That collection amounts to 27,500 volumes with a replacement value of $55 0,000. May, 1999 DMG-MAAiMUS Page 6-2 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#;d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee study It is generally accepted that a City may not legally charge impact fees to new development to sup- port a level of service higher than the level of service provided to the existing community. Other- wise, fees charged to new development could result in a subsidy to existing development. Since the impact fees calculated in this section are based on a level of service standard higher than the existing level of service, they can be justified only if the City were to eliminate the existing defi- ciency relative to the proposed service standard. The cost of doing so would have to be paid with flinds other than impact fees. The total cost to bring the current level of service up to the proposed standard would be approxi- mately $2,306,000, based on the per capita costs in Table 6-1 and the existing population shown in Table 2-1. Against that cost, the City can claim credit for the aforementioned library materials with a value of $550,000. The remaining unflinded cost of $1,756,000 in current dollars would have to be paid from non-impact fee sources. The impact ftes calculated in this section assume that the City will con tribute, from non-development-related fund sources, the additional capital necessary to raise the current level ofservice to the proposed service standard. E. IMPACT FEES Table 6-2 converts the per capita costs in Table 6-1 to impact fees per unit of development. Be- cause population is used as the demand variable in this case, library impact fees apply only to resi- dential development. Table 2 StaDdardized Impact Fees Libraries 3t,. C z..:? Residential SFD Dwellmg Umt 3.Ou $7S.47 $235.00 Residential SFA Dwellmg Unit 2 10 $78.47 $165.00 Residential MFO Dwellmg Umt 2.75 $78.47 $216.00 See Table 2-1, Note 2. See Table 6-1. Fee per unit of development population per Unit of development x cost per capita. Fees rounded to neareSt dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by factor of 0.0053 to incorpOrate the coSt this study See Exec. Summiry?. May, 1999 DMG-MAXiMUS Page 6-3 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#<d City ofLa Quinra Development Impact Fee Study Table 6-3 projects total revenue from the library impact fees. That is the amount, in current dol- lars, that would be collected from future development to pay for library improvements through buildout, at the recommended fee levels. Table 3 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development Office/Hospital General Commercial KSF so 6,822 so Tourist Commercial Room so 1,429 50 Public Facilities Acre 50 187 so Schools Acre 50 143 so Parks Acre 50 92 50 Golf Courses Acre 50 1,726 50 54,850,994 Sec Table 6-2. 2 See Table 2-2. 3 Impact fee revenue impact fee per unit of development x future unitS of development. May. 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 64 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#=d City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 7 COMMUNITY CENTER IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for community center facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. The City has one existing community center facihty, the multi- purpose room at the La Quinta Senior Center. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section have a citywide service area, so impact fees will be calcu- lated for the City as a whole. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through buildout of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE The City has not adopted a level of service standard for community center facilities. In this analy- sis, the current ratio of cornmunity center building area to population will be used as the level of service standard. In other words, the level of service used in computing impact fees for future de- velopment will be identical to the current level of service for existing development. The existing ratio of facilities to population is shown in Table 7-1. Table 7-1 Existing Level of Service Community Center Facilities L-L-??ol 29,3B';? Based on multi purpose room of La Quinta Senior Center. 2 See Table 2 1 C. DEMAND VARIABLE Population is used here to define the relationship between development and facility needs, and will be used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for community center facilities. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 7-1 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#>d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Stzdy D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION Table 7-2 shows the cost per capita for community center facilities needed to meet the level of service defined in Table 7-1. All amounts are in current dollars. Table 7-2 Community Center Facilities Cost per Capita Cost provided by Department of Building and Safety. 2 SeeTable7-1. 3 See Table 2-2. E. IMPACT FEES Table 7-3 converts the per capita costs in Table 7-2 to impact fees per unit of development. Be- cause population is used as the demand variable in this case, impact fees apply only to residential development. Table 7-3 Standardized Impact Fees Community Center Facilities Residential MFO Dwelling Unit 2.75 S35.25 See Table 2-1, Note 2. 2 See Table 7-2. 3 Fee per unit of development population per unit of development x cost per capi? Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased bv factor of 0.0053 to incoroorate the cost this study See Exec. Summary). May. 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 7-2 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#?d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Table 7-4 projects total revenue from the community center impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for community center improvements. Table 74 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development Office/Hospital General Commercial KSF so 6,822 so Tourist Commercial Room so 1,429 so Public Facilities Acre $0 187 so Schools Acre $0 143 so parks Acre so 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre so 1,726 so $2,184,389 See Table 7-3. 2 See Table 2-2. Impact fee revenue impact fee per unit of development x future units of development. May. 1999 DMG-MAA7MUS Page 7-3 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#@d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study SECTION S MAINTENANCE FACILITY IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for maintenance facilities required to serve fliture development in La Quinta. At present, the City's corporation yard is at capacity. It is meeting ex- isting needs, but will require expansion in stages as the City grows. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section have a citywide service area, so La Quinta will be consid- ered a single benefit area in assessing impact fees for those facilities. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through buildout of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE For the types of facilities addressed in this section, level of service standards are generally implied rather than explicit. That is, decisions are typically made to build required facilities without for- mally adopting a standard. Because existing facilities are just adequate to meet the City's current needs, the existing level of service, that is, the relationship between existing development and the City's investment in current facilities, will be used as the basis for calculating impact fees for maintenance facilities. C. DEMAND VARIABLES In calculating impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship be- tween development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to repre? ilt the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility. The City corporation yard includes facilities for parking and maintaining vehicles and equipment employed in street and park maintenance operations. The Public Works Department estimates that street maintenance accounts for 80% of those facility needs. Facility costs related to street mainte- nance will be allocated using the same variable applied to street improvements--that is, peak hour May. 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 8-1 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Ad City of La Quinra Development Impact Fee Study trip-miles. The remaining 20% of facility costs, which support park maintenance, will be allocated in the same manner as park facility costs, using population as the demand variable. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The Replacement cost for existing corporation yard facilities, vehicles, and maintenance equip- ment, as estimated by the Public Works department is shown in Table 8-1. Costs are broken down to distinguish street maintenance facilities and equipment from park maintenance facilities and eqwpment. All costs are given in cuirent dollars. Table 8-1 Corporation Yard Existing Facility Costs *.. Ce Site 65,340 SF $0.44 $28,750 Paving 21,800 SF $2.50 $54,500 Outdoor Storage 10,000 SF $5.31 $53,100 Office 500 SF $100.00 $50,000 Garage 500 SF $80.00 $40,000 Long Term Storage 1,000 SF $75.00 $75,000 Vehicle Wash 300 SF $20.00 $6,000 Total S307,350 Pubhc Works Department estimate. The City's current investment per unit of demand for street and park maintenance facilities will be applied to fliture development to calculate impact fees for those facilities. That is, the costs from Table 8-1 will be divided by the existing demand and the resulting unit cost will be used as the ba- sis 1or the impact fees. The current cost per unit of demand, for each facility type is calculated in Table 8-2. All amounts are current dollars. May. 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 8-2 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Bd City ofLa Quinia Development Impact Fee Study Table 8-2 Costs per Unit of Demand Street and Park Maintenance Facilities Totals Based on Public Works Department estimate that 80% of facilities arc used for street maintenance and 20% for park maintenance. 2 See Table 2-I Demand for street improvements is stated in terms of peak hour tri?miles. Parks, schools and other public facilities are not included in this analysis because demand created by those uses is ultimately attributable to the private development served by those uses. 3 See Table 2-I. Demand for parks is stated in terrn of population. E. IMPACT FEES Tables 8-3 and 8-4 convert the costs per unit of demand ftom Ta?e 8-2 into impact fees per unit of development for street and park maintenance facilities, respectively. Table 8-3 Standardized Impact Fees Street Maintenance Facilities Residenfi? MFO Office/Hospital General Commercial KSF 12.68 $2.36 $30 Totrrist Commercial Room 4.10 $2.36 $10 Public Facilities Acre 47.64 N/A N/A Schools Acre 5.20 N/A N/A Parks Acre 18.09 N/A N/A GolfCourses Acre 1.50 $2.36 $4 Dernand is measured by peak hour tri?miles. See Table 2-I, Notes 3 and 4. 2 See Table 8-2 3 Fee per unit of development demand units per unit of development x cost per unit of demand. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by factor of 0.0053 to incoroorate the cost this study See Executive Summary). May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 8-3 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Cd City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Table 84 Standardized Impact Fees Park Maintenance Facilities Residential MFO Demand is measured by population per unit of development. See Table 2-I, Note 2. 2 ee Table 8-2 3 Fee per unit of development demand units per unit of development x cOst per Unit of demand. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased bv factor of 0.0053 to inconoonate the cost this studv See Executive Summarv? Table 8-5 projects total revenue from the street and park maintenance impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from fliture development to pay for mainte- nance facilities. Table 8-5 Projected Impact Fee Revenile from Future Development Residential MFO OfficeThiospital KSF $37 159 $5,883 Gener? Commercial KSF $30 6,822 $204,660 Tourist Commercial Room $10 1,429 $14,290 Public Facilities Acre $0 187 $0 Schools Acre $0 143 $0 ParIcs Acre $0 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre $4 1,726 $6,904 $759,252 Combined fee per unit of development sum of street and park maintenance fees per unit of development from Tables 8-3 and 84. 2 See Table 2-2. 3 Impact fee revenue impact fee per unit of development x future units of development. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 8? BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Dd City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 9 IMPLEMENTATION This section of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of a devel- opment impact fee program based on this study, and for the interpretation and application ofim- pact fees recommended herein. A. ADOPTION The form in which development impact fees are adopted, whether by ordinance or resolution, should be determined by the City Affomey. Typically, it is desirable that specific fee schedules be set by resolution to facilitate periodic adjustments. For reasons discussed below, we also recommend that each impact fee be adopted as a charge per unit of service, rather than as schedule of fees per unit of development. Thus, an impact fee for street improvements would be adopted as a charge per peak hour trip-mile, rather than as a flat fee per dwelling unit or other unit of development. Additional discussion of this point is pre- sented under Administration, below. B. ADMINISTRATION Several requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) ad- dress the administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting procedures, reflinds, updates and reporting. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the Government Code. ApplicatioD of Impact Fee Rates. In general, impact fees recommended in this report are calcu- lated initially in terms of a cost per unit of service, and then converted into fees per unit of devel- opment. Service units are attributes of development, such as population and trip generation, which are used to represent demand for various types of public facilities. To apply impact fees to a development project, it is necessary to estimate how many units of service are required by May, 1999 DMG-MAXJMUS Page 9-1 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Ed City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study that project. For the administrative convenience of the City, and to facibtate cost estimating by builders and developers, it is usefill to convert impact fee rates into standardized fees for com- mon units of development--e.g., dwelling units for residential development, or building area for commercial development. All impact fee rates calculated in this study have been converted to standardized fees per unit of development for the land use categories defined in this study. However, as indicated above, we recommend that the ordinance or resolution adopting the im- pact fees state the amount of the fees in terms of service units e.g. dollars per peak hour trip- mile) instead of; or in addition to, adopting a schedule of fees per unit of development e.g., dol- lars per Single Family Dwelling Unit). Adopting fees in terms of service units provides a basis for adjusting fees in cases where a development project has demand characteristics that vary sig- nificantly from the nQrms used to characterize the land use categories in this report. It should be also noted that some commercial and industrial buildings are not designed for a spe- cific type of tenant and their use can change over time. For such uses, we believe that the City is justified in applying fees based on reasonable average demand characteristics for the appropriate categories of development. The fact that the initial user of a new building may have below aver- age demand for certain services does not ensure that filture users will have similarly low demand. Imposition of Fees. Under Section 66001, when the City imposes establishes, increases, or im- poses a mitigation fee it must make findings relative to items l through 3b, below. When impos- ing such a fee on a specific project, the City must also make a finding relative to item 3c. 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identif? 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; May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-2 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Fd City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study 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 in- tended to provide a basis for all of the required findings. According to the statute, the use of the fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public document. This study is intended to be used as a public document to satisfy that requirement. 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 specific improvements to be flinded by the impact fees are identified. Consequently, this report provides a basis for the notification required by the statute. Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require payment fees for residential development prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of oc- cupancy, 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 dwell- ing 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 dw?h'ng unit completed. An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be used to reim- burse the agency for expenditures previously made, or for improvements or f'acih'ties for which money has been appropriated. The agency must also have adopted a construction schedule or plan for the improvement. These restrictions do not apply to non-residential development. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, many cities routinely collect impact fees for all facili- ties at the time building permits are issued, and builders often find it convenient to pay the fees at May, 1999 DMG-MAA1MU? Page 9-3 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Gd City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study 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 lien against the property until the fees are paid. Credit for Improvements provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a con- dition of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have been, or will be, charged to that project, 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 im- provements. If the credit would exceed the amount of the fee imposed on the development for that type of facility, the City may choose to negotiate a reimbursement agreement with the devel- oper under which the excess credit would be repaid from fliture impact fees charged to other de- velopers for the same type of facility. Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensi- fication 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 typically 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 structure, 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 flind in manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and flinds of the local agency, except for temporary investments. Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. In- terest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose. We recommend that fees be deposited in accounts established for each type of facility addressed in this report. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-4 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Hd City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee study 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: * The amount of the fee * The beginning and ending balance of the account or flind * The amount of the fees collected and interest earned * Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvment, in?uding the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was flinded with fees * Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the City determines sufficient flinds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement * A description of each jnterfmd transfer or loan made from the account or flind, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended * The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs e) and f) 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 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 jush? 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 years May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-S BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Id City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study thereafier, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that re- mains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: * Identi? the purpose to which the fee will be put * Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged * Identi? all sources and amounts of flinding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used * Designate the approximate dates on which the flinding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or flind 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 reflind the moneys in the account or fluid. 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 deter- mination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improveir?ent will be commenced. If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must reflind impact fee reve- nue in the account according to procedures specified in the statute. Costs of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee program is riot in- cluded in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include the staff time involved in ap- plying 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 de- velopment applications. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-6 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Jd City a/La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Annual Update of 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 al- ternative is to identify improvements in other public documents. Since impact fee calculations in this study include costs for future facilities not covered by the City's CIP, we recommend that this report serve as the public document in which the use of impact fees is identified. If that practice is followed, we believe the City would not be required to update its CIP annually to sat- isfy Section 66002. Annual Update of Impact Fee Rates. The fees recommended in this report are stated in cur- rent dollars, and the fees should be adjusted annually to account for construction cost escalation. The En?neerin? News Record Los Angeles 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. C. TRAINING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION Administering an impact fee program effectively requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for applying and collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. We recommend that one employee be designated as the coordinator for the impact fee program, and be made responsible for training all staff who are involved in fee-related activities. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of em?oy- ees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees. It is also useful to give close attention to handouts which provide information to the pubbe re- garding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from user fees, such as applica- tion and plan review fees, and the purpose and use of the fee should be made dear. May, 1999 DMG-MAXiMUS Page 9-7 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Kd City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Finally, everyone who is responsible for capital budgefing and project management be must fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees recom- mended in this report are tied to specific project lists and related cost estimates. Fees must be ex- pended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-8 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Ld APPENDIX A DETAILED COST ESTIMATES FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Md MAJOR ARTERIAI?S DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS April 20, 1999 TpCA?ON Q?N LENCiIH COMMENIS HIGHWAY 111 Adams St. to 600' East ofDepot Dr. 4 $100 4,500 $450,000 600' East ofDepot Dr. to Jefferson St. 6 $50 850 $42,500 TOTAL HIGHWAY 111 $492,500 North City Limits to Fred Waring Dr. 7 $84 2,640 $221,760 Fred Waring Dr. to 1100' Soutb 6 $50 3,500 $175,000 Highway 111 to Ave. 47 5 $132 2,650 $349,800 Ave. 48 to Sagebrush 4 $100 3,880 $388,000 4 $100 1,400 $140,000 5?g???shto100'SouthofSaguaro 8 $33 660 $21,780 TOTAL WASHINGTON ST. $1,296,340 7 $84 2,650 $222,600 Funding 50% CVAG Miles Ave. To Westward Ho N?A $0 In the City of hidjo Westward Ho to Whitewater 3 $70 2,100 $147,000_j_Funded 50% CVAG TOTAL JEFFERSON ST. $369,600 50) 184,300 T()CA?3ON LEN? COST CQMMENIS AVE 52 Calle Rondo to Jefferson St 3 $70 7000 $490,000 TOTAL AVE. 52 $490,000 TOTAL ALL MAJOR ARTERIAL S $2,463,640 O?oNS: $`FOOT ALL IMPROVEMENTS, BOTH SIDES $230 2 REMAINING 2 LANES & LANDSCAPING $170 3 REMAINING 2 LANES $70 4 MEDIAN AND LANDSCAPING $100 5 REMAINING I LANE & LANDSCAPING $132 6 HALF MEDIAN & LANDSCAPING $50 7 REMAINING 1 LANE, LANDSCAPING, & $84 HALF MEDIAN 8 REMAINING 1 LANE $33 I ofI BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Nd MAJOR ARTFRIAI?S OPTION 1 ALL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PUT IN) uNIT QITANTITY IINIIQSI If)IAL Clear and Grub SF 6600 025 $16.50 Landscaping SF 1800 250 $45.00 MedianCurb LF 200 1000 $20.00 C.Y. 1.19 20.00 $23.80 Tons 1.26 35.00 $441.10 S.Y. 1.78 1.00 $1.78 SF 48.00 0.10 $4.80 SUBTOTAL $155.98 Engineering I 155.98 10% $15.60 Inspection, Testing. Survey I 55.98 7% $10.92 SUB TOTAL $182.50 Administration 182.50 5% $9.13 SUBTOTAL $191.62 Contingency 191.62 20% $38.32 TOTAL COSTIFT $22995 MAJOR ARTF?IAT?? OPTION 2 REMAINING 2 LANES AND LANDSCAPING) TINIT QuANTITY IIN1TcO?T IQIAL S.F. 42.00 0.25 0.50 Landscaping S.F. I 8.00 2.50 $45.00 Median Curb L.F. 2.00 10.00 $20.00 C.y. 0.59 20.00 $11.80 Tons 0.63 35.00 $22.05 S.Y. 0.89 00 $0.89 S.F 24.00 0.10 $2.40 SUBTOTAL $1?2.64 Engineering $11.26 $7.88 Inspection. Testing, Survey SUBTOTAL $131.79 Administration 131,79 5% $6.59 SUBTOTAL $13838 Contingency 138.38 20% $2768 TOTAL COSTIFT $166 Os 0f5 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Od MAJOR ARTERIAI?S O?ON 3 REMAINING 2 LANES ONLY) F??r?1pT1pN ITNIT p?IANTTTV NTN1TCO?T IflIAL Clear and Grub SF 4200 025 $10.50 AB. CY 059 2000 $11.80 AC. Tons 063 3500 $22.05 Fabric SY 0.89 1.00 $0.89 Striping SF 24.00 0.10 $2.40 SUB TOTAL $47.64 Engineering 47. 1(0/? $4.76 Inspection, Testing, Survey 47. 7% $3.33 $55.74 $2.79 $58.53 Contingency $11.71 TOTAL COSTIFT $70.23 MAJOR ARTERIALS OPTION 4 MEDIAN AND LANDSCAPING) flVS?RIPT1ON WIN IT CO?T TflTAI Clear and Grub S.F., 18.00 0.25 $4.50 Landscaping fSF, 18.00 2.50 $45.00 Median Curb tLF. 2.00 10.00 $20.00 SUB TOTAL $69.50 Engineering 69.50 1 10% $6.95 Inspection, Testing, Survey LI 69.50 7% $4.87 SUB TOTAL $81.32 Adrninistration 81.32 5% $4.07 SUB TOTAL $85.38 Contingency 85.38 20% $17.08 TOTAL COSTfFT $102.46 Pqc 3 of S BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Pd MAi()? A?TF?1AI.? OPTION 5 REMAINING I LANE & LANDSCAPING) TNTT quANTITY t?ITCO?T IOIAL Clear and Grub SF 2100 025 $5.25 Landscaping SF 1800 250 $45.00 LF 200 1000 $20.00 c.y 0.30 20.00 $6.00 A.C. Tons 0.32 35.00 $11.20 Fabric 5.y. 0.89 1.00 $0.89 Striping S.F. 12.00 0.10 $1.20 SUB TOTAL $89.54 Engineering 89.54 1 10% $8.95 Inspection. Testing, Survey 89.54 7% $6.27 SUB TOTAL $104.76 Administration 104.76 5% $5.24 SUB TOTAL $110.00 Contingency 110.00 20% $22.00 TOTAL COSTJFT $132.00 M&JOR ARTERIA1?S O?ON 6(1/2 MEDIAN & LANDSCAPING) UNlI QUANIIIX t?NtTCp?T I')IAL SF 9.00 0.25 $2.25 Landscaping S F 9.00 2.50 $22.50 edianCurb LF 1.00 10.00 $10.00 SUB TOTAL $34.75 I 34.75 10% $3.48 Inspection, Testing, Survcy 34.75 7% $2.43 SUB TOTAL $40.66 Administration 40.66 5% $2.03 SUB TOTAL $42.69 Contingency 42.69 20% $8.54 TOTAL COST/FT $51.23 Pages ofS BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Qd MA.IO? A?TF?IAI,? OPTION 7(1 LANE, 112 LANDSCAPING & MEDIAN) Dy.?CRTp?tpN IINI'i ITANTITV lTNTT?O?T OlAL Clear and Grub SF 21 00 025 $5.25 Landscaping SF 900 250 $22.50 Median Curb 100 1000 $10.00 AB1 C Y 030 20.00 $6.00 AC Toni 032 35.00 $11.20 Fabnc S Y 089 1.00 $0.89 Striping SF 1200 0,10 $1.20 SUB TOTAL $57.04 Engineering 57.04 10% $5.70 Inspection, Testing, Survey 57.04 7% $3.99 SLIB TOTAL $66.74 Administration 66.74 5% $3.34 SUB TOTAL $70.07 Contingency 70.07 20% $14.01 TOTAL COST?FT $84.09 MAJO? ARTE?IAI OPTION S REMAINING I LANE) DF?CRIPTIflN tTNITrn?T TOTAl Clear arid Grub A.B. A.C. SF 1200 0.10 $1.20 SLB TOTAL $22.29 2209 10% $2.21 Inspection, Testing, Survey 2209 7% $1.55 SUB TOTAL $26.05 Administration 2605 5% $1.30 SUB TOTAL $27.35 Contingency 27.35 20% $5.47 TOTAL COST/FT $32.82 T 5 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Rd PRIMARy ApTi??RIAT? DEVELOPER PEE CALCULATIONS March 4, 1999 LOCATION O?ON $?I LENGTh COST MILES AVE. Seeley to 660' West of Adams St. $0 $0 Have bonds Trailer Park & Church 15 $47 660 $31,020 Have bonds for south half Adams St. to Dune Palms Rd. N?A $0 2,640 $0 Have bonds Dune Palms Rd. To Jefferson St. 15 $47 2640 $124,080 Half in Indio TOTAL MILES AVE. $155,100 AVE. 50 Washigton St. to Evacuation Channel 13 $94 1,000 $94,000 Park Ave. To Orchard 15 $47 2,100 $98,700 Have bonds for south side Orchard to Jefferson St. 13 $94 2,640 $248,160 Jefferson St. to Madison 15 $47 5,280 $248,160 North halfin Indio 1320' West of Madison to Madison 14A $18 1,320 $23,760 South side already developed TOTAL AVE. 50 $712,780 AVE. 52 Eisenhower Dr. to Desert Club 13A $65 1,450 $94,250 Jefferson St. to Madison 13 $94 5,280 $496,320 1320' West ofMadsonto 660' West of 14 $33 660 $21,780 North halfis already Madison developed 660' West ofMadison to 1320' East of 15 $47 1,980 $93,060 Madison TOTAL AVE. 52 $705,410 AVE. 54 Jeffemon St. to Madison $0 f $0 f Completed Madison to Aonroe OA $124 5,280 $654720 L________ TOTAL AVE. 54 $654,720 AVE. 58 Jefferson St. to Madison j 1OA $124 j 5,280 f $654,720 f Madison to Monroe 14A/15 $65 4,800 $312,000 North side only TOTAL AVE. 58 $966,720 T p.? I f7 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Sd LOCATION QEIIQN $$?I QMME??I? EISENHOWER DR. Coachella Dr. to Washington St. 13 $94 4,000 $376,000 Tampico to Evac Channel 13 $94 1,320 $124,080 TOTAL EISENHOWER DIL $500,080 ADAMS ST. Highway 111 to Ave. 48 13 $94 3,000 $282,000 TOTAL ADAMS ST. $282,000 DUNE PALMS RD. HighwayllltoAve.41 13 $94 2,650 $249,100 TOTAL DUNE PALMS RD. $249,100 MADISON Ave. 50 to Ave. 52 1 IA $107 5,280 $564,960 Ave. 52 to Ave. 54 10 $154 5,280 $813,120 Halfniile nor?h ofAve. 58 to Ave. 58 13 $94 2,640 $248,160 Ave.6OtoAve.62 15 $47 5,280 $248,160 TOTAL MADISON $1,874,400 MONROE Half mile north of Ave. 54 to Ave. 54 15 080 I $4; I 25:624800 L $$212448;160 Ave. 54 to Airport Blvd. 15 TOTAL MONROE $372,240 TOTAL ALL PRIMARY ARTEIAALS $6,472,550 OPTIONS: $/FOOT 9 ALL IMPROVEMENTS, BOTH SmES $213 10 REMAINING 2 LANES & LANDSCAPING $154 1OA 2 LANES & LANDSCAPING lvIINUS 2" AC & Y2 CLEAR & GRUB $124 1] REMAINING 1 LANE & LANDSCAPING $122 hA I LANE &LANDSCAPING MINUS 2"AC& Y2 CLEAR & GRUB $107 12 REMAINING2LANES $65 13 LANDSCAPING ONLY $94 13A LANDSCAPING WIThOUT CLRB $65 14 REMAINING 1 LANE $33 14A REMAINING 1 LANE MINUS 2'. AC & V2 CLEAR & GRUB $18 15 HALF LANDSCAPING MEDIAN $47 T P? 2 g? BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Td PRTMA?Y A?TER1AIS O?ON 9 ALL IMPROVEMENTS BOll! SIDES) nr.SCRIPTION NIT QUANIIIX i'NTTCfl?T SF 6400 025 $16.00 Landscaping S F 16 00 2 50 $40.00 L.F. 2.00 10.00 $20.00 C.Y. 0.89 20.00 $17.80 Tons 1.26 35.00 $44.10 SY. 1.78 1.00 $1.78 S.F. 48.00 0.10 $4.80 SUBTOTAL $144.48 Engineering 144.48f 10% $14.45 Inspection, Testing. Survey 144.48? 7% $10.11 SUB TOTAL $169.04 Administmtion 169.04 5% $8.45 SUB TOTAL $177.49 Contingency 177.49 20% $35.50 TOTAL COST/FT $212.99 PPTMARY A?TFPIAI.S O?ON 10(2 LANES AND LANDSCAPING) *OPTION IDA 2 LANES AND LANDSCAPING MINUS 2" AC AND % CLEAR AND GRUB) DF?C?1PTlflN I'NIT QITANTITY T'NITCO.'cT IOIAL CIe&andGnib SF 4000 025 $1000 $5.00 Landscaping SF 1600 2 50 $4000 $40.00 Median Curb L F 2.00 0.00 $20.00 $20.00 AB C Y 0.44 20.00 $8.80 $8.80 AC Tons 0.63 35.00 $22.05 $7.35 Fabnc S Y 0.89 1.00 $0.89 $0.89 Striping SF 24.00 0.10 $2.40 $2.40 SUBTOTAL $104.14 $84.44 Engineering f 104.14 10% $10.41 $8.44 Inspection, Testing, Survey 104.14 7% $7.29 $5.91 SUBTOTAL $12?.84 $98.79 AdniinistrBtion 121 84 5% $6.09 $4.94 SUB TOTAL $127.94 $103.73 Contingency 12794 20% $25.59 $20.75 TOTAL COST/FT $153 52 $124.48 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Ud P?WA?V A?TF?!AI.S OPTION 11(1 LANE & LANDSCAPING) *OPTION hA 1 LANE & LANDSCAPING MINUS 2" AC AND Y2 CLEAR AND GRUB) flEsI?1?IloN ITNIT QIIANIIfl ITNIT COST TCVrAI IlA Clear snd Grub SF 2000 025 $500 $2.50 Landscaping S F 6 00 2 50 $40 00 $40.00 Mediari Curb L.F. 2.00 10.00 $20.00 $20.00 A.B. C.Y, 0.22 20.00 $4.40 $4.40 AC. Tons 0.32 35.00 $11.20 $374 Fabric S.Y. 0.89 1.00 $0.89 $0.89 Striping S.F 12.00 0.10 $1.20 $1.20 SUB TOTAL $82.69 $72.73 Engineering 82.69 10% $8.27 $7.27 Intpection, Testing, Survey J 82.69 7% $5.79 $5.09 SUB TOTAL $96.75 $85.09 Administr?tion 9675 5% $4.84 $4.25 SUB TOTAL $101.58 $89.34 Contingency 101 58 20% $20.32 $17.87. TOTALCOSTIFT $12190 $107Z1 PPTMAPY APTFPIAT OPTION 12 REMAINING 2 LANES) fl?Rl?Ilfl?[ flttA??TTITV NIT Cfl?.T TOTAl SF 4000 025 $10.00 044 2000 $8.80 Tons 063 3500 $22.05 Sy. 0.89 1.00 $0.89 Striping S.F. 24.00 0.10 $2.40 SUB TOTAL $44.14 Engineering L 44.14 10% $4.41 Inspection, Testing, Survey 4414 7% $3.09 SUB TOTAL $51.64 Administration 5] 64 5% $2.58 SUB TOTAL $54.23 Contingency 54.23 20% $10.85 TOTAL COST/FT $65.07 Ppg? 5?f7 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Vd PPTMA?V ApTE?1AI.S O?ON 13 LANDSCAPING ONLY) IIESCRIEIlON JINI' quANTITY TINITCOgT mIAL Clear and Grub 1600 025 $400 Landscaping ISFI 1600 250 $4000 jLF?? Median Curb 200 10.00 $20.00 SUB TOTAL $64.00 Engineering j?f 6400 10% $6.40 Inspection, Testing, Survey 6400 7% $4.48 SUB TOTAL $74.88 Adnirnstmtion 74.88 5% $3.74 SUB TOTAL $78.62 Contingency 78.62 20% $15.72 TOTAL COSTIFT $94.35 P?TMA?V ApTF.?1AT.S OPTION 13A ANDSCAFING ONLY WIThOUT CURB) DF??IPTIflN IINII QUANIIIX NIT rflST TOTAl L I 16.00 0.25 $4.00 16.00 2.50 $40.00 SUB TOTAL $44.00 44.00 10% $4.40 Inspection, Testing, Survey 44.00 j 7% $3.08 SUB TOTAL $51.48 Administration 51.48 5% 2.57 SUB TOTAL $54.05 Contingency 54.05 20% $10.81 TOTAL COST?FT $64.86 6 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Wd PRTMARV A?TF?RIA1.? o?ON 14 REMAINING 1 LANE) *O?ON 14A REMAINING 1 LANE MINUS 2" AC AND A CLEAR AND GRUB) DF,SCRIPTTON IlNil QUANIIIX TTNTTCp?T IOTAL Clear and Grub SF 2000 025 $500 $2.50 AB CY 022 2000 $440 $4.40 AC. Tons 032 35.00 $11.20 $3.73 Fabric S Y 045 1.00 $0.45 $0.45 Striping SF 1200 0.10 $1.20 $1.20 SUB TOTAL $22.25 $12.28 Engineering I 22.25 10% $2.23 $1.23 Inspection, Testing, Survey j 22.25 7% $1.56 $0.86 SUB TOTAL $26.03 $14.37 Administration 26.03 5% $1.30 $0.72 SUB TOTAL $27.33 $15.09 Contingency 27.33 20% $5.47 $3.02 TOTALCOSTIFT $32.80 $18.11 PPTMAPY APTFPTAT OPTION 15(1/2 MEDIAN & LANDSCAPING) DF?rpIrr1pN QuANTiTY lTNrrrpg.T IoIAL ClearandOrub 7?F.[? 025 $2.00 csprng?SFjS.00 2.50 $20.00 Median Curb LLFII.00 10.00 $10.00 SUB TOTAL $32.00 Engineenng L____________ 32.00 L 10% $3.20 Inspection, Testing, Survey 3200 7% $2.24 SUB TOTAL $37.44 Administration 3744 5% $1.87 SUB TOTAL $39.31 Contingency 39.31 20% $7.86 TOTAL COST'TFT $47A7 a Pa'c??(7 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Xd Major ArtertaI? 120. I f,*11fj?1 lB. GENERALPLAN Li I ROAOWAY CROS?SE??ONS Frimary Arterial 1oo.i? 1 17 m1? I Secondary Arterial aw 17 5 Q4 I * StBze Highway 11? nstttutes a spe?I class al Major Merial Collector ith a righl??ay mquimmir? at 72 IT teet established by Carirans. Local Street Cul?De-Sac C BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Yd GENERAL PLAN c?im SYSTIM poiY DIAWIAM p-.-, Co..-, Ex5 a SAW Mc. Ar BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#Zd RIGHT OF WAY MAJOR ARTERIAI?S DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS April 20, 1999 T?()?AT1ON WII)IH rFNC?TH SQ. FT. INIT COSI QMMENIS COST WASHINGTON ST Washington St. Interchange N/A N/A 0 $ 0 N/A North City Limits to Fred Waring 12 400 4,800 $ 2.75 $ 13,200 East side only/portion in LQ 3 parcels Ave. 50 to Evacuation Channel 12 1,000 12,000 $ 2.75 $ 33,000 East side only Evacuation Channel to Ave. 52 w/o 0 0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0 Existing Hwy 111 to Ave. 47 12 2,650 31,800 $ 2.75 $ 87,450 East side only BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#[d BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS April 20, 1999 LOCAIION IQIAL CITY? CITY'? COST COST Ave. 50 Evacuation Channel $2,940,000 100% $2,940,000 Eisenhower Dr. Evacuation Channel $630,000 100% $630,000 Ave. 52 A]] American Canal $680,000 100% $680,000 Ave. 50 All American Cana] $630,000 50% $315,000 share with Indio) Jefferson St. WWR Channe] $3,564,000 100% $3,564,000 TOTAL $?,129,0OO I f I BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#\d FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAI?S DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS March 4, 1999 LOCAIION IQIAL CIDZS CITY'?CO?T COST SHARE Jefferson St. & Westward Ho 50% $60,000 share with lndio) Jefferson St. & Ave. 53 $120,000 100% $120,000 Adams St. & Westward Ho $120,000 100% $120,000 Dune Palms Rd. & Fred Waring Dr. $120,000 50% $60,000 share with County) Dune Palms Rd. & Westward Ho $120,000 75% $90,000 share with Indio) Eisenhower Dr. & C?le Tampico $120,000 100% $120,000 Eisenhower Dr. & Montezuma $120,000 100% $120,000 Eisenhower Dr. & Ave. 52 $120,000 100% $120,000 Ave. Bennudas & Calle Tampico $120,000 100% $120,000 Ave. Bermudas & Ave. 52 $120,000 100% $120,000 Calle Tampico Civic Center Way $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison St. & Ave. 50 $120,000 25% $36,000 share with Indio) Madison St. & Ave. 52 $120,000 75% $90,000 share with Indio Madison St. & Ave. 53 $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison St. & Ave. 54 $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison St. & Ave. 5S $120,000 50% $60,000 share with County) Madison St. & Ave. 62 $120,000 50% $60,000 share with County) Monroe St. & Ave. 53 $120,000 25% $30,000 share with Indio) Monroe St. & Ave. 54 $120,000 50% $60,000 share with County) Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. $120,000 25% $30,000 share with County) Citywide Central Control $500,000 73% $365,000 TOTAL S2,525,ODD T pd of I BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#]d FUTURF SOIJND WA1? INVFNTORY March 4,1999 LQCAIION DISIANCE FT?TpP AVFPA?? DAlI V TRAFFIC MAJOR ARTERIALS: North Ave. 50 at Montero Estates 1,200 HDR 60,100 East Washington St. at La Quinta Del Oro Vacant) 1,500 HDR 60,100 Vacant) 1,300 HDR 60,100 West Washington St. across from Lake La Quinta Vacant) 2,600 LDR 78,200 West Washington St. at Laguna de la Paz 1,550 LDR 78,200 West Washington St. at Montero Estates 2,000 LDR 65,100 650 MDR 65,100 East Washington St. North of Ave. 50 Vacant) 600 LDR 65,100 West Washington St. at 3acumba, Iloilo Area 600 MDR 52,600 South Fred Waring Dr. at Jefferson St. Vacant) 650 LDR 35,700 North Fred Waring Dr. at Dutch Parent Vacant) 2,000 LDR 50,600 Vacant) 2,000 LDR 36,700 West Jefferson Westward Ho to south border of Vista Grande) 1,200 LDR 45,900 East Jefferson Westward Ho to south border of Vista Gtande) 800 LDR 45,900 East Jefferson Westward Ho to south border of Vista Grande) 250 LDR 45,900 acant) 4,650 LDR 47,600 Vacant) 3,750 LDR 42,600 Vacant) 1,300 LDR 42,600 Vacant) 3,850 LDR 42,600 South Ave. 52 at Heritage Vacant) 8,000 LDR 34,100 PRIMARY ARTERIAL S: South Ave. 52 at Heritage Vacant) 2,100 LDR 34,100 South Ave. 52 at Heritage Vacant) 8,100 j LDR 34,100 Estirnated Tota] Linear Feet of Proposed Sound Wall in La Quinta 50,650 Estirnated Total Linear Feet of Undeveloped Vacant) Land Proposed Sound WaU 42,400 Estimated Total Linear Feet of Developed Land Proposed Sound Wall 8,250 Estirnated Cost $90.00) per Linear Foot $90.00 Total Estimated Cost of Proposed Future Sound Wall in Developed Areas $742,500 Note: All development of vacant land will be conditioned to complete a sound attenuation study. If sound attenuation is required, it will be a condition of the new development to provide the sound attenuation at the developem sole cost. Pmi? I of BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#^dAPPENDIX B FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#_d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study APPENDIX B FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES IMPACT FEES This appendix addresses impact fees for fire protection facilities required to serve fiture develop- ment in La Quinta. Fire protection in La Quinta is the responsibility of the Riverside County Fire Department, and is contracted to the California Department of Forestry. Two fire stations exist in La Quinta at present. Another station will be required to serve development in the north- em portion of the City, and one existing station needs to be expanded because it is too small to meet luture urban fire protection needs. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME Although individual fire stations have specific service areas where they are designated to provide the first response to emergency calls, all fire protection facilities operate as part of an integrated citywide system. The resources of the entire system are needed to provide adequate fire protec- tion in any part of the City. Thus, it makes sense to treat the entire City as a single service area for purposes of calculating fire protection impact fees. That approach is flirther supported by the fact that calculating separate impact fees for individual fire station service areas may well impose significantly different charges on similar development projects in different parts of the City for essentially the same level of service. This analysis will allocate costs for fire protection facilities city-wide, so that the impact fees for a particular type of development project would be the same, regardless of its location in the study area. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through buildout of all development contem- plated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service for fire protection is typically defined in terms of maximum response times. Re- sponse times, in turn, depend largely on the maximum distance that must be traveled in respond- ing to an emergency call, and that distance is detertnined by the size of the area covered by a particular fire station. For purposes of this analysis, level of service must be translated into May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page B-i BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#`d City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study facility needs. The number of fire stations needed to serve an area with acceptable response times is typically determined by an analysis of specific conditions within the area served. The number of fire stations needed to serve La Quinta at buildout has been detemined by the City, and will be used as the basis for the impact fee analysis. C. DEMAND VARIABLE In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facil- ity. Demand variables are measurable attributes of development which drive, or correlate with, the need for facilities. As indicated in the level-of-service discussion, above, the most important factor in determining how many fire stations are required to serve an area, given a ceriain re- sponse time standard, is the size of the area served. For that reason, developed acreage will be used as the demand variable for allocating fire station costs. Table B-i Developed Acreage xcluding Public Facilities) Residential, Single Family Detached 1,927 4,158 6,085 Residential, Single Family Attached 526 1,342 1,868 Residential, Multi?farnily/Other 72 281 353 Office Including Hospitals) 12 29 41 General Commercial 97 708 805 Tourist Commercial 65 185 250 Golf Courses 5% of total acreage) 98 86 184 Total 2,797 6,789 9,586 SeeTable2-l. 2 See Table 2-2 3 See Table 2-3. If all future developed acreage were included in the cost allocation formula, a portion of the cost for fire station facilities would be allocated to parks, schools, and other public facihties. May, 1999 DMG-MAAiMUS Page B-2 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#ad City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study However, since those public facilities will be constructed to serve future private development, their fire protection needs are also attributable, though indirectly, to future private development. To reflect that reality, the future acreage devoted to those uses will not be included in the cost al- location, which means that none of the costs for added fire station facilities will be allocated to those uses. in the case of golf courses, only the portion of course acreage devoted to the club- house and related facilities will be considered developed for purposes of this analysis. The City estimates that portion to be 5% of total acreage. See Table B-i on the previous page for a break- down of developed acreages used in this section. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION Two fire stations operate in the City of La Quinta, at present. One city-owned station was paid for by a major developer. The other station, owned by Riverside County, is functionally inade- quate to serve the added development expected in La Quinta, and will need to be expanded or re- placed in the future. For purposes of this analysis, we will assume the stations will be expanded. Based on running distance and projected response times, the City also plans for one additional fire station to serve the northern portion of the City. Thus, one additional fire station and an cx- pansion of the existing County-owned fire station, will be required to provide adequate coverage for the City at buildout. The existing County-owned station is 5,000 square feet in size. Accord- ing to Riverside County Fire Department standards, it should be 8,500 square feet. The costs used in calculating impact fees will include the cost of a 3,500 square foot expansion. As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in allocating civic center costs is devel- oped acreage, excluding acrea" devoted to schools, parks, and other public facilities. Table B-i tabulates developed acreage for future development, using data from Section 2. In this analysis, the cost of future fire protection facilities are being allocated to future development. Typically, we would prefer to allocate the cost of all existing and future facilities to all existing and future development to ensure that both existing and future development are being treated equitably. in May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page B-3 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#bd City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Study this case however, that method would result in 22% higher impact fees, and ultimately could bring in more revenue than is needed to construct the needed future facilities. Table B-2 Future Fire Station Costs Total S2,432,50D 6,789 $358?O Estimated cost includes land, site development, construction and design. Costs in current dollans. 2 Estimated Cost of addition 3,500 sq. ft. x S195.00 per sq.ft. for design, coflstnlctiofl and site development. Costs in current dollars. 3 See Table 2-2. E. IMPACT FEES In Table B-2, the estimated cost for future fire stations is divided by the total acreage available for future development. The resulting cost per developed acre is the basis for establishing impact fees for fire protection facilities. Table B-3 converts the cost per acre into a fee per unit of development. Table B-3 Standardized Impact Fees Fire Protection Facilities ResidentialSFD DU 030 $358.30 $107 Residential SFA DU 0 24 $358.30 Residential MFO DU 0 09 $358.30 OfficeIHospital KSF 0 18 $358.30 $64 General Commercial KSF 0 10 $358.30 $36 Tourist Commercial Room 0 13 $358.30 $47 Golf Courses Acre 0 05 $358.30 $18 DU dwelling unit. KSF 1000 square feet of gross building area. 2 See Table 2-2. Average acres per Unit total acres / total units for each land use type. See Table B-I. 4 Fee per Unit of Development Acres per Unit of Development x Cost per Acre. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by factor of 0.0053 to incoroorate the cost this study See Exec. Sumrnarv). May, 1999 DMG-MAXlMUS Page B-4 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#cd City ofLa Quinta Development Impact Fee Su&dy Table B-4 projects total revenue from the fire impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for fire protection improvements. The total revenue projected in Table B-4 is slightly 0.75%) less than the total cost of future fire sta- tions improvements, as estimated in Table B-2. Table B4 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development \ ResidentialSFD DU $107 13,845 $1,481,415 Residential SFA DU $86 5,559 $478,074 Residential MFO DU $32 3,149 $100,768 Office/Hospital KSF $64 159 $10,176 General Commercial KSF $36 6,822 $245,592 Tourist Commercial Room $47 1,429 $67,163 Public Facilities Acre $0 187 $0 Schools Acre $0 143 $0 Parks Acre $0 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre $18 1,726 $31,068 $2,414,256 SeeTableB-3. 2 See Table 2-2. 3 Impact fee revenue impact fee per unit of development x future unitS of development. F. SUMMARY OF ALL IMPACT FEES INCLUDING FIRE IMPACT FEE Table B-S, on the next page summariZeS the all recommended impact fees by development cate- gory an?d facility type, including the fire impact fee. CQmpare this table with Table S-I, in the Executive Summary, which does not in?ude impact f?es for fire protection facilities. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page B-5 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02 d_[#dd City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Table B-5 Summary of Calculated Impact Fees per Unit of Development Residential single family detached. 4 DU dwelling Unit 2 Residential single family attached 5 KSF 1000 square feet of gross building area. 3 Residential multi-family and other G. PROJECTED REVENUE Table B-6 shows projected total revenue from impact fees, from now through buildout, including the fire impact fees. Table B-6 shows the total projected revenue if all fees, including fire impact fees are adopted as recommended and if all development anticipated in this report actually oc- curs. Note that projected revenue is given in current do?ars. Table B-6 can be compared with Table S-2, in the Executive Summary, which does not include impact fees for fire protection. Table B-6 Projected Impact Fee Revenue Transportation $1 8,802,49S Parks $ 8,247,054 Civic Center Fire Stations $ 2,414,256 Libraries $ 4,850,994 Community Centers $ 2,184,389 Streetand Park Maintenance $ 759,252 Total $50,055,818 Projected Revenue in cunrent dollars. May, 1999 DMG-MAXJMUS Page B-6 BIB] 06-21-1999-U01 01:09:43PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCRES-U02 99-U02 80-U02