Development Impact Fee Study 2005-11-30 Colgan
!"#$!%"&#!’!$&!
()$**
$+ ,*
+*-.),+.),-
+*-.+(,.,/0 1
2 3 4 3 .
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Table of Contents
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Organization of the Report ES-1
Future Development ES-1
Impact Fee Summary ES-2
Projected Revenue ES-5
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Legal Framework 1-1
Future Development 1-1
Facilities Addressed in this Study 1-8
Chapter 2 - Development and Demand Data
Population Growth 2-1
Study Area and Time Frame 2-1
Development Types 2-2
Demand Variables 2-2
Development Data 2-3
Chapter 3 – Park Land Acquisition & Development Fees
Service Area 3-1
Demand Variable 3-1
Level of Service 3-1
Methodology 3-3
Per-Capita Costs 3-4
Fees per Unit of Development 3-4
Projected Revenue 3-6
Chapter 4 – Open Space Land Acquisition & Trails
Service Area 4-1
Demand Variable 4-1
Level of Service 4-1
Methodology 4-2
Per-Capita Cost 4-2
Fees per Unit of Development 4-3
Projected Revenue 4-4
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Table of Contents
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page ii
Chapter 5 – Community Facilities Impact Fees (Library)
Service Area 5-1
Demand Variable 5-1
Level of Service 5-1
Methodology 5-1
Per-Capita Cost 5-2
Fees per Unit of Development 5-2
Projected Revenue 5-3
Chapter 6 – Fire Protection Impact Fees
Service Area 6-1
Demand Variable 6-1
Methodology 6-1
Level of Service 6-2
Per Capita Equity 6-4
Fees per Unit of Development 6-5
Projected Revenue 6-5
Chapter 7 – In-Lieu Fees for Required Public Improvements
Purpose of the In-lieu Fees 7-1
Legal Status of the In-lieu Fees 7-2
Amount of the In-lieu Fees 7-2
Expenditure of In-lieu Fees 7-3
Potential Revenue 7-3
Chapter 8 – Implementation Recommendations
Adoption 8-1
Administration 8-1
Training and Public Information 8-7
Recovery of Study Cost 8-7
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Executive Summary
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Encinitas has retained Colgan Consulting Corporation to prepare this
study to analyze the impact of development on certain capital facilities and to cal-
culate impact fees based on that analysis. The methods used in this study are in-
tended to satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution, the California
Constitution, the California Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code §§ 66000 et seq.),
and, where applicable, the Quimby Act (Govt. Code § 66477).
As indicated in Govt. Code §66000b, the Mitigation Fee Act does not apply to fees
charged pursuant to development agreements adopted pursuant to Gov’t. Code Ar-
ticle 2.5, commencing with §65864, or to fees charged under the Quimby Act
(Govt. Code §66477)
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of impact fees. It discusses legal re-
quirements for establishing and imposing such fees, as well as methods used in this
study to calculate the fees. Chapter 2 contains information on existing and future
development in the study area that is used in the impact fee analysis.
Chapters 3 through 7 analyze the impacts of development on specific facility types,
and calculate impact fees for those facilities:
Ch. 3. Park Land and Improvements
Ch. 4. Open Space and Trails
Ch. 5. Community Facilities (Library)
Ch. 6. Fire Protection
Chapter 7 proposes a program of in-lieu fees as an alternative to the construction
of required public improvements associated with construction on individual par-
cels.
Chapter 8 discusses implementation of the impact fee program including legal re-
quirements and procedures for implementing the impact fee program under Cali-
fornia law.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Forecasts of future development used in this study are based on population and
employment data from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
The population forecast indicates a 13% increase in population between 2005 and
2030--from 62,774 to just over 71,000. The employment forecast is for an 18%
increase during that period, from 25,150 to 29,700.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Executive Summary
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page ES-2
IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
Each type of facility addressed in this report is analyzed individually. In each case,
the relationship between development and the need for facilities is quantified in a
way that allows the impact of development on facility needs to be measured. Im-
pact fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of facilities needed to miti-
gate those impacts.
Impact fees calculated in this study are summarized in Table ES.1 later in this Ex-
ecutive Summary. Impact fees are based on capital costs only. The following
paragraphs briefly discuss factors considered in the analysis of each facility type.
Park Land and Improvements. The City’s existing park land acquisition and
park improvement fees are based on ratios of park acreage to population. Fees in
lieu of park land acquisition for residential subdivisions are governed by the
Quimby Act, which allows those fees to be based on a ratio of 3.0 acres of park
land per thousand residents. Park land acquisition fees for non-subdivision resi-
dential projects are based on the City’s existing ratio of 2.45 acres of park land per
thousand residents. And fees for park development are based on the City’s exist-
ing ratio of 1.79 acres of developed park land per thousand residents. Per-capita
costs are calculated using those ratios and the estimated cost per acre for park land
or improvements, and the per-capita fees are converted into fees per unit of devel-
opment by development type based on population-per-dwelling unit factors. Be-
cause park land acquisition and development fees are based on population, they
apply only to residential development. Those fees are summarized in Table ES.1.
Open Space Land Acquisition and Trail Development. Impact fees for open
space land acquisition and trail improvement calculated in this report are based on
existing ratios of open space acres to population and miles of trails to population.
Per-capita costs are calculated using those ratios and estimated costs per acre for
open space land acquisition and per mile for trail development. Per capita fees are
converted into fees per unit of development by development type based on popula-
tion-per-dwelling unit factors. Because open space land acquisition and trail de-
velopment impact fees are based on population, they apply only to residential de-
velopment. Those fees are summarized in Table ES.1.
Community Facilities (Library). The community facilities impact fees calcu-
lated in this report are intended to recover new development’s proportionate share
of the total cost of the City’s planned new library project. The total cost of the li-
brary is allocated to both existing and future development, based on population.
Per-capita cost is calculated as the total project cost divided by the forecasted 2030
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Executive Summary
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page ES-3
buildout population of the City. Per capita fees are converted into fees per unit of
development by development type based on population-per-dwelling unit factors.
The percentage of total project cost to be recovered through impact fees equals the
percentage of total 2030 population to be added by new development between
2005 and 2030. Because the library impact fees are based on population, they ap-
ply only to residential development. Those fees are summarized in Table ES.1.
Fire Protection Facilities and Equipment. The fire protection impact fees cal-
culated in this report are intended to recover new development’s proportionate
share of the total current dollar cost of the City’s fire protection assets. The impact
fee analysis anticipates that four of the cities five fire stations will be replaced
within ten years. The total asset cost used in the impact fee calculation includes
the depreciated replacement cost of Fire Station No. 5 plus the estimated 2005 re-
placement cost of the other four fire stations. Depreciated costs for firefighting
apparatus and vehicles are also included in the analysis. The total cost of those fire
protection assets is allocated to both existing and future development, based on
“functional population,” which consists of both residents and employees. Employ-
ees are included to represent non-residential development, which contributes to the
demand for fire protection services. Per-capita cost is calculated as the total asset
cost divided by the forecasted 2030 functional population of the City. Per capita
fees are converted into fees per unit of development based on the number of resi-
dents or employees per unit of development by development type. The percentage
of total project cost to be recovered through impact fees equals the percentage of
total 2030 functional population to be added by new development between 2005
and 2030. Fire protection impact fees apply to all new development in the City.
Those fees are summarized in Table ES.1.
In-lieu Fee for Required Public Improvements. The fees proposed in Chapter 7
are not impact fees. Rather, they are in-lieu fees that could be paid by property
owners as an alternative to construction of required public improvements, includ-
ing utility undergrounding, when actual construction of those improvements is im-
practical. Those in-lieu fees are intended to provide the City with more flexibility
in the enforcement of engineering design standards in connection with develop-
ment on individual parcels where it may not be feasible to complete such im-
provements for a single property. The recommended fees are shown as a cost per
lineal foot (See Table 7.1). The fees to be paid by an individual property owner
would depend on the length of the property frontage.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Executive Summary
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page ES-4
IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
Table ES.1 summarizes impact fees calculated in this report, as impact fees per
unit of development by development type.
Table ES.1
Summary of Impact Fees Calculated in This Report
Development Gen Plan Dev Park Land Park Open Sp/Trail Comm Fire Total
Type Code Units 1 Subdiv 2 Developm't Land Developm't Facilities Protection Fees
Residential (0.125-0.25 DU/Ac)R DU 6,720.00$ 2,499.41$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 582.53$ 10,905.84$
Residential (0.25-0.5 DU/Ac)RR DU 6,720.00$ 2,499.41$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 582.53$ 10,905.84$
Residential (0.5-1.0 DU/Ac)RR1 DU 6,720.00$ 2,499.41$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 582.53$ 10,905.84$
Residential (1.0-2.0 DU/Ac)RR2 DU 6,720.00$ 2,499.41$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 582.53$ 10,905.84$
Residential (2.0-3.0 DU/Ac)R3 DU 6,720.00$ 2,499.41$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 582.53$ 10,905.84$
Residential (3.0-5.0 DU/Ac)R5 DU 6,720.00$ 2,499.41$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 582.53$ 10,905.84$
Residential (5.0-8.0 DU/Ac)R8 DU 6,720.00$ 2,499.41$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 582.53$ 10,905.84$
Residential (8.0-11.0 DU/Ac)R11 DU 5,280.00$ 1,963.82$ 332.70$ 85.51$ 449.14$ 457.70$ 8,568.87$
Residential (11.0-15.0 DU/Ac)R15 DU 5,040.00$ 1,874.56$ 317.57$ 81.63$ 428.72$ 436.90$ 8,179.38$
Residential (15.0-25.0 DU/Ac)R25 DU 5,040.00$ 1,874.56$ 317.57$ 81.63$ 428.72$ 436.90$ 8,179.38$
Mobile Home Park MHP DU 4,560.00$ 1,696.03$ 287.33$ 73.85$ 387.89$ 395.29$ 7,400.39$
Office-Professional OP KSF 728.16$ 728.16$
Commercial Local LC KSF 416.09$ 416.09$
Commercial-Visitor Serving VSC KSF 416.09$ 416.09$
Commercial-General GC KSF 416.09$ 416.09$
Industrial-Light LI KSF 520.12$ 520.12$
1 Units of development. DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area.
2 Fees shown in this table are for residential projects involving a subdivision. Fees for non-subdivision projects = 81.7% of the fees shown.
Table ES.2, below shows the City’s existing impact fees of the types addressed in
this report.
Table ES.2
Summary of Existing Fees
Development Gen Plan Dev Park Land Park Open Sp/Trail Comm Fire Total
Type Code Units 1 Subdiv 2 Developm't Land Developm't Facilities Protection Fees
Residential (0.125-0.25 DU/Ac)R DU 2,655.00$ 672.60$ -$ -$ -$ 322.00$ 3,649.60$
Residential (0.25-0.5 DU/Ac)RR DU 2,655.00$ 672.60$ -$ -$ -$ 322.00$ 3,649.60$
Residential (0.5-1.0 DU/Ac)RR1 DU 2,655.00$ 672.60$ -$ -$ -$ 322.00$ 3,649.60$
Residential (1.0-2.0 DU/Ac)RR2 DU 2,655.00$ 672.60$ -$ -$ -$ 322.00$ 3,649.60$
Residential (2.0-3.0 DU/Ac)R3 DU 2,655.00$ 672.60$ -$ -$ -$ 322.00$ 3,649.60$
Residential (3.0-5.0 DU/Ac)R5 DU 2,655.00$ 672.60$ -$ -$ -$ 322.00$ 3,649.60$
Residential (5.0-8.0 DU/Ac)R8 DU 2,475.00$ 627.00$ -$ -$ -$ 230.00$ 3,332.00$
Residential (8.0-11.0 DU/Ac)R11 DU 2,160.00$ 547.20$ -$ -$ -$ 230.00$ 2,937.20$
Residential (11.0-15.0 DU/Ac)R15 DU 1,980.00$ 501.60$ -$ -$ -$ 230.00$ 2,711.60$
Residential (15.0-25.0 DU/Ac)R25 DU 1,980.00$ 501.60$ -$ -$ -$ 230.00$ 2,711.60$
Mobile Home Park MHP DU 1,440.00$ 364.80$ -$ -$ -$ 230.00$ 2,034.80$
Office-Professional OP KSF 380.00$ 380.00$
Commercial Local LC KSF 230.00$ 230.00$
Commercial-Visitor Serving VSC KSF 230.00$ 230.00$
Commercial-General GC KSF 230.00$ 230.00$
Industrial-Light LI KSF 161.00$ 161.00$
1 Units of development. DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area.
2 Fees shown in this table are for residential projects involving a subdivision.
Table ES.3 on the next page shows the difference between the existing impact fees
(Table ES.2) and the fees calculated in this report (Table ES.1)
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Executive Summary
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page ES-5
Table ES.3
Difference Between Existing Fees and Fees Calculated in This Report
Development Gen Plan Dev Park Land Park Open Sp/Trail Comm Fire Total
Type Code Units 1 Subdiv Developm't Land Developm't Facilities Protection Fees
Residential (0.125-0.25 DU/Ac)R DU 4,065.00$ 1,826.81$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 260.53$ 7,256.24$
Residential (0.25-0.5 DU/Ac)RR DU 4,065.00$ 1,826.81$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 260.53$ 7,256.24$
Residential (0.5-1.0 DU/Ac)RR1 DU 4,065.00$ 1,826.81$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 260.53$ 7,256.24$
Residential (1.0-2.0 DU/Ac)RR2 DU 4,065.00$ 1,826.81$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 260.53$ 7,256.24$
Residential (2.0-3.0 DU/Ac)R3 DU 4,065.00$ 1,826.81$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 260.53$ 7,256.24$
Residential (3.0-5.0 DU/Ac)R5 DU 4,065.00$ 1,826.81$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 260.53$ 7,256.24$
Residential (5.0-8.0 DU/Ac)R8 DU 4,245.00$ 1,872.41$ 423.43$ 108.83$ 571.63$ 352.53$ 7,573.84$
Residential (8.0-11.0 DU/Ac)R11 DU 3,120.00$ 1,416.62$ 332.70$ 85.51$ 449.14$ 227.70$ 5,631.67$
Residential (11.0-15.0 DU/Ac)R15 DU 3,060.00$ 1,372.96$ 317.57$ 81.63$ 428.72$ 206.90$ 5,467.78$
Residential (15.0-25.0 DU/Ac)R25 DU 3,060.00$ 1,372.96$ 317.57$ 81.63$ 428.72$ 206.90$ 5,467.78$
Mobile Home Park MHP DU 3,120.00$ 1,331.23$ 287.33$ 73.85$ 387.89$ 165.29$ 5,365.59$
Office-Professional OP KSF 348.16$ 348.16$
Commercial Local LC KSF 186.09$ 186.09$
Commercial-Visitor Serving VSC KSF 186.09$ 186.09$
Commercial-General GC KSF 186.09$ 186.09$
Industrial-Light LI KSF 359.12$ 359.12$
1 Units of development. DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area.
If the City Council adopts the fees as calculated in this report, and chooses to ad-
just the fees to recover the cost of this study, the required adjustment can be calcu-
lated as indicated in the next paragraph.
PROJECTED REVENUE
Table ES.4 shows the projected revenue from impact fees calculated in this report
over the period 2006 to 2030, assuming those fees are adopted as calculated and
that development occurs as forecasted in Chapter 2.
Table ES.4
Projected Revenue by Type of Impact Fee
Impact Fee Projected
Type Revenue
Park Land Acquisition 1 18,354,341$
Park Development 7,365,227$
Open Space Land Acquisition 1,247,758$
Trail Development 320,713$
Community Facilities (Library)1,684,470$
Fire Protection Facilities/Equipment 2,670,490$
Total 31,642,999$
1 Projected revenue assumes that 60% of the population
increase from 2006-2030 occurs in projects that involve
subdivisions and that all development projects pay the
in-lieu fees rather than dedicating land.
City of Encinitas – Impact Fee Study Introduction
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The City of Encinitas has retained Colgan Consulting Corporation to prepare this
study to analyze the impacts of development on the need for certain types of capi-
tal facilities and to calculate development impact fees based on that analysis. The
methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal
requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution,
the California Constitution, the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code
Sections 66000 et seq.), and the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477).
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, includ-
ing impact fees, are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of pri-
vate property for public use without just compensation (the California Constitution
has a similar provision). Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposi-
tion of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation,
provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.”
A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of
property rights protected by the Constitution.
To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must advance a
legitimate governmental interest, and must not deprive the owner of all economi-
cally viable use of the property. In the case of impact fees, the government’s in-
terest is in protecting public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that develop-
ment is not detrimental to the quality and availability of essential public services
provided to the community at large. Legislatively adopted impact fees are not
subject to the same level of judicial scrutiny as exactions involving an interest in
land or an ad hoc fee imposed as a condition of approval on a single development
project. In those cases, heightened scrutiny applies, and a higher standard must
be met. The U. S. Supreme Court has found that a government agency must dem-
onstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being pro-
tected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). The agency must
also demonstrate that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden
created by development. (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994).
A local legislative body is accorded considerable discretion by the courts when
enacting impact fees that apply to all development projects in its jurisdiction.
However, even where heightened scrutiny does not apply, an agency enacting
City of Encinitas – Impact Fee Study Introduction
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-2
impact fees should take care to demonstrate a nexus and ensure proportionality in
the calculation of its fees.
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to
local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development.
That police power is the source of authority for imposing impact fees on develop-
ment to pay for infrastructure and capital facilities. Some impact fees have been
challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval
in violation of Article XIIIA. However, that objection is valid only if the fees ex-
ceed the cost of providing capital facilities needed to serve new development. If
that were the case, then the fees would also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution and
the Mitigation Fee Act. Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added by Proposition 218 in
1996, require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the
imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development.”
The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly
Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January,
1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with
Section 66000. Since that time the impact fee statute has been amended from
time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless
otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government
Code.
The Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees
may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public im-
provements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not
specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, other provisions of the Govern-
ment Code (see Section 65913.8) prohibit the use of impact fees for maintenance
or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on
capital costs only.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official
title. Nor does it use the more common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses
the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or spe-
cial assessment,…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection
with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a por-
tion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….” To
avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely-accepted term
“impact fee,” which should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitiga-
tion Fee Act.
City of Encinitas – Impact Fee Study Introduction
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-3
The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and im-
posing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that
govern the collection and expenditure of fees and require annual reports and peri-
odic re-evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are
discussed in the Implementation Chapter of this report.
Required Findings. Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing
or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee; and,
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the
fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the devel-
opment project. (Applies only when fees are imposed on a specific
project.)
Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below.
Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect
the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public fa-
cilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund the con-
struction of certain capital improvements identified in this report. Those im-
provements will be needed to mitigate the impacts of anticipated development on
City facilities, and thereby prevent the degradation of public services as the City
grows. Findings with respect to the purpose of a fee should state the purpose as
providing funding for public facilities needed to serve additional development.
Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to
finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement
plan may be used for that purpose, but is not mandatory if the facilities are identi-
fied in a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. In this case,
we recommend that this report be used as the document that identifies the facilities
to be funded by the fees.
City of Encinitas – Impact Fee Study Introduction
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-4
Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 re-
quires 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 develop-
ment on which the fee is imposed.
These three reasonable relationship requirements as defined in the statute mirror
the nexus and proportionality requirements widely considered the standard for de-
fensible impact fees. The term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize
the standard used by courts in evaluating the legitimacy of impact fees. The “du-
ality” of the nexus refers to (1) an impact or need created by a development pro-
ject subject to impact fees, and (2) a benefit to the project from the expenditure of
the fees. Although proportionality is reasonably implied in the dual rational nexus
formulation it was explicitly required by the Supreme Court in the Dolan case, and
we prefer to list it as the third element of a complete nexus.
Demonstrating an Impact. All new development in a community creates addi-
tional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If
the supply of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality
or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact
fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to
the extent that the need for facilities is occasioned by the development project sub-
ject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development ex-
actions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects
upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility
needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of
development and the demand for public facilities, based on applicable level-of-
service standards. This report contains all of the information needed to demon-
strate this element of the nexus.
Demonstrating a Benefit. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee
revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for
which the fees were charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the
facilities funded by the fees must be available to serve the development projects
paying the fees. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that
facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to develop-
City of Encinitas – Impact Fee Study Introduction
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-5
ments paying the fees. Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues
are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees
are expended expeditiously or refunded. All of those requirements are intended to
ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay.
Thus, an adequate showing of benefit must address procedural as well as substan-
tive issues.
Demonstrating Proportionality. Proportionality in impact fees depends on prop-
erly identifying development-related facility costs and the calculating the fees in
such a way that the impact of development is reflected in the fees. In calculating
impact fees, costs for development-related facilities must be allocated in propor-
tion to the facility needs created by different types and quantities of development.
The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to allocate
facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard.
The Quimby Act. Requirements for dedication of park land or fees in lieu of such
dedication by residential subdivisions are governed by Government Code Section
66477, know as the Quimby Act. A discussion of the Quimby Act and its re-
quirements is included in Chapter 3.
Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. It is important to note that impact fees may
be used to pay for existing facilities, provided that those facilities are needed to
serve additional development and have the capacity to do so, given relevant level-
of-service standards. In other words, it must be possible to show that the fees
meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus.
Fees Collected under Development Agreements or Reimbursement Agreements.
The requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under
development agreements (see Govt. Code § 66000) or reimbursement agreements
(see Govt. Code § 66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication
imposed under the Quimby Act (see Govt. Code § 66477).
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The
choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and
planning requirements for the facility type being addressed. Each method has ad-
vantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some extent they are
interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs
created by development.
City of Encinitas – Impact Fee Study Introduction
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-6
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves only
two steps: determining the cost of development-related capital improvements, and
allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice,
though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of
the many factors involved in defining the relationship between development and
the need for facilities.
Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to
all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas
that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a
cost allocation formula, the impact of development is measured by a “demand
variable,” which is an attribute of development that represents the service demand
created by different types and amounts of development. Different variables are
used in analyzing different types of facilities. Specific demand variables used in
this study are discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters.
The following paragraphs discuss two general approaches to calculating impact
fees and how they can be applied.
Closed-Ended or Plan-Based Approach. Closed-ended impact fee calculations
are based on the relationship between a specified set of improvements and a speci-
fied increment of development. The improvements are typically identified by a
facility plan, while the development is identified by a land use plan that identifies
potential development by type and quantity. Facility costs are allocated to various
categories of development in proportion to the amount of development and the
relative intensity of demand created by each category. To calculate impact fees
using this approach, it is necessary to define an end point or “buildout” condition
for development, and to determine what facilities will be needed to serve the addi-
tional development that occurs from the time of the analysis to buildout. Buildout
is a hypothetical condition in which all undeveloped land within the study area has
been developed to its expected intensity.
Under this approach, the total cost of eligible facilities is divided by the total units
of additional demand (based on the demand variable) to calculate a cost per unit of
demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the units of demand
per unit of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building area) in
each category to arrive at a cost per unit of development. This method is inflexi-
ble in that it is based on the relationship between a particular facility plan and a
particular land use plan. If either plan changes significantly, the fees may have to
be recalculated.
City of Encinitas – Impact Fee Study Introduction
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-7
Open-Ended Approach. This approach can be used where the relationship be-
tween facility needs and development can be defined without reference to a par-
ticular land use plan or defined buildout condition. This general approach covers
two methods of impact fee calculation. Capacity-based fees are based on the unit
cost of system capacity needed by development. Standard-based fees are based on
a level of service standard, where the unit cost of maintaining that standard can be
determined. Those two methods are discussed in more detail below.
Capacity-based Method. This method calculates a cost per unit of capacity based
on the relationship between total cost and total capacity of a system. It can be ap-
plied to any type of development, provided the capacity demand for each incre-
ment of development can be estimated and the facility has adequate capacity
available to serve the development. Since the fee calculation does not depend on
the type or quantity of development to be served, this method is flexible with re-
spect to changing development plans. Under this method, the cost of unused ca-
pacity is not allocated to development, so unused capacity would not be covered
by impact fees if it is not absorbed by development. Capacity-based fees are most
commonly used for water and wastewater systems, where the cost of a system
component is divided by the capacity of that component to derive a unit cost. To
produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development
(e.g. dwelling units or square feet of non-residential building area), the cost per
unit of capacity is multiplied by the amount of capacity required to serve a typical
unit of development in each of several land use categories.
Standard-based Method. Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified rela-
tionship or standard that determines the number of demand units to be provided
for each unit of development. The standard can be established as a matter of pol-
icy or it can be based on the level of service being provided to existing develop-
ment in the study area.
Using the standard-based method, costs are defined on a generic unit-cost basis
and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the amount of
service or capacity to be provided for each unit of development. The standard-
based method is useful where facility needs are defined directly by a service stan-
dard, 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. In addition, the cost per acre for, say, neighborhood parks can usually
be estimated without knowing the size of a particular park or the total acreage of
parks in the system.
City of Encinitas – Impact Fee Study Introduction
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-8
This approach is also useful for facilities such as libraries, where it is possible to
estimate a generic cost per square foot before a building is actually designed. One
advantage of the standard-based method is that a fee can be established without
committing to a particular size of facility, and facility size can be adjusted based
on the amount of development that actually occurs.
FACILITIES ADDRESSED IN THIS STUDY
!!"
The impact fee analysis for each facility type is presented in a separate chapter of
this report, beginning with Chapter 3. Chapter 2 discusses development and ser-
vice demand in the study area.
This report also includes a discussion of the use of in-lieu fees for frontage im-
provements and utility undergrounding related to construction on existing parcels
in the City.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-1
CHAPTER 2
DEVELOPMENT AND DEMAND DATA
It may be necessary to consider existing and/or future development as part of the
analysis required to support the establishment of impact fees. This chapter of the
report organizes and correlates information on existing and planned development
to provide a framework for the impact fee analysis contained in subsequent chap-
ters of the report. The information in this chapter forms a basis for establishing
levels of service, analyzing facility needs, and allocating the cost of capital facili-
ties between existing and future development and among various types of new de-
velopment.
POPULATION GROWTH
Table 2.1 shows the official January 1 population estimates by the California State
Department of Finance for Encinitas for each year from 1995 to 2005. Growth in
the City over the last five years has aver-
aged 1.6% per year. Like many California
cities, Encinitas had its population esti-
mates revised downward following the
2000 Census. The January 1999 popula-
tion estimate used in the previous impact
fee study was 61,017. The Department of
Finance now shows the January 1999 popu-
lation as 56,500. The buildout population
of the City was shown in the 1999-2000
impact fee study at approximately 73,400,
or 16% above the current level. The most
recent forecast by SANDAG for the City’s
2030 population is 71,025.
STUDY AREA AND TIME FRAME
The study area for the impact fee analysis is the existing City and its Sphere of In-
fluence (SOI), as shown in the Encinitas General Plan.
The timeframe for this study extends from the present to buildout of all land desig-
nated for development in the General Plan. The term “buildout” is used to de-
scribe a hypothetical condition in which all currently undeveloped land in the study
area has been developed as indicated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Table 2.1
Encinitas Population - 1995-2005
Estimated Population %
Year Population Change Change
1995 54,700
1996 54,500 (200) -0.37%
1997 54,700 200 0.37%
1998 55,400 700 1.28%
1999 56,500 1,100 1.99%
2000 57,955 1,455 2.58%
2001 59,075 1,120 1.93%
2002 59,919 844 1.43%
2003 61,308 1,389 2.32%
2004 62,401 1,093 1.78%
2005 62,774 373 0.60%
Source: California Dept. of Finance
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-2
The time required for buildout depends on the rate at which development occurs,
but the timing of development is not essential to the impact fee analysis, so this
study makes no assumptions about the rate of development or the date at which
buildout will occur.
DEVELOPMENT TYPES
The development types used in this study are based on land use categories defined
in the Encinitas General Plan and are shown in Table 2.3, later in this chapter.
DEMAND VARIABLES
In calculating impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development
must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attributes of
development (e.g., population) are used in those formulas to reflect the impact of
different types and amounts of development on the demand for specific public ser-
vices and the facilities that support those services. Those attributes are referred to
in this study as “demand variables.” Demand variables are selected either because
they directly measure service demand created by various types of development, or
because they are reasonably correlated with that demand.
For example, the service standard for parks in a community is typically defined as
a ratio of park acreage to population. As population grows, more parks are needed
to maintain the desired standard. Logically, then, population is an appropriate
yardstick or demand variable for measuring the impacts of development on the
need for additional parks. Similarly, the need for capacity in a street system de-
pends on the volume of traffic the system must handle. Thus the vehicle trip gen-
eration rate (the number of vehicle trips generated by one unit of development per
day, or during the peak hour) is an appropriate demand variable to represent the
impact of development on the street system.
Each demand variable has a specific value per unit of development for each land
use category. Those values may be referred to as demand factors. For the demand
variable “population,” the impact factor for a single family dwelling unit would be
a number representing the average population per single family dwelling unit in
the City. Some of the impact factors are based on widely-accepted standards (e.g.,
the trip generation rates), while others are based on local conditions (e.g., popula-
tion per dwelling unit).
Specific demand variables used in this study are discussed below. The demand
factors for each land use category are shown in Table 2.3 later in this chapter.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-3
Resident Population. Resident population is used as a demand variable to calcu-
late impact fees for certain types of facilities in this study. Because resident popu-
lation is tied to residential development only, the value of this variable is zero for
all non-residential development types. Where the term “population” is used alone
in this report, it refers to resident population. Persons-per-dwelling unit factors
used in this study are based on an analysis of data from the 2000 Census.
Functional Population. Although resident population is appropriate for measur-
ing the need for facilities that primarily serve residents, other types of public facili-
ties serve the broader community. For those facilities, a more expansive concep-
tion of population called “functional population” can be useful. As defined in this
study, functional population includes residents to represent residential develop-
ment and employees of businesses in the City to represent non-residential devel-
opment. It is important to emphasize that in the formulation of a functional popu-
lation employees are used as a proxy for all demand created by businesses, not
only the demand created by the employees themselves. The components of service
population may be weighted to reflect the intensity of demand they create for a
particular type of facility. Where applicable, weights applied to functional popula-
tions are discussed in subsequent chapters dealing with specific facility types.
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Table 2.2 shows current and forecasted population and employment for Encinitas,
based on data from the California Department of Finance and SANDAG.
Table 2.2
Encinitas Population and Employment - 2000-2030
Resident %%Functional
Year Population 1 Change Employees 2 Change Population 3
2000 57,955 24,240 82,195
2005 62,774 8.3%25,151 3.8%87,925
2010 64,904 3.4%26,061 3.6%90,965
2015 66,638 2.7%27,199 4.4%93,837
2020 68,372 2.6%28,337 4.2%96,709
2025 69,699 1.9%29,037 2.5%98,735
2030 71,025 1.9%29,736 2.4%100,761
1 2000 and 2005 estimates from California Dept of Finance; 2010, 2020
and 2030 forecasts from SANDAG; 2015 and 2025 figures interpolated
from SANDAG data.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-4
Table 2.3 shows estimated population and employment factors per unit of devel-
opment by category for the land use categories used in this study.
Table 2.3
Population/Employment per Unit of Development
Land Use Gen Plan Dev Pop/Empl
Category Code Units 1 per Unit 2
Residential (0.125-0.25 DU/Ac)R DU 2.80
Residential (0.25-0.5 DU/Ac)RR DU 2.80
Residential (0.5-1.0 DU/Ac)RR1 DU 2.80
Residential (1.0-2.0 DU/Ac)RR2 DU 2.80
Residential (2.0-3.0 DU/Ac)R3 DU 2.80
Residential (3.0-5.0 DU/Ac)R5 DU 2.80
Residential (5.0-8.0 DU/Ac)R8 DU 2.80
Residential (8.0-11.0 DU/Ac)R11 DU 2.20
Residential (11.0-15.0 DU/Ac)R15 DU 2.10
Residential (15.0-25.0 DU/Ac)R25 DU 2.10
Mobile Home Park MHP DU 1.90
Office-Professional OP KSF 3.50
Commercial Local LC KSF 2.00
Commercial-Visitor Serving VSC KSF 2.00
Commercial-General GC KSF 2.00
Industrial-Light LI KSF 2.50
Public/Semi-Public P/SP Acres 3.00
1 Units of development. DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square
feet of building area
2 Population per unit of development for residential categories based
on 2000 Census data; employees per unit of development for non-
residential categories based on data from SCAG and SANDAG
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Park Land Acquisition and Development Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-1
CHAPTER 3
PARK LAND ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT FEES
This chapter addresses two types of fees: (1) park land acquisition fees, and (2)
park development fees. The park land acquisition fees are charged in-lieu of park
land dedication. In the case of residential subdivisions, those fees are imposed un-
der the authority of the Quimby Act (Govt. Code §66477). For projects that do not
involve a subdivision of land, the park acquisition fees, are governed by the Miti-
gation Fee Act like any other impact fee. Impact fees for park improvements, are
also governed by the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code §§66000 et seq.) As detailed
below, fees charged pursuant to the Quimby Act are subject to different require-
ments and limitations than the impact fees.
SERVICE AREA
Fees addressed in this chapter are calculated for a single citywide service area and
are intended to apply to all residential development in the City. Revenue from
both park acquisition fees and park development fees must be spent in ways that
serve the development projects paying the fees.
DEMAND VARIABLE
Level-of-service standards for parks are almost universally based on population
and the Quimby Act specifies that fees in lieu of park land dedication be based on
the relationship between park acreage and population. Consequently, population is
used as the demand variable in calculating park acquisition and park development
fees in this report.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Table 3.1 on the next page lists the City’s existing parks, and shows both total site
acreage and improved acres of park land. Although some of those parks have dif-
ferent type designations in the City’s inventory, they can all be considered either
neighborhood or community parks for purposes of this analysis. As indicated in
the footnotes to Table 3.1, some of the beach or beach access properties listed in
the table are owned by the State Parks Department and are leased to the City which
maintains and operates them The City has constructed improvements to those
properties.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Park Land Acquisition and Development Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-2
Table 3.1
Existing Parks and Park Sites
Facility City-Owned City-Improved
Name Type Acreage 1 Acreage 1
"E" Street Viewpoint 0.05 0.05
"H" Street Viewpoint 0.10 0.10
"I" Street Viewpoint 0.18 0.18
"J" Street Viewpoint 0.58 0.58
Rosetta Viewpoint 0.05 0.05
N. El Portal Viewpoint 0.05 0.05
San Elijo Bluffs Viewpoint 0.41 -
Subtotal Viewpoints 1.42 1.01
Leucadia Roadside Mini-park 0.30 0.30
Mildred MacPherson Mini-park 0.94 0.94
W iro Mini-park 1.03 1.03
Subtotal Mini-parks 2.27 2.27
Hawk View Park Neighborhood 4.16 4.16
Encinitas Viewpoint Neighborhood 2.43 2.43
Glen Park Neighborhood 3.50 3.50
Leucadia Oaks Park Neighborhood 2.50 2.50
Scott Valley Park Neighborhood 2.00 2.00
Orpheus Park Neighborhood 2.69 2.69
Sun Vista Park Neighborhood 4.17 4.17
Standard Pacfic Park Neighborhood 3.14 -
Cottonwood Creek Park Neighborhood 8.17 8.17
Lot 12/19 Neighborhood 2.50 2.50
Subtotal Neighorhood Parks 32.76 29.62
Cardiff Sports Park Community 11.40 11.40
Ecke Sports Park Community 9.29 9.29
Leo Mullen Sports Park Community 5.84 5.84
Hall Property Community 44.00 -
Oakcrest Park East Community 12.42 12.42
Indian Head Canyon Community 10.00 -
Subtotal Community Parks 92.95 38.95
Little Oaks Equestrian Special Use 1.57 1.57
Community & Senior Center
at Oakcrest Park Special Use 8.78 8.78
Special Use Parks 10.35 10.35
Beacon's Beach/Access 2 Beach/Access - 2.03
"D" St. Beach/Access Beach/Access 0.38 0.38
Encinitas Beach Beach/Access 2.36 2.36
Grandview Beach/Access 2 Beach/Access - 1.00
Moonlight Beach/Access 2 Beach/Access - 12.70
Stonesteps Beach/Access Beach/Access 9.85 9.85
Swami's Beach Access Beach/Access 1.55 1.55
Subtotal Beaches/Accesses 14.14 29.87
Total 153.89 112.07
1 Acreage from the July 2005 Parks and Recreation Department Park
and Beach Inventory
2 Land owned by State Parks and leased to the City; maintained and
operated by the City
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Park Land Acquisition and Development Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-3
Level-of-Service Standard for Park Land Acquisition Fees. The Quimby Act
provides that park land dedication requirements for residential subdivisions may be
based on a ratio of at least 3.0 acres per thousand residents, and may increase to a
maximum of 5.0 acres per thousand if the actual ratio (as of the last Census) ex-
ceeds 3.0 acres per thousand. As shown in Table 3.2, the existing ratio of City-
owned park land to population is below 3.0 acres per thousand residents, so the 3-
acre minimum standard will be used to calculate park land acquisition fees for resi-
dential subdivisions. Park land acquisition fees for non-subdivision projects are
treated here as impact fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, and are based on the
existing ratio of City-owned park land to population as shown in Table 3.2.
Level-of-Service Standard for Park Development Fees. The level of service
standard used in this study for park development fees is the existing ratio of City-
improved park acres to population, as shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2
Existing Ratios of Park Acreage to Population
Existing Existing Acres per Acres
Category Acreage 1 Population 2 Capita 3 per 1,000 4
City-Owned Park Land 153.89 62,774 0.00245 2.45
City-Improved Park Land 112.07 62,774 0.00179 1.79
1 See Table 3.1
2 See Table 2.1
3 Acres per capita = existing acreage / existing population
4 Acres per 1,000 population = acres per capita X 1,000
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in
Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or
standard that determines the number of units of service to be provided for each
unit of development. In this case, both park land acquisition and park develop-
ment fees are based on the existing relationship between park acreage and popula-
tion, as discussed in the previous section on level-of-service standards. Because
population is used as the demand variable in the fee calculations and population is
related to residential development, the fees calculated in this chapter apply only to
residential development.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Park Land Acquisition and Development Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-4
PER-CAPITA COST
Table 3.3 shows the per-capita cost for park land acquisition and park development
based on per-acre costs estimated by the City Parks and Recreation Department.
The per-capita land acquisition cost will serve as the basis for park land acquisition
fees. The per-capita cost for park improvements will serve as the basis for park
development impact fees. Estimated per-acre park improvement costs are intended
to represent the average cost of constructing park improvements similar to those
provided in the City’s existing parks.
Table 3.3
Per Capita Cost - Park Land Acquisition and Development
Acres per Acres per Cost per Cost per
Component 1,000 1 Capita 2 Acre 3 Capita 4
Park Land Acquisition - Subdivisions 3.00 0.00300 800,000$ 2,400.00$
Park Land Acquisition - Non-Subdivisions 2.45 0.00245 800,000$ 1,961.19$
Park Development 1.79 0.00179 500,000$ 892.65$
1 Acres per 1,000 population. See discussion in text.
2 Acres per capita = acres per 1,000 / 1,000
3 Cost per acre for land acquisition estimated by the Encinitas Parks and Recreation Dept.
4 Cost per capita = acres per capita X cost per acre
In the next section, the per-capita costs from Table 3.3 are used to calculate park-
land acquisition and development fees per unit of development by development
type.
FEES PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT
Park Land Acquisition Fees per Unit of Development (Subdivisions). Table
3.4 on the next page shows the calculation of park acquisition fees per unit of de-
velopment by development type for residential subdivisions. Those fees are calcu-
lated using the per-capita costs from Table 3.3 and the population per dwelling unit
data from Table 2.3.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Park Land Acquisition and Development Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-5
Table 3.4
Fees per Unit of Development - Park Land Acquisition Fee (Subdivisions)
Development Gen Plan Dev Pop per Cost per Fee per
Type Code Units 1 Unit 2 Capita 3 Unit 4
Residential (0.125-0.25 DU/Ac)R DU 2.80 2,400.00$ 6,720.00$
Residential (0.25-0.5 DU/Ac)RR DU 2.80 2,400.00$ 6,720.00$
Residential (0.5-1.0 DU/Ac)RR1 DU 2.80 2,400.00$ 6,720.00$
Residential (1.0-2.0 DU/Ac)RR2 DU 2.80 2,400.00$ 6,720.00$
Residential (2.0-3.0 DU/Ac)R3 DU 2.80 2,400.00$ 6,720.00$
Residential (3.0-5.0 DU/Ac)R5 DU 2.80 2,400.00$ 6,720.00$
Residential (5.0-8.0 DU/Ac)R8 DU 2.80 2,400.00$ 6,720.00$
Residential (8.0-11.0 DU/Ac)R11 DU 2.20 2,400.00$ 5,280.00$
Residential (11.0-15.0 DU/Ac)R15 DU 2.10 2,400.00$ 5,040.00$
Residential (15.0-25.0 DU/Ac)R25 DU 2.10 2,400.00$ 5,040.00$
Mobile Home Park MHP DU 1.90 2,400.00$ 4,560.00$
1 Units of development. DU = dwelling unit
2 Population per unit of development; see Table 2.3
3 Cost per capita; see Table 3.3
4 Fee per unit of development = population per unit X cost per capita
Park Land Acquisition Fees per Unit of Development (Non-subdivision Pro-
jects). Table 3.5 shows the calculation of park acquisition fees per unit of devel-
opment by development type for non-subdivision projects. Those fees are calcu-
lated using the per-capita costs from Table 3.3 and population per dwelling unit
data from Table 2.3.
Table 3.5
Fees per Unit of Development - Park Land Acquisition Fee (Non-subdivisions)
Development Gen Plan Dev Pop per Cost per Fee per
Type Code Units 1 Unit 2 Capita 3 Unit 4
Residential (0.125-0.25 DU/Ac)R DU 2.80 1,961.19$ 5,491.34$
Residential (0.25-0.5 DU/Ac)RR DU 2.80 1,961.19$ 5,491.34$
Residential (0.5-1.0 DU/Ac)RR1 DU 2.80 1,961.19$ 5,491.34$
Residential (1.0-2.0 DU/Ac)RR2 DU 2.80 1,961.19$ 5,491.34$
Residential (2.0-3.0 DU/Ac)R3 DU 2.80 1,961.19$ 5,491.34$
Residential (3.0-5.0 DU/Ac)R5 DU 2.80 1,961.19$ 5,491.34$
Residential (5.0-8.0 DU/Ac)R8 DU 2.80 1,961.19$ 5,491.34$
Residential (8.0-11.0 DU/Ac)R11 DU 2.20 1,961.19$ 4,314.63$
Residential (11.0-15.0 DU/Ac)R15 DU 2.10 1,961.19$ 4,118.51$
Residential (15.0-25.0 DU/Ac)R25 DU 2.10 1,961.19$ 4,118.51$
Mobile Home Park MHP DU 1.90 1,961.19$ 3,726.27$
1 Units of development. DU = dwelling unit
2 Population per unit of development; see Table 2.3
3 Cost per capita; see Table 3.3
4 Fee per unit of development = population per unit X cost per capita
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Park Land Acquisition and Development Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-6
Park Development Fees per Unit of Development. Table 3.6 shows the calcula-
tion of park development fees per unit of development by development type all
residential development projects. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita
costs from Table 3.3 and population per dwelling unit data from Table 2.3. These
fees are intended to be charged to all residential development projects in combina-
tion with park acquisition fees.
Table 3.6
Fees per Unit of Development - Park Development Fee
Development Gen Plan Dev Pop per Cost per Fee per
Type Code Units 1 Unit 2 Capita 3 Unit 4
Residential (0.125-0.25 DU/Ac)R DU 2.80 892.65$ 2,499.41$
Residential (0.25-0.5 DU/Ac)RR DU 2.80 892.65$ 2,499.41$
Residential (0.5-1.0 DU/Ac)RR1 DU 2.80 892.65$ 2,499.41$
Residential (1.0-2.0 DU/Ac)RR2 DU 2.80 892.65$ 2,499.41$
Residential (2.0-3.0 DU/Ac)R3 DU 2.80 892.65$ 2,499.41$
Residential (3.0-5.0 DU/Ac)R5 DU 2.80 892.65$ 2,499.41$
Residential (5.0-8.0 DU/Ac)R8 DU 2.80 892.65$ 2,499.41$
Residential (8.0-11.0 DU/Ac)R11 DU 2.20 892.65$ 1,963.82$
Residential (11.0-15.0 DU/Ac)R15 DU 2.10 892.65$ 1,874.56$
Residential (15.0-25.0 DU/Ac)R25 DU 2.10 892.65$ 1,874.56$
Mobile Home Park MHP DU 1.90 892.65$ 1,696.03$
1 Units of development. DU = dwelling unit
2 Population per unit of development; see Table 2.3
3 Cost per capita; see Table 3.3
4 Fee per unit of development = population per unit X cost per capita
PROJECTED REVENUE
Projected Revenue – Park Land Acquisition Fees. Table 3.7 on the next page
shows projected revenue from park land acquisition fees calculated in this report.
Because park land acquisition fees differ for subdivisions and non-subdivision pro-
jects, projecting revenue requires an assumption regarding the proportion of future
residential development that will occur in subdivisions as opposed to non-
subdivision projects. The projections in Table 3.7 assume that 60% of future
population growth will occur in residential subdivisions, with the remainder in
non-subdivision projects. This projection assumes that all future residential subdi-
visions will pay in-lieu fees rather than dedicating land.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Park Land Acquisition and Development Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-7
Table 3.7
Projected Revenue - Park Land Acquisition Fees
Development Added Cost per Projected
Component Population 1 Capita 2 Revenue 3
Residential Subdivisions 4,951 2,400.00$ 11,882,400$
Non-Subdivision Residential 3,300 1,961.19$ 6,471,941$
Total 8,251 18,354,341$
1 Based on data from Table 2.2. Assumes 60% of future population
growth in will occur in subdivisions
2 See Table 3.3
3 Projected revenue = added population X cost per capita
Projected Revenue – Park Development Fees. Potential revenue from park
development fees calculated in this chapter can be projected by applying the fees
per unit of development from Table 3.3 to forecasted future population from Table
2.2 as shown in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8
Projected Revenue - Park Development Fees
Added Cost per Projected
Population 1 Capita 2 Revenue 3
8,251 $892.65 $7,365,227
1 Based on data from Table 2.2.
2 See Table 3.3
3 Projected revenue = added population X cost per capita
The costs used in this chapter are given in current dollars. The fees calculated
above should be indexed, or adjusted annually, to keep pace with changes in price
levels. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Open Space and Trail Development Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-1
CHAPTER 4
OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL DEVELOPMENT FEES
This chapter addresses fees for acquisition of open space land and for development
of trails. Open space, as used in this chapter, would include land preserved recrea-
tion, wildlife habitat, or watershed protection. The fees calculated in this chapter
are intended to complement the park acquisition and park development fees calcu-
lated in Chapter 3.
SERVICE AREA
Fees addressed in this chapter are calculated for a single citywide service area and
are intended to apply to all residential development in the City. Revenue from
these fees must be spent in ways that serve the development projects paying the
fees.
DEMAND VARIABLE
Open space lands and trails are environmental and/or recreational resources se-
cured for the benefit of the City’s population. Consequently, population is used
here as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for open space and trails.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Table 4.1 lists the City’s existing open space sites and their acreage. The level of
service standard used in this study for park improvements fees is the existing ratio
of City-owned open space acres to population.
Table 4.1
Existing Open Space Sites
Open Space City-Owned
Site Acreage 1
Barelman Property 17.00
Snedeker Property 7.63
Cottonwood Creek Park 10.00
Parcel 7 SDG&E Easement 8.30
Indianhead Canyon 52.00
Total 94.93
1 Acreage from the July 2005 Parks and Recre-
ation Department Park and Beach Inventory
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Open Space and Trail Development Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-2
Table 4.2 shows the existing ratio of open space acreage and miles of developed
trails to existing population.
Table 4.2
Existing Ratios of Open Space Acreage and Miles of Trails to Population
Existing Existing Units per Units per
Category Units Units 1 Population 2 Capita 3 1,000 4
City-Owned Open Space Acres 94.93 62,774 0.00151 1.51
Existing Trails Miles 30.50 62,774 0.00049 0.49
1 See Table 4.1 for acres of City-owned open space; miles of existing trails from
the 2005 Encinitas Community Statistical Profile
2 See Table 2.1
3 Units per capita = existing units / existing population
4 Units per 1,000 population = units per capita X 1,000
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in
Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or
standard that determines the number of units of service to be provided for each
unit of development. In this case, both open space land acquisition and trail devel-
opment fees are based on the existing ratios, as discussed in the previous section
on level-of-service standards. Because population is used as the demand variable
in the fee calculations and population is related to residential development, the fees
calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.
PER-CAPITA COST
Table 4.3 on the next page shows the per-capita cost for open space land acquisi-
tion and trail development based on costs estimated by the City Parks and Recrea-
tion Department. The per-capita land acquisition cost will serve as the basis for
park acquisition fees. Those per-capita costs will serve as the basis for fees calcu-
lated in the following section.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Open Space and Trail Development Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-3
Table 4.3
Per Capita Cost - Open Space Land Acquisition and Trail Development
Fee Units per Units per Cost per Cost per
Component Units 1,000 1 Capita 2 Unit 3 Capita 4
Open Space Land Acquisition Acres 1.51 0.00151 100,000$ 151.23$
Trail Development Miles 0.49 0.00049 80,000$ 38.87$
1 Units per 1,000 population; see Table 4.2
2 Units per capita; see Table 4.2
3 Cost per unit estimated by the Encinitas Parks and Recreation Department
4 Cost per capita = units per capita X cost per unit
In the next section, the per-capita costs from Table 4.3 are used to calculate impact
fees per unit of development by development type.
FEES PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT
Open Space Land Acquisition Fees. Table 4.4 shows the calculation of open
space land acquisition fees per unit of development by development type for resi-
dential development. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita costs from
Table 4.3 and the population per dwelling unit data from Table 2.3.
Table 4.4
Fees per Unit of Development - Open Space Land Acquisition
Development Gen Plan Dev Pop per Cost per Fee per
Type Code Units 1 Unit 2 Capita 3 Unit 4
Residential (0.125-0.25 DU/Ac)R DU 2.80 151.23$ 423.43$
Residential (0.25-0.5 DU/Ac)RR DU 2.80 151.23$ 423.43$
Residential (0.5-1.0 DU/Ac)RR1 DU 2.80 151.23$ 423.43$
Residential (1.0-2.0 DU/Ac)RR2 DU 2.80 151.23$ 423.43$
Residential (2.0-3.0 DU/Ac)R3 DU 2.80 151.23$ 423.43$
Residential (3.0-5.0 DU/Ac)R5 DU 2.80 151.23$ 423.43$
Residential (5.0-8.0 DU/Ac)R8 DU 2.80 151.23$ 423.43$
Residential (8.0-11.0 DU/Ac)R11 DU 2.20 151.23$ 332.70$
Residential (11.0-15.0 DU/Ac)R15 DU 2.10 151.23$ 317.57$
Residential (15.0-25.0 DU/Ac)R25 DU 2.10 151.23$ 317.57$
Mobile Home Park MHP DU 1.90 151.23$ 287.33$
1 Units of development. DU = dwelling unit
2 Population per unit of development; see Table 2.3
3 Cost per capita; see Table 4.3
4 Fee per unit of development = population per unit X cost per capita
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Open Space and Trail Development Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-4
Trail Development Fees. Table 4.5 shows the calculation of trial development
impact fees per unit of development by development type. Those fees are calcu-
lated using the per-capita costs from Table 4.3 and population per dwelling unit
data from Table 2.3.
Table 4.5
Fees per Unit of Development - Trail Development
Development Gen Plan Dev Pop per Cost per Fee per
Type Code Units 1 Unit 2 Capita 3 Unit 4
Residential (0.125-0.25 DU/Ac)R DU 2.80 38.87$ 108.83$
Residential (0.25-0.5 DU/Ac)RR DU 2.80 38.87$ 108.83$
Residential (0.5-1.0 DU/Ac)RR1 DU 2.80 38.87$ 108.83$
Residential (1.0-2.0 DU/Ac)RR2 DU 2.80 38.87$ 108.83$
Residential (2.0-3.0 DU/Ac)R3 DU 2.80 38.87$ 108.83$
Residential (3.0-5.0 DU/Ac)R5 DU 2.80 38.87$ 108.83$
Residential (5.0-8.0 DU/Ac)R8 DU 2.80 38.87$ 108.83$
Residential (8.0-11.0 DU/Ac)R11 DU 2.20 38.87$ 85.51$
Residential (11.0-15.0 DU/Ac)R15 DU 2.10 38.87$ 81.63$
Residential (15.0-25.0 DU/Ac)R25 DU 2.10 38.87$ 81.63$
Mobile Home Park MHP DU 1.90 38.87$ 73.85$
1 Units of development. DU = dwelling unit
2 Population per unit of development; see Table 2.3
3 Cost per capita; see Table 4.3
4 Fee per unit of development = population per unit X cost per capita
PROJECTED REVENUE
Projected Revenue – Open Space Land Acquisition Fees. Table 4.6 on the next
page shows projected revenue from open space land acquisition fees calculated in
this chapter. Potential revenue is projected by applying the fees per unit of devel-
opment from Table 4.3 to forecasted future population from Table 2.2. This pro-
jection assumes that all future residential development will pay the impact fees
rather than dedicating land.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Open Space and Trail Development Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-5
Table 4.6
Projected Revenue - Open Space Fees
Added Cost per Projected
Population 1 Capita 2 Revenue 3
8,251 $151.23 $1,247,758
1 Added population = 2030 population - 2005 population (see
Table 2.2)
2 See Table 4.3
3 Projected revenue = added population X cost per capita
Projected Revenue – Trail Development Fees. Table 4.7 shows projected
revenue from trail development fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue
is projected by applying the fees per unit of development from Table 4.3 to fore-
casted future population from Table 2.2.
Table 4.7
Projected Revenue - Trail Development Fees
Added Cost per Projected
Population 1 Capita 2 Revenue 3
8,251 $38.87 $320,713
1 Added population = 2030 population - 2005 population (see
Table 2.2)
2 See Table 4.3
3 Projected revenue = added population X cost per capita
The costs used in this chapter are given in current dollars. The fees calculated
above should be indexed, or adjusted annually, to keep pace with changes in price
levels. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Community Facilities Impact Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-1
CHAPTER 5
COMMMUNITY FACILITIES IMPACT FEES
This chapter calculates impact fees for community facilities. The only facility ad-
dressed in the current study is a new 26,798 square foot library building that is
planned for construction in Encinitas beginning next year. The new library is be-
ing funded largely by the City’s General Fund and will serve both existing and fu-
ture development in the City. The fees calculated in this chapter are intended to
recover only new development’s share of the capital cost of the facility. The San
Diego County Library System operates the public libraries in Encinitas and pro-
vides the materials stocked in those libraries.
SERVICE AREA
Fees addressed in this chapter are calculated for a single citywide service area and
are intended to apply to all residential development in the City. Although the City
has one existing branch library, located in the Cardiff Community, the new branch
library will serve the entire City, augmenting the resources currently available in
the Cardiff branch. Consequently, impact fees to recover new development’s
share of costs for the new facility will apply to all new residential development in
the City
DEMAND VARIABLE
Level of service standards for libraries are invariably based on population, and
population is used here as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for li-
braries.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Because the City has developed plans for the proposed library, the level of service
is implied by the relationship between the size of the building and the population
of its service area, and that relationship will be used in the calculation of library
impact fees in this chapter. As a result, it is not necessary to stipulate an explicit
level of service in this report.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the plan-based method discussed in
Chapter 1. Plan-based fees are calculated by allocating the costs of a specified set
of facilities to a specified increment of development. In this case, the cost of the
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Community Facilities Impact Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-2
new branch library is allocated to the entire buildout population of the City, so that
the impact fees calculated in this chapter will cover only the proportional cost at-
tributable to future development.
The City has already appropriated money from the General Fund to pay for most of
the cost of the facility. The details of the cost allocation are shown in the next sec-
tion. Because population is used as the demand variable in the fee calculations and
population is related to residential development, the fees calculated in this chapter
apply only to residential development.
PER-CAPITA COST
Table 5.1 shows the per-capita cost of the planned library building, based on the
estimated cost of the facility and the forecasted population of the study area. The
per-capita cost will serve as the basis for the library impact fees calculated in the
following section.
Table 5.1
Per Capita Cost - Library Facility
Facility 2030 Cost per
Cost 1 Population 2 Capita 3
$14,500,000 71,025 $204.15
1 November 2005 cost estimate includes land, design/engineering,
permits, furniture, fixtures, and equipment
2 Projected 2030 buildout population
3 Cost per capita = facility cost / 2030 service area population
In the next section, the per-capita costs from Table 5.1 are used to calculate impact
fees per unit of development by development type.
FEES PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT
Table 5.2 on the next page shows the calculation of library impact fees per unit of
development by development type for residential development. Those fees are
calculated using the per-capita costs from Table 5.1 and the population per dwell-
ing unit data from Table 2.3.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Community Facilities Impact Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-3
Table 5.2
Fees per Unit of Development - Library Facility
Development Gen Plan Dev Pop per Cost per Fee per
Type Code Units 1 Unit 2 Capita 3 Unit 4
Residential (0.125-0.25 DU/Ac)R DU 2.80 204.15$ 571.63$
Residential (0.25-0.5 DU/Ac)RR DU 2.80 204.15$ 571.63$
Residential (0.5-1.0 DU/Ac)RR1 DU 2.80 204.15$ 571.63$
Residential (1.0-2.0 DU/Ac)RR2 DU 2.80 204.15$ 571.63$
Residential (2.0-3.0 DU/Ac)R3 DU 2.80 204.15$ 571.63$
Residential (3.0-5.0 DU/Ac)R5 DU 2.80 204.15$ 571.63$
Residential (5.0-8.0 DU/Ac)R8 DU 2.80 204.15$ 571.63$
Residential (8.0-11.0 DU/Ac)R11 DU 2.20 204.15$ 449.14$
Residential (11.0-15.0 DU/Ac)R15 DU 2.10 204.15$ 428.72$
Residential (15.0-25.0 DU/Ac)R25 DU 2.10 204.15$ 428.72$
Mobile Home Park MHP DU 1.90 204.15$ 387.89$
1 Units of development. DU = dwelling unit
2 Population per unit of development; see Table 2.3
3 Cost per capita; see Table 5.1
4 Fee per unit of development = population per unit X cost per capita
PROJECTED REVENUE
Table 5.3 shows projected revenue from library impact fees calculated in this chap-
ter. Potential revenue is projected by applying the cost per capita from Table 5.1
to forecasted future population in the study area.
Table 5.3
Projected Revenue - Library Impact Fee
Added Cost per Projected
Population 1 Capita 2 Revenue 3
8,251 $204.15 $1,684,470
1 Estimated 2005-2030 increase in service area population
2 See Table 5.1
3 Projected revenue = added population X cost per capita
The projected revenue shown in Table 5.3 represents 11.6% of the total cost of the
facility, and represents new development’s proportionate share of total project
cost. Money advanced from the General Fund to cover new development’s share
of cost before impact fees are collected may be reimbursed from the library impact
fee account to the General Fund.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Community Facilities Impact Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-4
The costs used in this chapter are given in current dollars. The fees calculated
above should be indexed or adjusted annually, to keep pace with changes in price
levels. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Fire Protection Impact Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-1
CHAPTER 6
FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES
This chapter addresses the need for fire protection facilities and equipment to serve
future development in Encinitas. Encinitas is currently served by five fire stations,
of which four predate the City’s incorporation and are not adequate to serve the
long term needs of the City. The City’s adopted capital improvements program
provides for the replacement of three of those stations—two on their existing sites.
The fourth station is expected to be replaced within five to ten years. This study
will determine the share of cost of existing and planned fire stations, apparatus,
vehicles, and other equipment that is attributable to future development. The im-
pact fees calculated in this chapter will cover only the share of costs associated
with future development.
SERVICE AREA
The Fire Department and its supporting facilities serve the entire city, so impact
fees calculated in this chapter will apply to all new development in the study area,
that is, the City and its Sphere of Influence.
DEMAND VARIABLE
The demand variable used to measure the impact of development on the need for
fire protection facilities is “functional population.” Functional population is a
composite variable consisting of both residents and employees, equally weighted.
Measured by that variable, residential development accounts for approximately
70% of total demand for fire department services in the City. Non-residential de-
velopment accounts for the other 30%.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the plan-based method discussed in
Chapter 1. Plan-based fees are calculated by allocating costs for a defined set of
improvements to a defined set of land uses that will be served by the improve-
ments. In this case, the analysis allocates the cost of both existing and future fa-
cilities to both existing and future development. That approach is used because
development anywhere in the City depends on a whole system of fire protection
resources, and this study seeks to allocate the cost of those resources proportion-
ately to all development in the City. The resulting impact fees will recover only
new development’s proportionate share of fire protection costs.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Fire Protection Impact Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-2
Although each fire station is responsible for the initial response to a designated
“first due” area, development in any part of the City depends on the whole system
for fire protection. While each fire station houses at least one engine company,
more specialized equipment, such as ladder trucks, are not available at every sta-
tion. A standard first alarm response to even a relatively small structure fire re-
quires more than one company. Furthermore, when one company is called out,
other companies may have to relocate temporarily to provide coverage in case of
additional alarms.
Consequently, this analysis will treat fire protection facilities serving Encinitas as
an integrated system, and will allocate costs for fire protection assets citywide.
The cost of the system will be defined to include both existing and future facilities,
and those costs will be allocated to both existing and future development, so that
all development in the City is allocated its proportionate share of the overall sys-
tem cost. The mechanics of that allocation will be explained later in this chapter,
in the section showing the impact fee calculations.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The level of service for fire protection is typically stated in terms of response time
rather than in terms of facility needs per se. Response time standards are used to
determine the number and location of fire stations required. The relevant level of
service for this analysis, is implied by the relationship between the number of sta-
tions serving the City and the demand created by development. As discussed
above, demand is measured in this chapter by functional population. Since the
need for facilities has been defined in advance, the operative level of service in
this analysis is the relationship between facility cost and functional population.
Table 6.1 on the next page lists the City’s fire stations. Four of the five existing
stations pre-date incorporation and are inadequate to meet the long term needs of
the City. Table 6.1 shows the estimated 2005 cost of replacement buildings for
Stations No. 1 through No. 4. Station No. 5, constructed in 2001, will be retained.
Its cost has been escalated to current cost levels using the Engineering News Re-
cord Building Cost Index and then depreciated. Land costs are not included for
stations being rebuilt on their current sites. The total cost shown in Table 6.1
represents the current value of facilities needed to serve both existing and future
development in Encinitas.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Fire Protection Impact Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-3
Table 6.1
Existing and Planned Fire Stations with Costs
Fire Constr Square 2005 Est Depreciated Actual Total
Stations Date Feet Constr Cost 1 Cost 2 Land Cost 3 Cost 4
Station No. 1 Replacement Future 7,950 3,553,000$ 3,553,000$ 3,553,000$
Station No. 2 Replacement Future 7,000 4,083,200$ 4,083,200$ 1,400,000$ 5,483,200$
Station No. 3 Replacement Future 6,899 3,850,000$ 3,850,000$ 3,850,000$
Station No. 4 Replacement Future 6,000 2,810,500$ 2,810,500$ 2,810,500$
Station No. 5 2001 7,000 2,895,579$ 2,663,933$ 200,000$ 2,863,933$
Totals 17,192,279$ 1,600,000$ 18,560,633$
1 Estimated 2005 construction cost includes building construction, design and other soft costs, site
development, off-site improvements, furniture, fixtures and equipment; actual cost for Station No. 5
has been escalated 20.65% from 2001 using the ENR Building Cost Index (2001 average = 3574;
November 2005 = 4312)
2 Estimated 2005 construction cost for existing station depreciated from construction date using
straight-line depreciation over a 50 year useful life
3 Actual land cost; no land cost included for existing stations to be replaced on site
4 Total cost = construction cost + land cost
Table 6.2 on the next page lists the Fire Department’s existing firefighting appara-
tus and vehicles as well as one new structural engine currently on order. The cur-
rent replacement cost of each item is depreciated using straight-line depreciation
based on the useful life shown in the table for each piece of equipment. The
minimum residual value is set at 20% of the replacement cost. The total cost
shown in Table 6.2 represents the estimated current value of apparatus and vehi-
cles needed to serve both existing and future development in Encinitas.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Fire Protection Impact Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-4
Table 6.2
Existing Fire Department Apparatus and Vehicles
Unit
Number
Model
Year Type
Useful
Life 1
Replacement
Cost 2
Depr Repl
Cost 3
On Order 2005 Structural Engine 15 375,000$ 375,000$
2311 2004 Structural Engine 15 375,000$ 350,000$
2312 2003 Structural Engine 15 375,000$ 325,000$
2313 2004 Structural Engine 15 375,000$ 350,000$
2314 1991 Structural Engine 15 375,000$ 25,000$
2316 1991 Structural Engine 15 375,000$ 25,000$
2317 1987 Structural Engine 15 375,000$ -$
2364 2003 Brush Engine 15 320,000$ 277,333$
2365 1997 Brush Engine 15 320,000$ 149,333$
2375 1996 Ladder Truck 15 800,000$ 320,000$
2005 Chief's Vehicle 7 60,000$ 60,000$
2004 Chief's Vehicle 7 60,000$ 51,429$
2003 Chief's Vehicle 7 60,000$ 42,857$
2003 Chief's Vehicle 7 60,000$ 42,857$
2000 Pickup Truck 7 30,000$ 8,571$
Total 2,402,381$
1 Estimated useful life of equipment for depreciation
2 Replacement cost in 2005 dollars including equipment
3 Depreciated replacement cost using straight line depreciation method over the
useful life of the equipment
PER-CAPITA EQUITY
Table 6.3 calculates the City’s current per-capita equity in all capital assets (facili-
ties and equipment) needed by the Fire Department to serve the City at buildout.
The per-capita equity in those assets will serve as the basis for calculation of fire
protection impact fees in the following section.
Table 6.3
Per Capita Cost - Fire Protection Facilities and Equipment
Fee Total 2030 Func Equity per
Component Equity 1 Population 2 Capita 3
Fire Stations 18,560,633$ 100,761 184.20$
Apparatus and Vehicles 2,402,381$ 100,761 23.84$
20,963,014$ 100,761 208.05$
1 Total equity in current dollars; see Tables 6.1and 6.2
2 2030 functional population; see Table 2.2
3 Equity per capita = total equity / 2030 functional population
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Fire Protection Impact Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-5
In the next section, the per-capita equity from Table 6.3 is used to calculate fire
protection impact fees per unit of development by development type.
FEES PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT
Table 6.4 shows the calculation of fire protection impact fees per unit of develop-
ment by development type. Those fees are calculated using the per-capita equity
from Table 6.3 and the functional population per unit from Table 2.3.
Table 6.4
Fees per Unit of Development - Fire Protection Facilities/Equipment
Development Gen Plan Dev Func Pop Equity per Fee per
Type Code Units 1 per Unit 2 Capita 3 Unit 4
Residential (0.125-0.25 DU/Ac)R DU 2.80 208.05$ 582.53$
Residential (0.25-0.5 DU/Ac)RR DU 2.80 208.05$ 582.53$
Residential (0.5-1.0 DU/Ac)RR1 DU 2.80 208.05$ 582.53$
Residential (1.0-2.0 DU/Ac)RR2 DU 2.80 208.05$ 582.53$
Residential (2.0-3.0 DU/Ac)R3 DU 2.80 208.05$ 582.53$
Residential (3.0-5.0 DU/Ac)R5 DU 2.80 208.05$ 582.53$
Residential (5.0-8.0 DU/Ac)R8 DU 2.80 208.05$ 582.53$
Residential (8.0-11.0 DU/Ac)R11 DU 2.20 208.05$ 457.70$
Residential (11.0-15.0 DU/Ac)R15 DU 2.10 208.05$ 436.90$
Residential (15.0-25.0 DU/Ac)R25 DU 2.10 208.05$ 436.90$
Mobile Home Park MHP DU 1.90 208.05$ 395.29$
Office-Professional OP KSF 3.50 208.05$ 728.16$
Commercial Local LC KSF 2.00 208.05$ 416.09$
Commercial-Visitor Serving VSC KSF 2.00 208.05$ 416.09$
Commercial-General GC KSF 2.00 208.05$ 416.09$
Industrial-Light LI KSF 2.50 208.05$ 520.12$
1 Units of development. DU = dwelling unit
2 Functional population per unit of development; see Table 2.3
3 Cost per capita; see Table 6.3
4 Fee per unit of development = population per unit X cost per capita
PROJECTED REVENUE
Table 6.5 on the next page shows projected revenue from fire protection impact
fees calculated in this report. Potential revenue is projected by applying the fees
per unit of development from Table 6.3 to forecasted future population from Table
2.2.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study Fire Protection Impact Fees
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-6
Table 6.5
Projected Revenue - Fire Protection Impact Fees
Added Functional Equity per Projected
Population 1 Capita 2 Revenue 3
12,836 $208.05 $2,670,490
1 Added functional population = 2030 functional population -
2005 functional population (see Table 2.2)
2 See Table 6.3
3 Projected revenue = added functional population X equity
per capita
The costs used in this chapter are given in current dollars. The fees calculated
above should be indexed, or adjusted annually, to keep pace with changes in price
levels. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study In-lieu Fees for Required Public Improvements
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 7-1
CHAPTER 7
IN-LIEU FEES FOR REQUIRED PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS
The in-lieu fees for required public improvements presented in this chapter are dif-
ferent in many ways from the impact fees calculated in other chapters of this re-
port. To understand the purpose of these fees, it is necessary to describe the condi-
tions under which they would be used.
PURPOSE OF THE IN-LIEU FEES
When construction occurs on a parcel of land in Encinitas, the City’s engineering
design standards require that certain public improvements, such as street widening,
curb, gutter, and sidewalk be provided. However, in cases where development oc-
curs on an individual lot or parcel, it may be impractical, or undesirable from the
City Engineer’s standpoint, to construct those improvements at the time the parcel
is developed. Constructing such improvements for a relatively small parcel may
create drainage and grading problems that cannot be resolved without extending
the improvements to adjacent parcels. Furthermore, constructing such improve-
ments in a piecemeal fashion may, in some cases, result in traffic safety issues. In
cases where undergrounding of overhead utility lines is required, parcel-by-parcel
compliance for smaller parcels is generally unworkable. At present, when con-
struction of improvements cannot be required due to safety or conformity issues,
there is no alternative but to relieve the property owner of responsibility for those
improvements. The in-lieu fee would offer a more equitable solution, allowing the
cost of improvements to be shared equitably among similarly-situated projects.
The in-lieu fees proposed in this chapter would be established as an alternative
means of complying with the requirement for public improvements. The in-lieu
fees would be paid by a property owner or developer as an alternative to construct-
ing the required public improvements, where the City determines payment of in-
lieu fees will better serve the public good than construction of the improvements in
conjunction with the project. By collecting the fees instead of requiring immediate
construction of improvements, the City will assume responsibility for future con-
struction of improvements. The City would accumulate fees from multiple pro-
jects, and when sufficient money is available, the City would contract for construc-
tion of the improvements and/or the undergrounding of utilities for several adja-
cent properties at once. The proposed fees are based on the estimated unit cost of
constructing such improvements, and since they would be paid in-lieu of construct-
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study In-lieu Fees for Required Public Improvements
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 7-2
ing the requisite improvements, they would not result in any additional cost to the
property owner.
LEGAL STATUS OF THE IN-LIEU FEES
The in-lieu fees proposed in this chapter are not impact fees, and in our opinion are
not subject to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. They represent an op-
tional means of satisfying construction requirements legitimately established by the
City in its engineering standards. 1 We recommend that they be offered as a volun-
tary alternative to the construction of required improvements, and that the City En-
gineer be authorized to determine when the payment of fees in-lieu of construction
is acceptable to the City. That authority can be granted by amending the ordinance
adopting the City’s engineering design standards.
AMOUNT OF THE IN-LIEU FEES
Because the amount of the in-lieu fees to be collected in a particular case depends
on the cost of improvements that would otherwise be required of a property owner
or developer, that cost will vary depending on the extent of the improvements re-
quired. Such fees could be set on a case-by-case basis, using engineer’s estimates
for specific improvements related to a particular project. The fees recommended
here are standardized in terms of unit costs for typical improvements. In their sim-
plest form, such fees can be established on a citywide basis as a cost per lineal foot
of property frontage. A more articulated system of in-lieu fees could define differ-
ent unit costs for different districts in the City, depending on the types of public
improvements required in each district. For purposes of this report, a single set of
fees is recommended. Table 7.1 on the next page shows the cost per lineal foot for
typical public improvements, as estimated by the Encinitas City Engineer.
1 In Ehrlich v. Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, the California Supreme Court upheld an art-in-public-
places fee on the grounds that it not a development exaction…saying “the requirement to provide either
art or a cash equivalent thereof is more akin to traditional land use regulations imposing minimal building
setbacks, parking and lighting conditions, landscaping requirements and other design conditions….” The
Court went on to say that the requirement of providing art “…is like other design and landscaping re-
quirements…well within the authority of the city to impose.” In our view, that language provides strong
support for the legal defensibility of the in-lieu fees proposed in this chapter.
City of Encinitas - Impact Fee Study In-lieu Fees for Required Public Improvements
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 7-3
Table 7.1
Schedule of In-Lieu Fees - Frontage Improvements
Improvement Fee per LF
Type of Frontage 1
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk, etc.$75.00
Underground Overhead Utilities $190.00
1 Cost per lineal foot of street frontage; cost estimated
by the Encinitas City Engineer
We recommend that any in-lieu fees approved by the City Council be adopted by
resolution, to facilitate periodic updating of the fee amounts to keep pace with
changes in construction costs.
EXPENDITURE OF IN-LIEU FEES
One similarity between impact fees and the in-lieu fees recommended in this chap-
ter is that the in-lieu fees should be deposited in a dedicated account and expended
only to construct the improvements for which they were collected. A potential dif-
ficulty in administering an in-lieu fee program of this sort is the need to establish
priorities for expenditure of the funds. Fees may be collected from several loca-
tions and the City will have to set priorities as to where the funds will be used to
construct improvements. Reserving in-lieu fees for use only on the street where
they were collected would circumvent that problem, but would increase the diffi-
culty of ever accumulating enough money to construct any improvements at all.
We don’t recommend that course. However, if fees are collected in several loca-
tions, decisions about which locations receive priority in the expenditure of the
funds may well prove to be controversial.
POTENTIAL REVENUE
Because there is now way of knowing in advance where in-lieu fees may be col-
lected, it is not possible to project future revenue from those fees.
City of Encinitas Impact Fee Study Implementation
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-1
CHAPTER 8
IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administra-
tion of a development impact fee program based on this study, and for the inter-
pretation and application of impact fees recommended herein. Statutory require-
ments for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of devel-
opment approval are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections
66000 et seq.). For implementation of fees in lieu of park land dedication, see the
Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477).
ADOPTION
The form in which development impact fees are enacted, whether by ordinance or
resolution, should be determined by the City Attorney. Ordinarily, it is desirable
that specific fee amounts be set by resolution to facilitate periodic adjustments.
Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice
and public hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Section
66016. By statute, those fees do not become effective until 60 days after final ac-
tion by the governing body.
Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require cer-
tain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed below
and in Chapter 1 of this report.
Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, when the City establishes fees to be imposed
as a condition of development approval, it must make findings to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee; and
3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the type of development project
on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development
project on which the fee is imposed; and
ADMINISTRATION
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.)
mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collec-
City of Encinitas Impact Fee Study Implementation
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-2
tion and accounting, refunds, updates and reporting. References to code sections
in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.
Imposition of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, when the City imposes
an impact fee upon a specific development project, it must make essentially the
same findings adopted upon establishment of the fees to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee; and
3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the type of development project
on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development
project on which the fee is imposed; and
Also, at the time when an impact fee is imposed on a specific development project
the City is also required to make a finding to determine how there is a reasonable
relationship between:
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable
to the development project on which it is imposed.
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 fi-
nance." That requirement can be met by reference to an impact fee nexus study in
which the fees are calculated, or to the capital improvement program.
Government Code 66020 requires that the City, at the time it imposes an impact
fee provide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90-
day period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to pro-
test imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right
to subsequent legal challenge. Government Code 66022 provides a separate pro-
cedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee. Such challenges must
be filed within 120 days of enactment.
The City should develop procedures for imposing fees that satisfy those require-
ments for findings and notice.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require
payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final in-
spection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. How-
City of Encinitas Impact Fee Study Implementation
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-3
ever, "utility service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon application for util-
ity service. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit,
the agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon
final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling
unit completed.
An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be
used to reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made, or for improve-
ments or facilities for which money has been appropriated. The agency must also
have adopted a construction schedule or plan for the improvement. Statutory re-
strictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non-
residential development.
In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Sec-
tion 66007 provides that the city may require the property owner to execute a con-
tract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until
the fees are paid.
Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 mandates that
fees be deposited “with other fees for the improvement” in a separate capital fa-
cilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with
other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments.
Interest earned on the fee revenues must be placed in the capital account and used
for the same purpose.
The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees
for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of im-
provements (e.g., street improvements). We are not aware of any city that has in-
terpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual pro-
jects. As a practical matter, that approach is unworkable because it would mean
that no pay-as-you-go project could be constructed until all benefiting develop-
ment had paid the fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or ac-
counts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, park improve-
ments), but not for individual projects. We recommend that approach.
Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which they were collected. It is
important that fee revenue be expended so as to provide a reasonable benefit to the
development projects from which the fees are collected. Some fees in this report
were calculated without knowing the specific locations of all facilities to be
funded by the fees. The City must exercise caution in the expenditure of those
fees to ensure that facilities are located in such as way as to serve the development
projects from which the fees were collected.
City of Encinitas Impact Fee Study Implementation
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-4
Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a develop-
ment project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are
charged, such project must be exempted from the fees. If a project has characteris-
tics that indicate its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system
will be significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used to cal-
culate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly.
In some cases, the City may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that
would otherwise apply to a project to promote goals such as affordable housing or
economic development. Such a waiver or reduction may not result in increased
costs to other development projects, and are allowable only if the City offsets the
lost revenue from other fund sources.
The City is advised to develop a policy to guide fee administrators in the use of
exemptions, reductions and waivers.
Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a devel-
oper, as a condition of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for
which impact fees have been or will be, charged, the impact fee imposed on that
development project for that type of facility must be adjusted to reflect a credit for
the cost of the facilities or improvements constructed by the developer.
In the event a developer offers to dedicate land, buildings, or other valuable con-
sideration in lieu of paying impact fees, the City has the discretion to accept or re-
ject such offers, and may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be
accepted.
Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelop-
ment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be
applied only to the portion of the project which represents a net increase in de-
mand for relevant City facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this
study to calculate that particular impact fee. Since residential service demand is
normally estimated on the basis of demand per dwelling unit, an addition to a sin-
gle 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. In any project that re-
sults in a net increase in the number of dwelling units, the added units would nor-
mally be subject to impact fees. A similar analysis can be applied to non-
residential development, using measure of demand on which the impact fees are
based. Normally, credits are based only on the most recent previous use of the
property. The City may choose to adopt a policy that limits the period during
which a property owner can claim a credit for an abandoned use.
City of Encinitas Impact Fee Study Implementation
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-5
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:
a. The amount of the fee;
b. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
c. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;
d. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended
and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the
percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
e. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public
improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have
been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;
f. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or
fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the im-
provement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;
g. 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 sched-
uled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public.
Refunds. Prior to the adoption of Government Code amendments contained in SB
1693, a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit the
fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the
money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 changed that re-
quirement in material ways.
Now, Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first de-
posit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section
66006, and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the fol-
lowing findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed
or uncommitted:
a. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;
b. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose
for which it is charged;
City of Encinitas Impact Fee Study Implementation
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-6
c. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financ-
ing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used;
d. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to com-
plete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropri-
ate account or fund.
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed
above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local
agency could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund. Once the
agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete an in-
complete improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within
180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construc-
tion of the public improvement will be commenced. If the agency fails to comply
with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according
to procedures specified in the statute.
Costs of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee pro-
gram is not included in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include
the staff time involved in applying the fees to specific projects, accounting for fee
revenues and expenditures, preparing required annual reports, updating the fees,
and preparing forms and public information handouts. We recommend that those
costs be included in user fees charged to applicants for processing development
applications.
Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 provides that
if a local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identif y the use of impact
fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the gov-
erning body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative is to identify improve-
ments in other public documents. We recommend that the impact fee study be
identified by the City Council as the public document on which the use of the fees
is based.
Indexing of Impact Fee Rates. Impact fees calculated in this report are based on
current facility costs. Where those fees are used to fund facilities on a pay-as-you-
go basis, they should be adjusted annually to account for construction cost escala-
tion. We recommend the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index as the
basis for indexing the cost of future projects. We also recommend that the ordi-
nance or resolution establishing the fees include provisions for annual escalation
based on the selected index or another means of determining changes in price lev-
els for land, construction, equipment, and other cost components reflected in im-
pact fees. If the City issues bonds to construct facilities or improvements covered
City of Encinitas Impact Fee Study Implementation
November 30, 2005 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-7
by the impact fee program, impact fees can be adjusted to incorporate interest
costs on those bonds.
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. Before fees are imposed, a staff training
workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved
in collecting or accounting for fees.
It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the
public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from
other fees, such as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of
particular impact fees should be made clear.
Finally, anyone who is responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project
management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restric-
tions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees recommended in
this report are tied to specific improvements and cost estimates. Fees must be ex-
pended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been prop-
erly expended.
RECOVERY OF STUDY COST
We do not recommend adding an administrative fee to impact fees to cover the
costs of administering the impact fee program. Those costs should be included in
the processing fees charged to developers and builders. However, it is reasonable
for the City to recover the cost of this study through the impact fee program. Once
the City Council decides what impact fees to impose, it is a relatively simple mat-
ter to calculate an adjustment to cover the cost of the study.
Assuming the City will update this impact fee study every five years, the cost of
this study can be divided by the amount of revenue projected over the next five
years to determine the percentage by which fees should be increased to cover the
cost of the study. That adjustment normally increases the fees by a very small per-
centage. The necessary calculations should be done before the fees are actually
adopted, so they can be reflected in the dollar amount of the adopted fees. See the
Executive Summary for a sample calculation.