The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/27/1991, 1 - COUNTY DEVELOPMENT FEES I�p��►glll�llllllllll�llulll r MEETING DATE: cityo sari LUIS ogispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer/ SUBJECT: County Development Fees CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive a briefing by County staff and County consultants concerning the proposed "San Luis Obispo County Public Facilities Financing Plan" (County Development Fees) . 2. Provide staff with direction regarding the communication of a formal City position on the proposed fees to the County Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: Background Nearly one year ago, the County of San Luis Obispo formed the "City-County Participation Group" for the purpose of "assisting and reviewing the work of the consultant" preparing a countywide development fee for capital facilities (Recht, Hausrath, and Associates) . All cities in the County have been represented on this group. Councilwoman Rappa has served as the City's elected representative, and the Assistant City Administrative Officer has been the staff representative. The County has now reached a point where a preliminary draft of the proposed fee program has been completed. It is the County's desire to obtain support for the fee program from the various cities as soon as possible. Briefings are now being provided by the County to the various city councils in advance of Board of Supervisor action on some components of the fees (the Board of Supervisors will consider the fees for the unincorporated areas only on August 20, 1991; Board action for the countywide/regional fees is tentatively set for September 24, 1991) . The attached preliminary draft study outlines in* detail the underlying goals and legal basis for the fees (Attachment 1) . The study also includes a detailed outline of the fee methodology for each category of public improvements. The purpose of this staff report is not to repeat what is in the study, or what will be presented orally to the Council by the County on August 27. Instead, this report will primarily focus on the City's initial position on the fee and the current major issues which are of concern to staff and local city managers. After reviewing the report and receiving the briefing, the Council may wish to provide direction regarding comments which should be communicated to the Board of Supervisors in advance of their September 24 meeting. Rev Fee Features The fees proposed by the County do not differ substantially from the concepts underlying most development fees. The stated purpose I��n��Ni�lllllllifp° q�llll city of San Luis OBIspo A �-NM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT of the fees is to assure that new growth pays a "fair share" of capital facilities required by growth. Most typically, such fees have been assessed by cities. There are only a limited number of counties in the State of California with adopted development fee programs. The County's goal is to assess such fees not only in the unincorporated areas, but in cities as well. At the present time, the per unit fee is proposed to be significantly higher in the unincorporated areas, since these areas impose countywide, regional, and unincorporated area facility costs. The tables outlined on page I-7 of the study details proposed unit fees in the unincorporated areas and in cities for five development categories, summarized as follows: Cities Unicorp. • Single Family Unit: $2 ,782 $5,739 • Multi-Family Unit: $1, 599 $3 ,286 • Office (p/1, 000 sq. ft. ) $1, 415 $2 ,989 • Retail (p/1,000 sq.ft. ) $ 849 $1,794 • Industrial (p/1,000 sq.ft. ) $ 608 $1,284 Note: The above fee levels do not yet include transportation or County Hospital related costs. Initial Fee Concept/Initial Position of Cities/ At the outset of the study, the County's original intention was to assess fees according "unincorporated" and "countywide" categories. Fees for facilities exclusively serving the unincorporated areas would be assessed only in the unincorporated areas (e.g. , fire stations) . Fees for countywide facilities (e.g. , the jail, the courts) and regional facilities (e.g. , parks, libraries) would be assessed in both the unincorporated and incorporated areas in some consistent manner. The initial position of the cities within the County is outlined in the attached letter prepared by the former City Manager of Paso Robles (Attachment 2) . This position was later communicated by Councilwoman Rappa in a follow-up letter to the County Administrative Officer (Attachment 3) . Other cities sent similar letters. In summary, the position was: 1. Fees in Unincorporated Areas: The County should implement whatever fees it deems appropriate in the unincorporated areas. Such fees would include support for facilities which exclusively serve unincorporated areas (e.g. , fire stations) �,��i►�uI�II�IIpI�IN city of san suis osispo mil, COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT and a proportionate share of other countywide and regional facilities. 2 . Countywide Facilities: The cities will take a "wait and see" posture toward these fees. Facility categories to be included under this portion of the fees include general government and other County facilities and equipment; jail and other countywide sheriff facilities; law and justice facilities (e.g. , the courts) ; health services facilities (health agency space needs, possibly General Hospital improvement costs) ; and affordable housing. 3 . Regional, or "Shared Benefit" Facilities: The County and individual cities should work separately to fund "shared benefit" facilities (outside of a countywide fee process) . Such facilities include regional parks, libraries, and transportation improvements (State routes, principal roadways, transit facilities, bikeways, etc. ) that are of benefit to a defined geographic portion of the County. Regional improvements have nevertheless been included by the County's consultant in the fee study. Most recently, based on concerns expressed by cities regarding potential inequities created by assessing regional facility fees in a countywide manner, the County and consultant have offered to establish three geographic "sub-regions" . Fees in these subregions would be separately assessed and retained for specific parks, libraries, and transportation improvements identified in the subregions. Though not reflected in the attached study, San Luis Obispo has been included in a "northern area" region with the City of Morro Bay and Cayucos and Cambria. Further comment on this is outlined later in this report. The Fundamental Questions Over the last several months, City staff has provided numerous detailed written comments to the County outlining concerns related to the fee program. Some of these concerns have been relatively detailed comments on methodology; other comments have been more fundamental in nature. With respect to the fundamental concerns, it has essentially been a question of "cost - benefit" . The issue of "cost" does not relate to any "out-of-pocket" City expenses. Instead, the fundamental questions have been: 1. What specific benefit will City residents derive from a County development fee? 2. How will the imposition of a countywide development fee impact our own Comprehensive Financial Management Plan (CFMP) goal of updating and adopting a set of City development fees? Consistent with the Council adopted CFMP, City staff will be bringing recommendations to Council over the next several months relative to updated or new development fees in the I�►M�►�►►►�Iilllll�p � lll city of san Luis oBispo Hi;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT areas of water, wastewater, traffic impact, development processing fees, and general facility fees. City staff has been concerned that the adoption of a countywide development fee may raise development costs to a point of "policy intolerance" for additional fees, which could preclude the approval of certain city fees which will provide clearcut and direct benefit to City residents. 3 . What will be the cost of the various fees? 4. How will the imposition of County development fees on top of the City's development fee program impact the Council's affordable housing goals? (The affordable housing fee component is only intended to waive fee costs for lower income housing units by spreading such fee costs to other development categories. ) City Manager Group Questions and Recommendations Thus far, no city in the County has taken formal action on the fees. However, all local city managers met in San Luis Obispo on August 14 and established a consensus view that cities should defer any action on the countywide and regional fee components pending review of their own development fees. (Like San Luis Obispo, every other city in the county is planning to update and/or consider new development fees during the next year) . The city managers are not recommending a position regarding fees in the unincorporated areas, as this is viewed as a County matter to decide. The position taken by the city managers was communicated to the County Administrative Officer by the manager group Chairman, Rick Kirkwood of Pismo Beach (Attachment 4) . A list of questions for the County developed by the city managers was included in this correspondence. In addition to these questions, outlined below are two additional issues which staff would like to highlight for the for the City Council. 1. Regional Fee Concerns Staff does not believe that an adequate case has been made to date for the imposition of regional development fees. This category includes parks, libraries, and roadway improvements. While a consultant/County staff commitment has been made to assess the fee through the designation of "subregions" within the County (in order to retain fee revenues generated within certain geographical areas for projects within those areas) , there are still a number of questions to be resolved. These questions include: I A. What specific improvements will be funded in the San Luis Obispo planning area? At the present time the draft fee study does not include a specific improvement cost for the ►� � i�uIIIIIIIIIp ��Ipl city of sari LUIS OBISp0 Win COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT upgrade of Laguna Lake Park, which is identified as a regional facility. Staff has provided an estimate to the County, so a dollar amount may eventually be included. B. As mentioned earlier, the County currently envisions the City being included in a "northern area" subregion, which includes the City of Morro Bay, Cambria, and Cayucos. Staff does not believe this is an appropriate region for the City. If this fee is to be imposed, we believe there needs to be a "central area" which includes the City and its unincorporated environs, as we have a limited "community-of-interest" with the largely unincorporated cities of the north coast. C. Currently, there are no projects included in the study for any improvement to the existing City/County Library. Thus, any library fees generated within the region would be used to serve other communities. The consultant has indicated that such a project cannot be included at this time, since none exists in the County Library Masterplan and thus the provisions of AB 1600 could be violated. Nevertheless, staff believes that this creates the situation where the City's initiative in jointly developing a City/County Library negatively affects us relative to the proposed fees. D. Specific roadway improvements have not yet been identified, and could add substantially to the cost of the fee. Likewise, the fee could increase by a County decision to fund a new County hospital. The staff believes that the original position of separately considering regional improvements on a case-by-case basis between specific cities and the County remains the most reasonable position. For example, since both the City and the County consider Laguna Lake Park a regional park, perhaps the funding of improvements identified in the masterplan can be shared jointly between the City and the County. The County share can be derived from its park fee in the unincorporated areas; the City share can be derived from its own sources, including a City park development fee. Likewise, if improvements to the existing library are ever envisioned, a similar arrangement can be established between the City and the County. 2 . Relationship to SB 2557 Over the last several months, as the Council is well aware, all the cities within the County have been negotiating with County government to offset the negative consequences of SB 2557. Throughout this process, the County has repeatedly said that any relief from SB 2557 would be contingent upon the cities cooperatively working with the County to generate new ►►�n�i l�l�l�� ull��ll city of San Luis oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT County revenue sources. The City believes'that participation in the assessment of any countywide development fee program meets this condition. This is because costs to support the jail, County hospital, the courts, County administrative space, vehicle purchases, and other countywide facilities would be a burden fully assumed by the County, if not for development fees which may cover some share of the cost. This is a question posed by the city managers group, as noted in Attachment 4. Next Sten: Formal City Position Following the briefing by the County and the consultant, and based upon comments expressed by Councilmembers, the City will place an item on the Council agenda of September 17 to formally adopt a set of comments for transmittal to the Board of Supervisors in advance of their September 24 actions. Council direction to staff is requested relative to this formal position. Staff suggests that this formal position be developed consistent with the city managers recommendations, the essence of which is that the City will reconsider these fees after completing action on City development fees. Action at that time will be based in part on the further information which becomes available as the County responds to the various questions posed by cities. ATTACM4ENTS: 1. Draft Fee Study 2 . Original Position of Cities 3 . Initial San Luis Obispo Position 4 . City Manager Group Recommendation KH:bw cdf I r. s PRELI IINARY DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN Prepared for. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Prepared by: RECHT HAUSRATH & ASSOCIATES URBAN ECONOMISTS 1212 Broadway, Suite 1700 Oakland, California 94612 June 21, 1991 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DRAFT PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN Table of Contents Page Number L Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 II. New Development Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . II-1 III. Funding Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 IV. Fire . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 V. General Government & Other County Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 VI. Jails & Other Countywide Sheriffs Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1 VIL Law & Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1 VIII. Libraries . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-1 LX. Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-1 X Parks & Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-1 XL Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI-1 XII. Sheriffs Patrol & Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-1 M. Affordable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII-1 Appendices A. Population and Employment Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . A-1 B. Planned Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 June 21, 1991 Page i CHAPTERI INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY County facilities provide services for the benefit of all county residents and employees,. or some portion of this total service population. As the service population increases, so does the demand for County facilities. As developers build new homes and non- residential buildings, the County must provide proportional amounts of facilities to serve { this new development while maintaining existing standards. This report documents the amount and cost of new capital facilities required to serve new development through the year 2010, and reviews-funding alternatives. One potential source of funding is public facilities fees, or impact fees, paid by new development to fund its fair share of facilities needs. This report documents the appropriate level of those fees. The introduction to the Public Facilities Financing Plan summarizes the Plan under the following topics: • Public Facilities Financing in California • Fee Determination • Facilities Costs and Fee Schedules • Implementation and Administration • Collection and Disbursement This introduction is intended to provide a general understanding of the concepts and methodology used to design public facilities fees. The succeeding chapters each contain a detailed analysis of the specific costs and assumptions involved in the calculation of each fee. June 21, 1991 Page 1-1 Chapter1 Introduction & Summary PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA Several events during the past ten years have undercut the financial capacity of local governments.to build infrastructure: passage of Proposition 13, difficulty passing bond initiatives, and severe reductions in federal and state assistance. Since Proposition 13, property taxes have been inadequate to fund capital needs, and have been generally insufficient for on-going operations and maintenance expenses at pre-Proposition 13 levels of service. As an immediate response to their funding crisis, cities and counties throughout California cut back services, deferred maintenance, and slashed capital investment. Generally, this holds true for San Luis Obispo County. As a longer-term response, a�e`sTn"€tiii "tfie ba ddff of financing - -- the-:capita _aclinfratrt}ctiire =3az r�rea_ues and general obligation .'�M _ � _ = K s shift has primarily been accomplished through the imposition of public facilities fees within city boundaries, also known as development impact fees. Some fee programs address only a few specific facilities, such as sewer, fire, or storm drainage, whil �` - ti`'fiiP # I# t neededet6 accommodate nevi' development As a result of wide-spread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature passed AB 1600 adding Government Code sections 66000 et seq. which lay ground rules for imposition and on-going administration of fees. The law, which became effective in January 1989, themwv bvarvaea the amon=of nevu..de;velapz=M-nd' ;I cr fibs's ffa w1l fie bn fei accgm .odat:i ''l a legal requirements restrict how local governments may impose and use public facilities fees. But they have also made local governments less vulnerable to litigation and have given developers a more predictable environment in which to build. The nexus principle was established by the Nollan vs. the California State Coastal Commission, 107 S. CL 3141 I�IC� June 21, 1991 Page 1-2 Chapter I Introduction & Summary (1987). Nexus requires that the fee amount mitigate only those impacts new development creates for additional infrastructure to serve it. It is important to distinguish between a fee for public facilities financing and a tax. Fees must conform to the conditions imposed by the Noflan decision and AB 1600 and are used exclusively to fund the capital costs of new facilities. In addition, fees only require action by the elected governing board of a city or county to be imposed. Taxes, on the other hand, may be used for either capital or operating and maintenance costs, and tax increases generally must be approved by the voters. Consequently, it is critical in the documentation for any public facilities fee program to demonstrate that the fee is not greater than the cost of facilities to accommodate new development to avoid being challenged as a tax. The Public Facilities Financing Plan serves that purpose. In contrast to most cities in the state, California counties have been far less aggressive imposing comprehensive fees that will fund the full costs of all additional infrastructure serving growth. Increasingly, however, counties are pursuing public facilities fees as a viable means of accommodating new development. Therefore, as a funding alternative, public facilities fees are calculated for the county facilities included in this report This report serves the purpose of documenting the nexus between the needs generated by new development, and the fee to fund facilities to serve that development. FEE DETERMINATION The design of a.public facilities fee program follows a five step process: (1) selecting a time period, (2) projecting new development, (3) determining facility service areas, (4) identifying facilities to accommodate new development, (5) estimating their cost, and (6) selecting an appropriate and equitable means to allocate costs among new development. June 21, 1991 Page I-3 Chapter I Introduction & Summary SSS Appropriate Time Period The determination of public facilities fees begins with the selection of the projection period for population and employment growth. The County's master plans and population and economic forecasts are central to the study so it is convenient to have the time period aligned with these documents. The County's adopted forecasts -'_Z61.0;'anti - y department master plans forecass a"ciTi'ty gwnts remeto 2010. Hence, the planning period ,_. 11 Projecting New Development Projections of new development provide the basis for projections of additional facilities required to serve growth. The Plan uses growth projections provided by the planning departments of the County and the seven cities. These projections are presented below in Tables I-1 and I-2. TABLE I-1 NEW DEVELOPMENT, 1990 To 2010 Unincorpor- County- ated Area wider Population. 30,500 82,500 Employment 7,400 28,700 Service Population area growth. Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates. Determvrmg Facility Service Areas Public facilities serve different geographical areas, and fees can only fund facilities that serve development in the area paying the fee. Thus growth forecasts and facilities needs are divided into two areas: e Beats' d_ . em to ees coup de e. courts and 'ails ;d thou ,�Iy w P Y g J ) .omlx_.serve..the. litiiincorQoia3e .g. fire stations and Sheriffs patrol). IdmufybW FaciUdes to Accommodate Growth The determination of the quantity of new facilities required to serve new development requires the adoption of standards. These standards establish minimum levels of service for existing and future county infrastructure. Standards June 21, 1991 Page I-4 Chapter I Introduction & Summary are often stated in terms of a department's number of staff or amount of facilities per capita (e.g. acres of park land per capita). The new facilities that development must fund is then calculated according to these standards and projected population and employment growth. The County usually can adopt its own standards that reduce, maintain, or increase the present levels of service provided to the existing population. However, new development cannot be held accountable for higher standards than the current population provides for itselL Thus, if existing facilities are below the standard chosen as a basis for fees, the County must use alternative funds to expand these facilities to the same standard. In some instances department master plans recommend higher standards than currently exist Appendix B of this report summarizes these plans, including those that would result in higher facilities standards which cannot be funded by public facilities fees. E&nating Facilities Costs Each department provided cost estimates for the new facilities it will require through the year 2010. We gave careful review to the determination of which facilities and costs were appropriately included as part of the public facilities fee program. Thus, the cost of a facility that remedies an existing deficiency (to benefit the existing population) and that provides additional capacity (to benefit growth) was allocated according to the shares that benefit each group. Allocativtg Fadlities Costs The number of new residents and employees usually determines facilities needs, while fees are usually paid based on the physical amount of new development, e.g. number of dwelling units or amount of building space. Thus, the final step distributes total facilities costs among land use categories based on the population or employment density of each category. This approach ensures that fees are directly related to the cost of facilities required to accommodate a particular type of development. This study uses five categories: single-family residential, multi-family residential, office, retail, and industrial. For most types of facilities, fees for residential projects are based upon the average number of residents per dwelling unit, and fees for non-residential projects are charged on the average number of employees per 1,000 square feet. Transportation fees use.vehicle trips generated to allocate costs among a more finely differentiated set of land use categories. In some cases such as parks and recreation costs are only allocated to residential development because nonresidential development is not assumed to generate a demand for this type of facility. June 21, 1991 Page I-S Chapter I Introduction & Summary FACILITIES COSTS AND FEE SCHEDULES Table I-2 summarize the costs of facilities necessary to accommodate the next twenty years of development in the county..t iiot incZttde TaciIities needed to iatprave:e�stta .star or ce'ci�' flQeacies. .� =,.w. �.__ �. TABLE I-2 COST OF-FAcn2riES TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH (Millions of 1990 Doll=) County- Unincorp- Facilities wide _ orated Total Fire $ 0.0 $ 83 $ 83 General Government 11.0 62 172 Jails 14.3 0.0 14.3 Law & Justice 10.0 0.0 10.0 Libraries 9.5 0.0 9S Health Services 4.1 0.0 4.1 Parks & Recreation 14.7 42.6 57.3 Transportation (To Be Determined) Sheriff's Patrol 0.0 1.6 1.6 Total 63.6 $58.7 $122.3 Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates. Tables I-3 and 1-4 present the public.facilities fees if new development is required to fully fund the costs shown in Table I-2. The fees shown for affordable housing and fee administration are explained following the tables. T-0-9P. cormeywrde"F tl mwottl ti atg t ea `o 'lana_ ; ;ase fees-would_apply - ._ to_�y r ve�agmeat-c ty •including e"' ti�pment'.wrtt 'IIIA seven cities-4 Table- 1.4 preset the-propes -that°would ber paid by new depment in the dev i pme&-wont'd 5e.;resgom7'Sr;for.FntT c,Duat7twide.and uniuooiporated'area fees 1 `Ilk June 21, 1991 Page I-6 Chapter I Introduction & Summary TABLE I-3 COUNTYWIDE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES Residential Nonresidential (Per Dwelling Unit) (Per 1.000 Building So. Ft.) Single Multi- Indus_ Facilities Familv Family Office' Retai12 trial3 General Government $270 $155 $330 $198 $142 Jails 349 201 426 256 183 Law & Justice 246 141 300 180 129 Libraries 339 195 200 120 86 Health Services 101 58 124 74 53 Parks & Recreation 1,409 810 NA NA NA - Transportation (To Be Determined) Subtotal $2,714 $1,560 $1,380 $828 $593 Fee Administration 68 39 35 21 15 Total S2.782 $1.599 141 849 $608 TABLE I-4 UNINCORPORATED AREA PUBLIC FACIIdTIEs FEES Residential Nonresidential (Per Dwelling Unit) (Per 1.000 Building o FG) Single Multi- Indus- Facilities Family Family Office' Retail2 trial' Fire $694 $396 $856 $514 $368 General Government 440 251 543 326 233 Parks & Recreation 1,358 775 NA NA NA Sheriffs Patrol 111 63 137 82 59 Countywide Facilities 2,714 . 1,560 1,380 828 593 Subtotal $5,317 $3,045 $2,916 $1,750 $1,253 Affordable Housings 282 161 NA NA NA Fee Administration 140 80 73 44 31 Tom $5.739 $3.286 S2-989 $1.794 SL284 Includes all development with more than 2.50 employees per 1,000 square feet. 2 Includes all development with.250 to 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. 3 Includes all development with less than 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet 4 Based on 2.5 percent of total fees. 5 Imposed as an in lieu mitigation fee based on 5 percent of all dwelling units being affordable. Source: Recht Hausrath &Associates. f June 21, 1991 Page 1-7 Chapter I Introduction & Summary The affordable housing fee i5�ey � , tty'thWgadirdi e r d to:fun`s tTie iriipact fees...-� that woutfip*u^�p:Tie paid.b3i at �lrP Dosing brims. The affordable housing fee would be imposed on all market rate units and fund the impact fees owed by affordable units. The objective of the affordable housing fee is not to fund the construction of such housing; bu ees'fr3 :un3erminizig t�ie'County's a�3i�iTe� is d - e- e- also"be a Iied countywide if cities choose to L111 11 611 ee Chapter XM for a detailed description of the affordable housing in lieu mitigation fee. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMIMSTRATION A small part of the cost of supplying the facilities to accommodate development consists of the documentation, administration and implementation expenses of the fee program- An estimate of 25 percent of all fees collected appears to be reasonable for these costs. • - --`fie o�.a1Ffees`coifdcted .� za,ant�or4 and t - �w,y.� r:..mss,:-T:•:-�.':.:..,�..,.--- �... � _ be-adjasted wnecessarg•to ftmre.that. excess The County will undertake annual and longer-term (perhaps five-year) reviews of its facilities fee program. The annual review, required by law, will verify that the assumptions on which the fees are based remain generally applicable and will make adjustments for inflation. The longer-term reviews will allow for detailed re-examination of all assumptions such as growth forecasts, development trends, facilities needs, annexation policies, inflation, and land costs. Such reviews will help attune long-range infrastructure planning to the County's.changing needs. The actual implementation and administration of a public facilities fee program will involve adopting new procedures, training personnel, tracking facility costs and accounting for fee revenues. In addition, County staff will be frequently confronted with June 21, 1991 Page 1-8 Chapter I Introduction & Summary particular situations in which they must interpret the program's criteria and render special judgements. The County anticipates adopting administrative guidelines to provide staff and the development community with guidance regarding on-going operation of the program. The guidelines are intended to maintain consistent standards regardless of county personnel turnover or updates to the fee program. COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT Fee revenues for each facility area will be collected in a separate trust account, and interest earned on fund balances will be credited to that account. Funds will be transferred from that account to specific accounts for construction as needed to finance the facilities required to serve new development. These facilities are summarized in their respective chapters and Appendix B, and in greater detail in specific master plans prepared by each department. The County anticipates using a five-year capital improvement program to indicate the actual phasing and location of new facilities. m7 June 21, 1991 Page I-9 CHAPTER II NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS The amount of county facilities required in the future is highly dependent on the amount of new development within the county. For example, to maintain existing levels of service, the County must expand services and the facilities associated with them in proportion to the amount of new development that must be accommodated. This chapter presents projections for new development used as the basis for determining facility needs in each of the categories covered in the Public Facilities Financing Plan. The Financing Plan is for. a planning period of twenty years, from 1990 to 2010. For that period, we projected population, housing, and employment within the county. Projections were made of countywide growth, as well as for growth in the unincorporated area alone. The former were used for determining the need for countywide facilities such as criminal justice. Unincorporated area projections were used for facilities provided by the County to that area alone, such as sheriff's patrol. POPULATION The County Planning and Building Department annually prepares population estimates for the entire county. The Department's most recent estimates were issued in January, 1991, and are based on 1990 census data for cities and the unincorporated area. For the unincorporated area, the Department disaggregates population estimates into 13 planning areas and 29 communities within those areas. The Department's 2010 estimates are developed from California Department of Finance (DOF) projections. The Department adjusts the DOF estimates to account for resource constraints and other factors affecting the pace and'amount of development likely to occur. The Department's estimates could change if additional information led to 1-18 June 21, 1991 Page II-1 Chapter H Jew Development Projections adjustments to the resource constraint assumptions, such as changes in water supply or sewer capacity. Population projections for incorporated areas are based on the most recent estimates from each city. In the case of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover City, and Paso Robles the estimates reflect buildout by 2010 based on current general plan capacities. In the case of the remaining cities (Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo), the estimates reflect partial buildout by 2010. Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo are the only cities that include annexations in their projections. In addition, these two cities and Pismo Beach are currently revising their general plans, and the 2010 projections may change as a result. Individual population estimates for each city are presented in Appendix A. Although there exists uncertainty with any population projections, differences between projections and actual outcomes usually do not affect development impact fee levels. Fees are unaffected because they typically are based on per capita requirements for new facilities. Inother words, less new development requires fewer new facilities but also generates less impact fee revenue, so the fee per housing unit remains unaffected. We allocated population projections into three categories by housing type: single-family, multi-family, and group quarters (school dorms, correctional institutions, etc.). We assumed that population would grow at the same rate in the single- and multi-family categories. The group quarters 1990 estimate was held constant for the 20-year period based on the current plans of major institutions in the County, including California Polytechnic University' and the California Mens Colony. 1Cal Poly expects full-time enrollment to grow 16 percent during the next twenty years but currently has no plans to expand on-campus housing, thus this enrollment growth is included in the dwelling unit projections. 1- Iq June 21, 1991 Page H-2 i Chapter II - New Development Projections Population projections for 1990 to 2010 by housing type are shown in Tables II-1 and 11-2. Countywide population is projected to grow 38 percent, while unincorporated area population is projected to grow slightly less at 34 percent. TABLE II-1 COUNTYWIDE POPULATION BY HOUSING TYPE Single-Family 157,000 220,300 63,300 Multi-Family 46,500 65;700 19,200 Group Quarters 139600 13,600 0 Total 215,100 299,600 82,500 TABLE II-2 UNINCORPORATED AREA POPULATION BY HOUSING TYPE Housing Jae 1990 7010 Growth Single-Family 64,300 89,100 24,800 Multi-Family 14,500 20,200 5,700 Group Quarters 11,300 11,300 0 Total 90100 120.60030 500 Source: County Planning & Building Department; Recht Hausrath &Associates. HOUSING Housing growth was estimated based on the population projections presented above and estimated persons per dwelling unit. Persons per dwelling unit equals persons per household adjusted for vacancy rates. Annually, DOF estimates average persons per household and vacancy rates. Based on DOF's January 1, 1990 estimates we developed an assumption for each of the two housing types. These assumptions were held constant for the 20-year projections period. Estimates of housing growth in the County from 1990 through 2010 are presented iri Tables H-3 and II-4. June 21, 1991 Page II-3 Chapter II rew Development Proiections TABLE II-3 COUNTYWIDE HOUSING GROWTH 1990 to 2010 Single- Multi- Family Family Total Population 63,300 199200 82,500 Persons Per Dwelling 2.73 1.57 2.33 Dwelling Units 23 200 12,200 35,400 ' TABLE II-4 UNINCORPORATED AREA HOUSING GROWTH (1990 to 2010 Single- Multi- Family Family Total Population 24,800 5,700 30,500 Persons Per Dwelling 2.70 1.54 . 236 Dwelling Units 9,200 3,700 12 900 Source: Recht Hausrath &Associates. EMPLOYMENT Unlike population, estimates for employment growth were not available for the 20-year planning period. We developed estimates based on the historical relationship between population and employment during the past 17 years. Employment as a percent of population has remained relatively constant, particularly recently from 1983 to 1990. This result is consistent with the fact that the County is largely a self-contained employment market, i.e. most of the County's employed residents work in the County and not outside of it. Based on this historical trend analysis, we projected that employment would average 35 percent of population countywide from 1990 to 2010. The historical employment data was not available for the unincorporated area alone, so we had to estimate employment based on data available from several cities. This data showed that employment was a June 21, 1991 Page II-4 Chanter 11 N,w Development Projections higher percent of population in the cities than for the County as a whole. This result is reasonable because cities tend to be employment centers. Based on.this data we estimated that employment as a percent of population would be 24 percent in the unincorporated areas, while it would average 41 percent among all seven cities. Individual employment estimates for each city are presented in Appendix A. To calculate countywide transportation facilities required to accommodate new non- residential development, we needed projections for square footage of new building space by land use. (See Chapter M.) The three nonresidential land use categories used throughout the report for allocating facilities costs are: office, retail and industrial. We allocated total projected growth in countywide employment was allocated to each land use category based on the existing allocation of employment throughout the County.' Next, we converted employment by land use into a projection of building space using employment density factors. Office space is considered the most dense at an average of 300 square feet per employee. Retail development averages 500 square feet per employee. Industrial space is the least dense with an average of 700 square feet per employee. Table U-5 presents countywide employment projections and the projected increase in non-residential building space based on these employment density factors. lAllocation based on actual 1989 countywide employment from Annual Planning Information, California Economic Development Department,August 1990. �-zz June 21, 1991 Page 11-5 Chapter II i4ew Development Proiections TABLE II-5 COUNTYWIDE EMPLOYMENT AND BUILDING SPACE GROWTH Building Employment Sq. Ft. Land Use 1990 2010 Growth 1990-2010 Office 409400 559800 159400 4,620,000 Retail 21,500 29,700 81200 47100,000 Industrial 13,500 18,600 5,100 3,5709000 Total 75,400 104,100 28,70012,2903 000 Source: Recht Hausrath &Associates. SERVICE POPULATION Employment is added to population to calculate total service population. Service population is used in the Financing Plan to represent total demand for county facilities for those facilities that serve both resident and employment populations. The growth in population, employment, and service population from 1990 to 2010 is shown in Tables II-6 and II-7. TABLE II-6 COUNTYWIDE SERVICE POPULATION 1990 '2010 (Irrowth Population 217,100 299,600 82,500 Employment 75,400 104,100 28,700 Service Po ulation 292,500 01700 111-200 TABLE II-7 UNINCORPORATED AREA SERVICE POPULATION 1990 2010 Growth Population 90,100 120,600 30,500 Employment 21,600 29,000 7,400 Service Population 111,700 149,600 372900:1 Source: Recht Hausrath &Associates. June 21, 1991 Page II-6 CHAPTER III FUNDING ALTERNATIVES This Public Facilities Financing Plan is concerned with the provision of the capital facilities necessary to accommodate growth. This chapter provides an overview of the funding alternatives available to the County for the provision of these facilities. Particular alternatives as they apply to different facilities are discussed more fully in the individual facility chapters of this Plan. The alternatives summarized here include: Development Impact Fees Redevelopment Tax .Increment Developer Exactions Special Assessments General Taxes Special Taxes Mello-Roos Special Taxes Standby Charges, Connection Fees, etc. Motor Vehicle License Fees State and Federal Grants Property and Sales Taxes User Charges Public/Private Partnerships Of primary concern to the County is the impact of new development on the demand for public facilities. Additionally, with the exception of development impact fees and developer required improvements, the alternatives listed above also can fund facilities to serve the existing service population. A brief summary of financing mechanisms available to the County follows the review of funding alternatives. Specific mechanisms are also identified in the discussion for each funding alternative. Financing mechanisms are ways of obtaining funds to pay for facilities, e.g. bonds, whereas, funding alternatives identify who has financial responsibility for the facilities, e.g. the developer, taxpayers or users. The financing mechanisms reviewed in this chapter include: Assessment District Bonds Mello-Roos District Bonds Certificates of Participation Revenue Bonds General Obligation Bonds June 21, 1991 Page III-1 Chapter III Funding Altematives FUNDING ALTERNATIVES Development Impact Fees 1. Description Development impact fees are fees charged to new development to pay for the additional public facilities needed to serve it Impact fees have become the favored method in California and other states such as Florida and Colorado of funding additional facilities in high growth cities. Only since 1990 have counties in California begun to consider impact fees for regional (county-wide) facilities. In all cases the types of facilities covered and the amounts charged vary. California law allows local jurisdictions to charge impact fees to new development to cover the capital cost of providing the services it requires' Assembly Bill 1600, as codified.in General Code 66000 et seq. and case law provide well defined guidelines for impact fees. In general, a direct causal relationship ("nexus") between the new development and the facilities needed must be demonstrated, and the fees charged must not exceed the cost of the planned facilities and must be used solely for that purpose. 2. Tvne of Facilities Impact fees can be charged for any type of public facilities including: utilities; transportation improvements such as streets, highways and transit; parks; open space; fire stations; libraries; justice facilities; etc. 3. A r v The County can adopt fees by majority vote of the Board of Supervisors and impose them unilaterally in unincorporated areas. Implementation of regional impact fees requires the agreement of all incorporated cities in the region because only cities can impose fees on development within their jurisdictions. 4. Financing Mechanisms Impact fees are usually collected when building permits are issued. Fee revenues are accumulated until sufficient funds are available to build a project on a pay- as-you-go basis. Impact fees themselves may be financed by the creation of a special assessment district or Mello-Roos district under the sponsorship of a government agency. Certificates of Participation (COPS) are another financing method applicable to an impact fee program. These mechanisms enable projects to be built sooner than the pay-as-you-go method. /'45 June 21, 1991 Page III-2 Chapter III Funding Alternatives 5. Advantages a. Ease of collection b. Equitably allocates cost of facilities based on impact C. May improve public's willingness to fund improvements to existing facilities because new development will be funding its share d. May be adjusted frequently to reflect new cost estimates, additional facilities, improved levels of service, and other changes e. No voter approval required , f. Not affected by Gann limit g. By imposing fees at building permit issuance, all development pays its fair share even if no other governmental approvals are required. 6. Disadvantages a. Can fund only new development's share of projected needs and thus may only cover a small percentage of the total need depending on the level of existing deficiencies b. Pay-as-you-go financing of facilities with impact fees may cause long delays before sufficient funds have accumulated C. Agreement of all cities required to implement regional impact fees. d. Payment of impact fees cannot reflect the ability to pay, thus a flat rate fee on a single family home would have a greater impact on lower cost housing. e. Cannot be used for operating costs and therefore might result in facilities built for which operations and maintenance costs are insufficient L Higher building costs may increase prices to end user/final owner; this might, in turn, diminish competitiveness of business climate, thus affecting job creation and the region's continued economic growth. g. Potential developer opposition due to high cost of financing fees with construction loans between issuance of a building permit and the sale of the property Developer Exactions 1. Descril2tion Many subdivisions or other types of large development projects require expanded facilities. In such cases where new infrastructure is either dedicated to serving a single project or the development will require a large portion of the facility's capacity, developers may be required to dedicate the facility or pay for a large part of its construction cost in order to obtain approval for the project. While impact fees discussed previously are a form of exaction, the funding source discussed here concerns a developer's financing and up-front "dedication" of l—J2, June 21, 1991 Page I1I-3 Chapter III r Funding Alternatives facilities. A developer must be given credit towards any impact fees that would fund the same facilities provided by the dedication. There are common and somewhat overlapping methods of requiring developer provision of facilities: (1) dedications, (2) subdivision ordinance requirements, and (3) environmental impact report (EIR) mitigation requirements. Dedications are facilities built by the developer as a condition of receiving a permit to develop the land. For example, the local jurisdiction may require a sewer treatment plant, a branch library, a fire station, a freeway overpass, or some other type of facility that will serve the specific development. Most cities and counties require a minimum amount of improvements of all new development through their subdivision ordinance and general plan. These requirements usually include improvements to the project's adjacent streets, sewer laterals, and landscaping. The EIR process requires a developer to identify all impacts and to formulate mitigation measures. The measures may include provision of facilities required by the subdivision ordinance or funded with impact fees. While complete credit must be given for any overlapping facilities, developers may be required to provide facilities not included in the subdivision ordinance 'or impact fee program. 2. Type of Facilities All types of public facilities can be. provided through developer exactions including. streets, libraries, parks, fire stations, etc. 3. A1212roval Developer exaction requirements are adopted by majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. 4. Financing Mechanisms The facilities required may be financed through the creation of a Mello-Roos district or special assessment district or by the issuance of Certificates of Participation. .lune 21, 1991 Page III-4 Chapter III Funding Altematives .r . 5. Advantages a. May improve public's willingness to fund improvements to existing facilities because new development will be funding its share b. No voter approval required C. Not affected by Gann limit 6. Disadvantages a. Higher building costs may increase prices to end user/final owner; this might, in turn, diminish competitiveness of business climate, thus affecting job creation and the reg'ion's continued economic growth. b. Not all development projects are large enough to trigger exaction requirements. Genend Taws 1. Descril2tfon General taxes include business license taxes, utility taxes, and transient occupancy taxes. Property and sales taxes are also general taxes but are discussed separately. 2. Type of Facilities Those facilities which provide a general benefit to the public and/or have broad public support would be the most likely candidates for funding with a tax increase. Open space, justice facilities and .libraries share some of these characteristics. 3. Approval Approval by a majority of the legistlative body of the local agency is required to impose or raise a general tax. 4. . Financing Mechanisms As with general sources of revenues, special taxes can be used to service debt. One of the more common methods are certificates of participation. 5. Advantages a. Does not require voter approval b. Can be used to fund a wide variety of public facilities 40 June 21, 1991 Page III-5 Chapter III Funding Altematives C. Appropriate source of funds for facilities of general benefit, such as open space, justice facilities, animal control, etc. 6. Disadvantages a. Tax increases are unpopular in general Mello-Roos District Special Taws 1. es ' 'ti n The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the "Mello-Roos Act") permits any city or county, special district, school district, or any other municipal corporation or district to establish a community facilities district under the Mello-Roos Act to finance facilities, a specified group of services, and operation and maintenance expenses for a limited category of facilities through the levy of a special tax that is approved by two-thirds of the qualified voters. Mello-Roos allows considerable flexibility in structuring the special tax. The tax can be levied on the basis of physical property characteristics (e.g., lot size, acreage, building size) or other criteria that relate the tax levy to benefits received from the financed facilities. The tax may not be ad valorem or related to income or retail sales. Because the tax can be adjusted annually, to account for the amount of development and the facility needs of each development project within the district, the burden of the tax can be spread equitably over initial property owners and developers as well as future owners of homes and non-residential property. This feature of Mello-Roos financing may be attractive to developers and property owners who would otherwise have to pay impact fees or incur the full cost of exactions in order to develop their property. Furthermore, the developer does not have to include the capital cost of the Mello-Roos assessment in the asking price of the property, as-is required in the case of a special assessment. Rather, the developer informs the buyer of what to expect as a maximum annual Mello-Roos tax. A savvy buyer may then calculate the equivalent capital cost of the Mello-Roos tax. Regardless of these differences in disclosure, a lender will evaluate a potential buyer's ability to pay the additional debt service of either a special assessment or a Mello-Roos tax. 2. Type of Facilities Virtually all facilities that a local agency is authorized to construct and own can be paid for by Mello-Roos special taxes. In this respect, the Act is more flexible than special assessment districts. Mello-Roos can be used to finance facilities that have substantial public benefits, whereas special assessment districts are limited to facilities that impart benefits largely confined to the properties being !-Z9 June 21, 1991 Page III-6 Chapter III Funding Alternatives assessed. The types of facilities that may be funded under the Mello-Roos Act include parks, open space, schools, libraries, water and sewer facilities, and transportation, among others. 3. Approval The district may finance facilities on a "pay as you go basis, through the levy of a. special tax, until the facilities are constructed. Alternatively, it may issue bonds, use the proceeds to (mance the facilities and repay the bonds with the' special tax that it levies. The authorization to issue bonds must also be approved by a 2/3 vote of the qualified voters voting in an election. The voter approval requirement greatly inhibits the ability of local government to use Mello-Roos in existing developed areas. In largely undevelopedareas approval by two-thirds of the property owners (one vote per acre owned) is necessary. The latter situation results in an enhanced ability to levy Mello-Roos taxes and secure bond financing in districts where sizable acreage is owned by a few cooperative land owners. 4. Financing Mechanisms Facilities are financed by the sale of"Mello-Roos" bonds secured by a special tax levied against real estate to make the principal and interest payments. 5. Advantages a. Wide variety of eligible facilities b. Separate Gann limit adopted for district C. Provides secure source of revenue d. Timely financing of facilities relative to impact fees and other pay-as-you- go financing e. Tax adjusted annually f. Assessments may conform more closely to the ability-to-pay rather than based strictly on impact per capita g. Developers may prefer Mello-Roos to special assessment because the cost of a property must include the capital cost of the assessment but not the capital cost of the Mello-Roos tax. 6. Disadvantages a. Two-thirds vote required by landowners or voters b. Large districts may be administratively cumbersome C. Notice process is complex d. Taxes approved by developer/property owners may be misunderstood by subsequent homeowner/taxpayers June 21, 1991 Page III-7 Chapter III Funding Alternatives e. Requirement for ownership by the government agency that is setting up district, (e.g., joint powers agency) Motor Vehicle License Fees 1. Description Increases in motor vehicle license fees may provide an expedient and reasonably equitable means of funding regional transportation improvements. 2. Type of Facilities Motor vehicle license fees can be used to fund transportation improvements. 3. Approval Ordinarily an increase in a state-subvened tax in a county requires both enabling legislation and local voter approval. However, voter approval may not be required if the revenue increase is structured as a service fee. State enabling legislation would be necessary to pursue this option. 4. Financing Mechanisms As with any other source of general funds, motor vehicle license fees can be used to service debt. One of the more common methods are certificates of participation. 5. Advantages a. Ease of Collection b. Allocates cost of facilities to users 6. Disadvantages a. May require voter approval b. Can only be used for certain types of projects McIIo-Roos District Special Tares 1. Description The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the "Mello-Roos Act") permits any city or county, special district, school district, or any other municipal corporation or district to establish a community facilities district under the lune 21, 1991 Page III-8 Chapter III Funding Altematives Mello-Roos Act to finance facilities, a specified group of services, and operation and maintenance expenses for a limited category of facilities through the levy of a special tax that is approved by two-thirds of the qualified voters. Mello-Roos allows considerable flexibility in structuring the special tax. The tax can be levied on the basis of physical property characteristics (e.g., lot size, acreage, building size) or other criteria that relate the tax levy to benefits received from the financed facilities. The tax may not be ad valorem or related to income or retail sales. Because the tax can be adjusted annually to account for the amount of development and the facility needs of each development project within the district, the burden of the tax can be spread equitably over initial property owners and developers as well as future owners of homes and non-residential property. This feature of Mello-Roos financing may be attractive to developers and property owners who would otherwise have to pay impact fees or incur the full cost of exactions in order to develop their property. Furthermore, the developer does not have to include the capital cost of the Mello-Roos assessment in the asking price of the property, as is required in the case of a special assessment. Rather, the developer informs the buyer of what to expect as a maximum annual Mello-Roos tax. A savvy buyer may then calculate the equivalent capital cost of the Mello-Roos tax. Regardless of these differences in disclosure, a lender will evaluate a potential buyer's ability to pay the additional debt service of either a special assessment or a Mello-Roos tax. 2. Type of Facilities Virtually all facilities that a local agency is authorized to construct and own can be paid for by Mello-Roos special taxes. In this respect, the Act is more flexible than special assessment districts. Mello-Roos can be used to finance facilities that have substantial public benefits, whereas special assessment districts are limited to facilities that impart benefits largely confined to the properties being assessed. The types of facilities that may be funded under the Mello-Roos Act include parks, open space, schools, libraries. water and sewer facilities, and transportation, among others. 3. Approval The district may finance facilities on a "pay as you go" basis, through the levy of a special tax, until the facilities are constructed. Alternatively, it may issue bonds, use the proceeds to finance the facilities and repay the bonds with the special tax that it levies. The authorization to issue bonds must also be approved by a 2/3 vote of the qualified voters voting in an election. The voter approval requirement greatly inhibits the ability of local government to use Mello-Roos in existing developed areas. In largely undeveloped areas /-3,2- June 21, 1991 Page III-9 Chapter III Funding Alternatives approval by two-thirds of the property owners (one vote per acre owned) is necessary. The latter situation results in an enhanced ability to levy Mello-Roos taxes and secure bond financing in districts where sizable acreage is owned by a few cooperative land owners. 4. Financing Mechanisms Facilities are financed by the sale of"Mello-Roos" bonds secured by a special tax levied against real estate to make the principal and interest payments. 5. Advantages a. Wide variety of eligible facilities b. Separate Gann limit adopted for district C. Provides secure source o€-revenue d. Timely financing of facilities relative to impact fees and other pay-as-you- go financing e. Tax adjusted annually L Assessments may conform more closely to the ability-to-pay rather than based strictly on impact per capita g. Developers may prefer Mello-Roos to special assessment because the cost of a property must_ include the capital cost of the assessment but not the capital cost of the Mello-Roos tax. 6. Disadvantages a. Two-thirds vote required by landowners or voters b. Large districts may be administratively cumbersome C. Notice process is complex d. Taxes approved by developer/property owners may be misunderstood by subsequent homeowner/taxpayers e. Requirement for ownership by the government agency that is setting up district, (e.g., joint powers agency) P�qperty and Sales Taxer 1. Description Property .taxes and sales taxes are local government's two most important revenue sources. However, the ability to raise revenue and secure long-term debt from the sources is severely constrained. 2. Type of Facilities June 21, 1991 Page III-10 Chapter III Funding Altematives Those facilities which provide a general benefit to the public and/or have broad public support would be the most likely candidates for funding with a tax increase. Open space, justice facilities and libraries share some of these characteristics. 3. Apl2roval Local public agencies are authorized to increase ad valorem property taxes provided the revenue increase is used to pay bonded indebtedness on public facilities and two-thirds voter approval is obtained. A two-thirds vote is also required for a sales tax increase unless a new local agency is created to administer the purposes of the tax increase, in which case only a simple majority vote may be required. 4. Financing Mechanism. General obligation bonds or sales tax revenue bonds are used to finance public facility improvements in conjunction with property and sales tax increases. Debt service is paid from the tax increases. 5. Advantages a. Can be used to fund a wide variety of public facilities b. Appropriate source of funds for facilities of general benefit, such as open space, justice facilities, animal control, etc. C. General obligation bonds have a strong credit rating; least costly method of financing d. Familiar process with minimal administrative problems e.. Financing with general obligation bonds not subject to Gann limit 6. Disadvantages a. Requires two-thirds voter approval with the exception of a general tax for transportation funding through a JPA b. Subject to debt limitation Public/Private Partnerships 1. Descril2tion Public/private partnerships are negotiated case-by-case between local agencies and private entities to jointly fund and share the benefits of new facilities. Value capture is one type of public/private partnership which involves the private sector compensating a public agency for the cost of a facility that generates economic value. In the case of transportation projects, for example, June 21, 1991 Page III-11 Chapter III Funding Alternatives interchanges, new freeways, and public transit stations create adjacent markets for new development. The public agency constructing the new facilities may rapture value created with any of the following methods: Special assessment districts surrounding the facility Joint public-private development of adjacent sites including ground leases, sale, rentals or other partnership methods Traffic impact fee benefit district Tax increment financing districts Transportation utility fee districts Sale of access rights or capacity rights Pre-purchase and subsequent sale or lease of real estate (e.g., air rights over depressed freeway) Windfall profit tax on real estate transactions in special highway districts Development dedications, exactions and concessions, including developer provision of. right-of-way, front-end "seed" money or venture capital, collateral to improve credit worthiness, direct loans, equity positions in the facility project, and guaranteed participation in assessment district 2. Za2e of Facilities Roads and public transportation facilities are the most common type of facilities funded with value capture methods. The definition of value capture may be expanded to include all types of public/private partnerships. For example, funding and operation of waste-to-energy plants, recycling centers, extraction of natural gas from landfills, and airport concessions may allbe considered methods of value. capture. 3. Approval The public agency with jurisdiction over the project may negotiate public/private partnerships. Such agencies may,be joint powers agencies (JPA) appointed by elected officials. June 21, 1991 Page III-12 Chapter 111 Funding,Alternatives 4. Financing Mechanisms Financing mechanisms may be grouped into two general categories: equity participation devices and long-term debt instruments (public/private partnerships). Examples of equity participation devices include certificates of participation (COPS), property trust certificates, and common or preferred stock (i.e., public utility corporation of franchise company). The other group of financing mechanisms concern long-term debt instruments. Most traditional long-term debt requires serial payments of equal amounts over a 15 to 30 year period: general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, etc. Most toll road revenue streams are not flat, but rather come as an inclining stream of revenues and are therefore not as easily applied to the serial repayment schedule typical of most bonds. Recently, new long-term debt instruments that allow deferred payment financing have been used to leverage the inclining revenue stream of toll roads. 5. Advantages a. Leverages public sector funding with private investment for public facilities b. Only those that use or benefit are charged or taxed for the cost of the facility C. Spreads the risk of infrastructure investment to private sector d. May encourage more efficient location, construction and operation of public facilities e. Tolls or other cost recovery system may be priced to encourage conservation and most efficient use L Generates revenues for operations as well as capital funding g. Not subject to Gann limit, voter approval, or government budget constraints 6. Disadvantages a. Revenue stream may not be bondable b. Access charges (tolls) may exclude some potential users C. Bureaucracy required to monitor and manage private operators d. Only works for facilities that benefit a specific group of landowners e. Not suitable for most regional systems of pure "public goods" Redevelopment Tax Inclement 1. Description The formation of a redevelopment agency results in the ability of local governments to rapture and use property tax increments (the increase in assessed June 21, 1991 Page 111-13 Chapter III Funding Altematives value over time) for capital improvements and other costs within the redevelopment area. 2. Type of Facilities Redevelopment tax increment can be used for most public facilities provided that the project will ameliorate the blighted conditions of the project area. 3 Appro al . A redevelopment plan is adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 4. Financing Mechanisms Bonds can be sold or funds advanced to the redevelopment.agency to be repaid from property tax increment. 5. Advantages . a. If the conditions of redevelopment law are met, funds can be used for a wide variety of projects. 6. Disadvantages a. Redevelopment project area must be blighted b. Other taxing agencies do not fully benefit from increases in property tax revenues through the duration of redevelopment plan. C. Tax increment monies may only be spent inside the project area boundary (unless used for low and moderate income housing). Special Assessments 1. Descri tF ion The special assessment district is the traditional means of geographically isolating the financing of public facilities that benefit a particular area. A number of assessment acts, including the 1911, 1913 and 1915 Acts, and the 1972 Landscaping and Lighting Act, enable local agencies to construct or acquire public improvements, apportion the cost through assessments on benefiting properties in a designated district, and finance the improvements with bond issues. Special assessments levied on the basis of benefits received are not regarded as taxes and generally can be imposed on developed and undeveloped property without a public vote. x-37 June 21, 1991 Page 111-14 Chapter III Funding Alternatives The use of special assessments is limited to facilities that directly benefit the properties in the district. Facilities that provide only general public benefits cannot be financed through special assessments. Where both general and "localized" benefits will result from an improvement, the courts generally have upheld the validity of special assessments, although local agency contributions may be required to compensate the district for the general public's share of improvement costs. Public agencies in California have been reluctant to establish large special assessment districts, even though state law allows the formation of multi- jurisdictional assessment districts and the joint issuance of assessment bonds. This reluctance may be due to the difficulty, both practically and legally, in assessing the general public for facilities that serve a sub-regional population. 2. Twe of Facilities Assessment district funding can be used for a variety of public facilities including: water and sewer, transportation, parking, libraries, fire stations, storm drainage, landscaping and lighting, and parks, among others. 3. Approval Assessments can be levied on both developed and undeveloped property without voter approval. A majority protest by property owners to be assessed can, however, stop certain proceedings. Funding some types of regional facilities (e.g., solid waste facilities and open space) with assessment districts would require new state enabling legislation. 4. Financing Mechanisms Bonds are sold which are secured by assessments levied against real estate to produce the revenue to make the principal and interest payments. 5. Advantages a. Land secures assessment b. Recovers annual administration costs C. If assessment is less than approximately 12 cents per $1,000 of assessed value, then special assessment districts are not subject to Gann limits. d. Provides secure, reliable source of revenue e. May -accelerate provision of facilities (relative to pay-as-you-go funding) f. Can be used to fund existing deficiencies June 21, 1991 Page III-I5 Chapter III Funding Alternatives 6. Disadvantages a. Less suitable for regional facilities due to requirement for direct rather than general benefit. b. Likelihood for protest increases with broad regional application. . C. Large districts may be administratively cumbersome. d. Considered to be a tax if assessment is for facilities of region-wide benefit. Special Tares 1. Description Unlike general taxes, special taxes have a narrow base and single out a specific type of activity or transaction for taxation. Examples of special taxes include state-collected, locally-shared-taxes (subventions) on cigarettes, motor vehicle registrations, and gasoline and locally adopted taxes such as the transient occupancy tax on hotel/motel room bills, business license taxes, utility user taxes, and parking user taxes. Although these types of special takes may not be useful in funding major regional public facilities local agencies could impose or increase some of these taxes to increase revenues to the general fund. The increase in the general fund could then be used to fund facilities such as libraries which are a part of the regional system. 2. Type of Facilities Special taxes can fund all types of facilities. They are particularly appropriate for facilities with general benefit such as open space and justice facilities. 3. Approval An increase in state subvened taxes in San Luis Obispo County would require state enabling legislation and local voter approval, as would a new countywide special tax for regional facilities. Charter cities have the authority to increase certain special taxes without voter approval. 4. Financing Mechanisms As with general sources of revenues, special taxes can be used to service debt. One of the more common methods are certificates of participation. 5. Advantaizes a. Can be used to fund a wide variety of facilities June 21, 1991 Page III-16 Chapter III Funding Alternatives 6. Disadvantages a. Requires voter approval b. May only be used for specific purposes Standby Charges; Connection Fees and Capacity Charges 1. Description These charges are most often used in association with utility systems (e.g., sewer and water). In the majority of situations, a connection or capacity-charge is merely another name for an impact fee and the procedure followed for its design and implementation is identical. In some cases, the local agency's existing infrastructure will have additional capacity that may be made available to new development: Standby charges, connection fees and capacity charges are therefore appropriate for reimbursing the local jurisdiction for existing capacity available for new development. These charges are "buy-in" fees levied on new development for its fair share of existing facilities. These fees must be based on their net cost to the existing population. Since the existing facilities are not new, some depreciation should be incorporated into the 'buy-in" fees. In addition, the cost of the available capacity that the buy-in fees are based on must be net of any subsidies, grants and other inter-governmental transfers. However, these 'buy-in" fees are usually not preferable to impact fees in cases where new facilities must be constructed to accommodate growth. If sufficient capacity does not exist in the existing infrastructure, then the jurisdiction cannot simultaneously charge. a buy-in fee and an impact fee to pay for enlarging the system; if new development has purchased existing capacity then it does not need new capacity to accommodate it. Standby charges are assessed on the basis that the property assessed is capable of being served by the agency making the charge and should therefore participate in the cost of capital improvements necessary to make the service available. Standby charges are assessed on an acreage or parcel basis for those parcels less than an acre. They do not bear any relationship to the use of the service. Connection fees and capacity chargec are charges which can be used to recover costs for the capacity developed for new service. These types of fees are similar to impact fees in that a benefit must be demonstrated. Such charges are typically used to reimburse the local jurisdiction for the construction cost of the facilities. 2. Type of Facilities The types of facilities that can be financed with these types of fees include capital improvements for sewer and water services. June 21, 1991 Page 111-17 Chapter III Funding Alternatives 3. Approval Standby charges, connection fees and capacity charges require state legislative authority. 4. Financing Mechanisms. Funding sources such as standby charges, connection fees and capacity charges can be used to finance facilities using certificates of participation. They can also be used to build facilities on a pay-as-you-go basis. 5. Advantages a. Charge new development for their share of available rapacity in existing facilities b. No voter approval required 6. Disadvantages a. Revenues from connection fees are considered unreliable and difficult to estimate as they depend on the amount of new development and other political and economic factors. State and Federal Grar& 1. Description State and federal grants are made available through a wide variety of programs. Some grant programs are competitive while others are based on population or some other measure of need. The amount of discretion afforded the local agency over use of the grant also varies widely among programs. 2. Type of Facilities Grant programs fund numerous types of facilities, including jails,justice, libraries, parks, and transportation. 3. Aoroval The applicable state or federal agency awards the grant according to established criteria. In addition, the legislative body of the local agency receiving the grant must agree to the terms of grant. June 21, 1991 Page III-18 Chapter III Funding Alternatives 4. Financing Mechanisms Grants are not appropriate for financing because they are one-time and do not generate a recurring cash flow. 5. Advantaees a. Ease of collection and administration, assuming the local agency can get awarded the grant. 6. Disadvanta es a. Difficult to plan for and count on as a reliable source of funds. User Chmm 1. Description User charges are charges made to the beneficiary of a service to pay for either capital and/or operations and maintenance costs. Federal, state and local governments are beginning to impose user charges on a wide variety of "public" services. (e.g, Coast Guard rescue operations, bridge and road tolls, smog certificate, park entrance). 2. Type of Facilities User charges are typically used to fund water, sewerage, solid waste, energy and transportation facilities. Toxic and hazardous waste disposal are also funded by user fees. 3. Approval Increases in user charges can generally be made on an as needed basis by the governing agency (e.g., the County Water Authority and California Public Utilities Commission). No voter approval is necessary. 4. Financing Mechanisms Financing mechanisms used in conjunction with user charges include revenue bonds and certificates of participation. Revenues derived from user charges may be used to service bonds to- finance the capital cost of new facilities. The governing agency authority sets rates and charges which are sufficient to pay both operating expenses and service the debt for capital expenditures. June 21, 1991 Page III-19 Chapter III Funding Alternatives 5. Advantaees a. No voter approval required to impose or increase user charges b. Debt service may be paid from the revenues of the particular facility or enterprise C. Strong credit rating assured d. Reliable source of funding for operations and maintenance costs e. Charges may be structured to reflect time and quantity of use thus encouraging conservation and easing congestion. 6. Disadvantages a. Increases in user charges may be required for debt service on revenue bonds or lease payments for certificates of participation - b. Unpopularity of user charge increases can restrain their use by elected officials FINANCING MECHANISMS Assessment&%Wd Bonds Special assessments provide a viable means of directly securing long-term debt on public facilities. The bonds sold are secured by assessments levied against real estate in the District which produce the revenue to make the principal and interest payments. The bond proceeds must be used for a public purpose, e.g. infrastructure, which directly benefits the assessed parcels. CP.rtiT=es of Participation Certificates of Participation (COPS) provide long-term financing through a lease, installment sale agreement orloan loan agreement. This type of financing does not constitute indebtedness under the state-imposed debt limitation. To utilize this financing mechanism the local jurisdiction(e.g., city, county,JPA) forms a nonprofit corporation. The nonprofit corporation issues COPS representing a right to participate in the stream of lease payments made by the local jurisdiction which are related to the acquisition or construction of specific equipment, land or facilities. The nonprofit corporation then builds and leases the facilities to the local jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction's objective is to build the facility to accommodate new development, impact fees could be used to fund the lease payments. However, the local jurisdiction is committed to make up any shortfall that may occur due to insufficient impact fees. June 21, 1991 Page III-20 Chapter III Fundinz Alternatives General Obligation Bonds State enabling legislation allows local governments to issue general obligation bonds if so authorized by a two-thirds majority of those voting in a local election. These bonds are guaranteed by the full taxing power of the government unit and therefore carry a relatively low risk of default and relatively low interest rate. The Government Code does set a debt limitation for the bonds, however. General obligation bonds may be used to acquire, construct or improve real property but cannot be use for operations and maintenance or to purchase equipment. Mello-Roos District Bonds Cities, counties and other local government entities, including joint powers agencies, are authorized to use Mello-Roos financing within their jurisdictions. The facilities financed, however, must be owned by the government entity that forms the district. Regional public facilities by definition serve more than one jurisdiction. Although the Mello-Roos Act does not specifically authorize inter jurisdictional community facility districts, it does not preclude two or more local agencies working together to establish separate but coterminous districts, as long as the regional facilities financed in each district are owned by the government entity forming the district. Alternatively, a joint powers agency (JPA) could be created for the purpose of establishing multi- jurisdictional districts. The facilities financed by the JPA, however, would have to be owned by the JPA, as an independent entity. Mello-Roos districts may be used as a substitute financing mechanism to impact fees, whereby the assessments are paid in lieu of fees. Taking this approach one step further, a Mello-Roos district could be set up to finance all the facilities that would otherwise be funded through a city, county, or regional fee program. This approach would require all new development within the area served by the facilities to annex to the Mello-Roos district; thus, the first new development project would form the first pan of an "expandable" district, and subsequent new development would be added to the district. Because properties do not have to be coterminous to be part of the "expandable" Mello-Roos district, the district could include new development throughout San Luis Obispo County. An expandable Mello-Roos District would delay issuance of bonds until the pool of property owners grew large enough to generate a sufficient cash flow. The Mello-Roos Act appears to have the most potential in largely undeveloped areas where the property owners agree to cooperate in the provision of the facilities needed to develop their property. The facilities funded could be either local-serving, or a portion of a region-serving system such as libraries, transportation, open space, sewer June 21, 1991 Page 111-21 Chapter 111 Funding Alternatives or water. A Mello-Roos District could be set up to finance either the payment of development impact fees or substitute for a fee program in the form of an "expandable" Mello-Roos. Revenue Bands Revenue bonds are backed solely from enterprise earnings that are generated by the project The advantages of revenue bonds include the indirect assessment of interest costs to the direct users of the facility and the exemption of this type of bond from the state-imposed legal debt ceiling. The disadvantages include the higher interest rates required because of the unguaranteed status and additional management control required to attract investors. _ If use to fund the construction of facilities to accommodate new development, the county would want to structure payments from new development so that they would be available for the debt service payments. It will therefore presumably wish to require the developers to provide guarantees that adequate payments will be made. For example, if debt is issued for expensive major wastewater collection facilities assuming that sewer user surcharges will provide revenues for debt service, then the county would wish developers to guarantee surcharge revenue for at least a large portion of the debt service. June 21, 1991 Page 111-22 CHAPTER IV FIRE This chapter examines the need for, and financing of, additional fire and emergency service facilities in the unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County. Cities are excluded from this analysis because they provide these services and facilities separately. In addition, five of the eight independent fire districts serving unincorporated areas are also excluded, as explained below. The County Fire Department serves the majority of the unincorporated area, except areas served"by eight independent fire districts.' By agreement with the County, three of these districts and their service areas are included in the service area analyzed by this chapter. These agencies include the Cambria Community Services District, the Cayucos Fire Protection District, and the San Miguel Fire Protection District. If the County imposes a fire facilities impact fee, then the fee will be collected from new development in the unincorporated areas served by the County Fire Department and these three districts. This analysis excludes the remaining five independent fire districts and new development in their service areas would not be subject to the impact fee calculated in this chapter. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES The County Fire Department provides structural fire protection and emergency services in all unincorporated areas, except areas served by the independent fire agencies, as mentioned above. The County contracts for these services with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), which it has done since 1930. llncludes three fire protection districts, three community service districts, one county service area, and one water district that provides fire service. June 21, 1991 Page IV-1 Chapter N Fire In 1990 the Department employed 15 permanent (full-time) firefighters and 165 paid-call firefighters.' These personnel staffed 13 fire stations located throughout the Department's service area. One additional station in the Nipomo Mesa area is under construction and will be completed by January 1992. In addition, the Department employed 15 full-time and two part-time administrative personnel. These personnel staffed the Department's headquarters (Station 12) which includes the emergency operations center, office, warehouse, and mechanical shop. The Department also has a training facility with classrooms and outlying structures used for fire simulation and training exercises. With these and other facilities the Department provides limited services countywide to all fire districts and municipal fire departments. These services include training, fire prevention and investigation, auto aid, and mutual aid dispatch. The three fire districts employ personnel to staff four additional stations (Cambria Community Services District has two stations). In addition, all the districts have mutual aid agreements with the County. The vehicle stock of the Department and the three fire " districts includes 41 engines, squads, and other emergency and support vehicles. Attachment IV-1 at the end of this chapter provide more detailed information on these agencies existing building space and vehicle stock. CDF operates and staffs nine additional stations dedicated solely to wildland fires.2 New development will not generate additional needs for wildland fire suppression, so these CDF facilities are not considered here: 1Paid-call firefighters are volunteers that receive a nominal stipend for training and responding to calls as requested ZFve of these stations are co-located with five of the stations described in the preceding paragraph. June 21, 1991 Page IV-2 Chanter IV Fire PROJECTIONS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT The estimated increase in service population (resident population plus employment) over the next 20 years for County Fire and the three fire districts is shown in Table IV-1. As shown, an estimated 32,400 residents and employees will need services and associated facilities from these agencies. The source for these projections if fully described in Chapter EL Refer to Appendix A for a detailed list of population and employment projections by community for those unincorporated areas included in this analysis. TABLE IV-1 FIRE SERVICE POPULATION 1990 2010 Change Population 64,300 90,400 26,100 Employment 15,400 21,700 6,300 Service Po ulation 79.700 112,100 32 400 Source: County Planning and Building Department; Recht Hausrath & Associates. FACILITIES STANDARDS Existing facilities standards were developed separately for building space and vehicles. The standards are based on the existing facilities detailed in Attachment IV-1 at the end of this chapter, and the 1990 service population presented above. The building space standard is 871 square feet per 1,000 capita. The vehicle standard is 0.51 vehicles per 1,000 capita. FACILITIES NEEDS The Department has developed a preliminary list of facilities required to accommodate both new and existing development through 2010. These facilities are detailed in Appendix B. The growth projections shown in Table IV-1 and the facilities standards discussed above determine new development's fair share of these total facilities needs. y J June 21, 1991 Page IV-3 �/ Chapter IV Fire Facility costs are based on $200 per gross building square feet, which is the actual cost of Station 22 currently under construction. This figure includes all costs for a "turnkey" project such as architect and engineering, furnishings and equipment, construction management, and all related permit approval and utility connection fees. The cost does not include land or vehicles. Land costs are assumed to be $50,000 per acre for the rural locations in which these . facilities are located. Based on a prototype station of 4,000 square feet on two acres, this equals $25 per building square foot for land. Total building costs, including $200 for construction and $25 for land, are therefore $225 per gross building square foot. Vehicles are assumed to cost an average of $121,000 each based on the value of the existing rolling stock (see Attachment IV-1, Table IV-5). Total costs of facilities necessary to accommodate new development from 1990 to 2010 are shown in Table IV-2. TABLE IV-2 FAcmxri S NEEDS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT (1990 to 2 Building Space (sq. ft.) Vehicles Total Facility Standard (per 1,000 capita) 871. 0.51 Total Facility Needsi 28,200 16.5 Cost Per Sq. Ft./Vehicle $225 $121,000 Total Facilities Cost $6,345,000 $1,996,500 $8 341:500 Based on a 20-year service population increase of 32,400. Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates. Jute 21, 1991 Page N-4 Chapter IV Fire FUNDING ALTERNATIVES Genend Fund Revenues As is the case with Station 22 now under construction, the County has typically funded new fire stations with general fund revenues. However, the general fund is under increasing pressure to maintain existing levels of service. As a result, the Department considers that additional sources of funds, such as impact fees, are necessary to finance new facilities to accommodate growth. Dedirions and &-lieu Mitigation Fees In the past, land for new stations has usually been dedicated by a developer or donated by another public agency. In addition, both the County and the fire districts have imposed in-lieu mitigation fees through the environmental impact review. process. If the County imposes a fire facilities impact fee then any subsequent dedications or in-lieu mitigation fees would be credited against the impact fee to the extent that the specific dedication or mitigation were included in the fee program. COST ALLOCATION AND IMPACT FEE CALCULATION In the case of fire protection and emergency services, the demand for new facilities is determined primarily by the number of new people (residents and employees) that move into the Department's service area. Although fire protection for property is a critical part of the Department's mission, the largest component of its workload is emergency medical responses to people. For example, during the last four years (1986 through 1989) emergency medical responses represented 39 percent of total responses, the largest single category of calls. Fire calls, on the other hand, represented 16 percent of total June 21, 1991 Page fV S Chapter N Fire responses.' (The remainder of responses were a combination of false alarms, smoke checks, fire menace, and other non-fire related calls.) Thus, new residents and employees are the primary determinant of the need for new fire facilities. And consequently, it is reasonable to allocate new facility costs to new development based on the number of new residents or employees generated by a specific project. Furthermore,each resident and worker is assumed to require the same amount of fire protection and emergency services. This is the same assumption used in Table N-2 to determine total facilities allocated to new development. Using this approach, the total cost of new facilities is $83 million, as shown in that table, divided by a new service population of 32,400, or $257 per capita. A thorough discussion of the impact of new development on the need for new facilities is presented in Attachment IV-2. To determine fee amounts for specific development projects, fees are calculated on a per dwelling unit basis for residential development, and on a square footage basis for non- residential development. Residents per dwelling unit and employees per square foot vary with the type of development, and the factors used here apply specifically to.the unincorporated area (see Chapter II). To fairly allocate costs fees must reflect this variance in demand for new facilities generated among projects. Development project categories based on service population densities, and their corresponding fees, are shown in Table N-3. If a fire impact fee is imposed, the County expects to keep fee revenue generated within each of the three fire districts in separate accounts. Expenditures from those accounts will be limited to expansion of facilities in the appropriate.district. 'Annual Report 1989, San Luis Obispo County Fire Department, p. 9. / 5i June 21, 1991 Page IV-6 Chapter IV Fire TABLE IV-3 FIRE FACILITIES IMPACT FEE Average Service Cost Per Fee Per Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit Residential Single-Family 2.70 per dwelling units $257 $694 Multi-Family' 1.54 per dwelling units 257 396 Non-Residential Office/High Density'- 3.33 per 1,000 sq. fL6 257 856 Retail/Medium Density3 2.00 per 1,000 sq. fL6 257 514 IndustrialLUw Densitv4 1.43 per 1,000 s . ft.6 257 368 Includes all structures in which two or more units are located on one lot. Attached units with a common wall that forms a property line are considered single-family dwellings. 2 Includes all development with more than 250 employees per 1,000 square feet. 3 Includes all development with 250 to 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. 4 Includes all development with less than 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. S Persons per dwelling unit based on CA Department of Finance estimates for 1 January 1990, and includes vacancy rates, Report E-5, 1 May 1990, p. 46. 6 Based on studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates. /-45Z June 21, 1991 Page IV-7 ATTACHMENT IV-1 EXISTING FIRE FACILITIES Table IV-4 presents a list of existing facilities and their building sizes owned by the County Fire Department and the three fire districts. The list only includes stations that primarily serve developed areas. Stations that primarily provide wildland fire suppression, all of which are owned and operated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, are not included. In the case of stations that are located in the same structure as another agency, only that portion of the station used by the County Fire Department or one of the three fire districts for structure fire protection is included. Vehicles currently owned by the County Fire Department and the three fire districts are shown in Table IV-5. Unit costs are based on replacement value given current vehicle standards. If the vehicle is significantly below standard, typically because of age, then replacement value is assumed to be 50 percent less. /-53 June 21, 1991 Page IV-8 Chapter IV Fire TABLE IV-4 EXISTING BUILDINGS Station Size Number Station Name (sq. ft.) County Fire Department 10 Cambria 5,058 12 San Luis Obispo/Hwy. 1 6,260 13 Avila Valley 800 14 Morro-Toro 1,200 20 Nipomo 5,750 21 SLO County Airport 4,372 22 Nipomo Mesal 3,640 31 Shandon 3,400 32 Templeton 1,700 33 Heritage Ranch 1,300 34 Oak Shores 3,600 40 Parkhill 5,250 42 Simmler 3,390 43 Creston 1,404 Headquarters 12,125 Training Facility 3,380 Cambria Comm. Svcs. Dist. 1 Cambria 2,130 2 Cambria 944 Cayucos Fire Prot. Dist. 2,880 San Miguel Fire Prot. Dist. 812 11 Total All Buildin s 69,395 1 Total station size is 4,000 square feet, but only 91 percent is funded with non-impact fee revenue sources, or 3,640 square feet. The station is under construction and will be completed by January 1992 Source: County Fire Department; Cambria Community Services District; Cayucos Fire Protection District; San Miguel Fire Protection District. Jute 21, 1991 Page IV-9 Chapter N Fire TABLE IV-5 EXISTING VEHICLES Agency Cost Total Vehicle Quantity Per Units Cost County Fire Department Engine 12 $210,000 $2,520,000 Engine2 1 105,000 105,000 Squad 6 70,000 420,000 Heavy Rescue 1 110,000 1109000 Crash 1 240,000 240;000 Utility 7 15,000 105,000 Cambria Comm. Svcs. Engine 2 210,000 420,000 Engine2 1 105,000 105,000 Squad 1 70,000 70,000 Utility 1 15,000 15,000 Cayucos Fire Prot. Dist Engine 2 210,000 420,000 Engine2 1 105,000 105,000 Squad 1 70,000 70,000 San Miguel Fire Prot Dist. Engine2 1 105,000 105,000 Squad 1 70,000 70,000 S uad2 2 35,000 70,000 Total 41 $121,000 $4,950,0001 Based on replacement value in 1990 dollars, including related equipment. Z These vehicles are significantly below standard, primarily because of age, so their value is assumed to be 50 percent of the value of a standard vehicle. Source: County Fire Department; Cambria Community Services District; Cayucos Fire Protection District; San Miguel Fire Protection District. /-55 June 21, 1991 Page N-10 ATTACHMENT IV-2 NEXUS BETWEEN NEW DEVELOPMENT AND FIRE FACILITIES The County Fire Department provides fire and emergency services through a network of stations, personnel, and equipment. This network operates in a service area covering about 3,300 square miles throughout the County. Based on adopted procedures, the Department responds to service calls throughout its service area in a systematic manner by most effectively utilizing all components of the network. For example, two engines, one squad, and one chief officer are the minimum response to a structure fire, which requires equipment and personnel from two stations. In addition, nearby engine companies must provide back-up by responding to additional calls in the area of the incident. This support may require moving an engine company to another station or a central location to provide more effective coverage during the incident. Larger incidents usually require utilization of more engine companies, which could include response from stations throughout a large portion of the service area. In this manner the Department's entire network of facilities and personnel respond as a single system depending on the size and type of incident. Whether new development locates near or far from an existing station, it will increase the calls for service from the nearest station. As a result, other stations must provide more back up service to the area. The increased calls generated by new development lower the probability that the first station's engine company will be available for calls within its immediate area, and lengthen the time required for response from a back-up station. As the first station responds to the increased number of calls, and other stations provide more back-up, the level of service throughout the system is effectively lowered. New development can be required to provide their fair share of the facilities (e.g. engine companies and the stations that house them) necessary to provide an adequate standard of fire department services. Thus, new development can be held responsible for June 21, 1991 Page IV-11 Chapter N Fire providing those additional needed facilities in the same proportion (e.g., engine companies per thousand service population) as existing development has provided. Moreover, this nexus between new development and the need for new facilities occurs regardless of whether new development locates immediately adjacent to an existing fire station or some distance away. Through its master plan, the Department establishes criteria for determining the expansion of existing stations and location of new stations. These criteria assist the Department in establishing priorities for the sequencing of capital projects. In this manner impact fee revenues are generated by new development throughout the County and used for the highest priority project at any given time. Over the twenty-year planning period for the fee program, total fee revenues finance facilities to maintain, at any given time, the most effective coverage of the entire service area in response to the location of new development. 57 June 21, 1991 Page N-12 CHAPTER V GENERAL GOVERNMENT & OTHER COUNTY FACILITIES DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES The county departments presented in this chapter provide a variety of direct services to residents and employees and support services to other county departments. They have been grouped together because their future facilities needs are based on common standards (building square feet and vehicles per capita). Furthermore, most of these departments' needs will increase at the rate of forecasted population growth during the next 20 years. Table V-1 lists the county departments analyzed in this chapter and their respective inventory of existing space. The space inventory shown in Table V-1 has been divided into owned and leased space because new development cannot be asked to pay for leased space with impact fees. With the exception of the animal regulation operations, Emergency Operations Center, County garage, some leased space for social services and the assessor's office, and the community room planned for the North County Regional Center, all of the County's office space is located in the City of San Luis Obispo. Table V-1 also shows department employees allocated to unincorporated and county- wide services. If impact fees are used to finance new facilities, separate facility standards must be developed for unincorporated areas versus county-wide facilities. We use the allocation of current department employees for this purpose. In addition to the building space described in Table V-1 below, the County also has an existing investment in vehicles. The County's motorpool for all departments totals 490 regular vehicles: 315 cars, 131 trucks and 44 vans. In addition, the County Engineering Department has about 185 vehicles, including trucks, sweepers, backhoes, etc., and the General Services Department has 24 pieces of equipment for park maintenance. June 21, 1991 Page V-I Chapter V General Govern ant & Other County Facilities TABLE V-1 SPACE INVENTORY Owned Leased Total Current Work Force' Function Space Space' Space Unincorporated County-wide Administrator 4,668 0 4,668 11 21 Animal Regulation 5,100 0 5,100 0 19 Assessor 79824 4,028 11,852 0 76 Auditor-Controller 4,314 384 4,698 15 22 Clerk-Recorder 7,626 1,840 99466 0 55 Community Room3 2,400 . 200 29600 0 0 Counsel 3,400 1,800 59200 8 15 Engineer 71600 2,075 9,675 191 12 Emergency Operations 11,544 880 129424 0 3 Environmental Coordinator •948 0 948 5 1 Garage 21,340 0 21,340 3 6 General Services 11,721 1,876 13,597 51 115 Personnel & Pension Trust 39379 0 39379 6 10 Planning 8,590 7,244 15,834 78 8 Technical Services 9,155 4,860 14,015 24 44 Treasurer 7,133 0 7,133 2 30 _ Social Servicess 319494 67,614 99,108 0 270 Veterans Services 2,170 0 2,170 0 6 TOTAL 1509406 929801 241,927 394 713 PERCENT 62% 38070 100% 367v; includes Social Services office space funded by State transfer payments and portion of community room that cannot be allocated to wdsting development for purposes of impact fees. 2For departments which provide support services to other county departments (county administrator, county counsel, garage, general services, personnel services, pension trust and technical services) the distribution of employment to unincorporated areas.versus county-wide is based on the-allocation for those departments which provide services directly: 36 percent unincorporated versus 64 percent county-wide. 3EAdsting development is allocated 800 square feet of space and 1,600 square feet in land value based on existing development's contribution to the North County Regional Center. 4Twenty-three of the General Services employees provide services directly to all county residents. The remaining 143 General Services employees were divided between county-wide and unincorporated areas based upon the 64/36 division of employees discussed above. SIncludes 56,000 square foot new building scheduled to be completed January 1993 and elimination of 39,267 square feet of leased space (9,654 square feet is allocated to existing development as owned space and 46,346 square feet is allocated as leased space). Also included under leased space is 6,628 square feet of modular units used for GAIN Program at Cuesta College Campus. Source: San Luis Obispo County; County Government Center Space Analysis, Personnel and Space, November 29, 1990; Recht Hausrath & Associates. Sq ��J 1 June 21, 1991 Page V-2 Chanter V General Gov mme 'Other Couniv Facilities EXISTING STANDARDS Existing facilities standards represent the amount of county facilities actually provided by existing development to serve its needs and include leased space. Fee standards, however, are based only on owned county facilities, i.e. space that represents a capital investment by the existing service population, residents and employees. Both are based on the 1990 county-wide service population of 292,500 and the unincorporated service population of 111,700. This chapter determines facilities needs based on fee standards as the County may choose to implement impact fees to finance new facilities. The existing fee standard is discussed in terms of space and vehicles per capita for departments in this chapter. An average fee standard was calculated to reflect the percentage of unincorporated and county-wide service populations. Thus, the average standard is 389 square feet of space per 1,000 residents and employees, and the regular vehicle standard is 13 vehicles for every 1,000 residents and employees. A standard for the vehicles and equipment used by the Engineering and General Services departments is measured in terms of the replacement cost for the machinery which is $8.6 million. This is equivalent to an average of $26 per capita. FACILITIES NEEDS The San Luis Obispo Department of General Services conducted a space analysis in November 1990, as referenced in Table V-1, to determine department needs in the County Government Center through the year 2005. The County Government Center is the central county administration facility and is located in downtown San Luis Obispo. The scope of the study represents 45 percent of the space shown in Table V-1. The analysis covered all but five of the departments included in this chapter and the community room. These departments are: Animal Regulation, County Garage, Emergency Operations Center, Social Services and Veterans Services and are not located in the Government Center. /—GO June 21, 1991 Page V-3 Chagter V General Government & Other County Facilities The space study determined the amount of square footage needed to accommodate new growth as well as enable the County to terminate existing contracts for leased space. Appendix B summarizes the results of the study and addresses the needs of the other departments discussed in this chapter. The facilities needs, based on existing fee standards, for all of the departments is calculated below. Fad To Serve New Development The additional space required to serve new development is calculated based on the weighted fee standard of 389 square feet per 1,000 residents and employees. . vY a feet o€iaW" am-additional- ea:.m or e - ta_ one-vehicle-m-4,009-QVita:, New development will also require an investment of $3.8 million for engineering and parks maintenance equipment. FACILITIES COST Facilities costs include building construction, land and vehicles. The cost per square foot for general office space is $175 based on estimates for the new social services building. The amount of land needed is based on a floor-area ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.45. This is the F.A.R. for the new social services building site at build-out. According to local realtors, land prices for those areas in which the County may locate new facilities range from $4 to $10 per square foot. An average land price of $7 per square foot is assumed to be reasonable in estimating future costs. Adjusted for a 0.45 F.A.R., the average cost of land is $16 per building square foot for new general government facilities. Thus, the combined construction and land cost for general government facilities is $191 per square foot. The total space needed to serve new development by 2010, 579931 square feet, will cost about $11 million.' June 21, 1991 Page V-4 Chapter V General Govemme.,a & Other County Facilities The County's motor pool will have to increase the size of its fleet by 189 vehicles over the next 20 years. Replacement costs for passenger cars range from $9,200 to $14,200. The cost of pick-up trucks ranges from $10,600 to $12,000 and for vans $16,600 to $17,000. Adjusting for the number of each type of vehicle results in a weighted average vehicle cost of $12,300. Based upon the existing fee standard, the total cost of 189 new vehicles is $23 million, all of which can be funded by impact fees. Based upon the per capita replacement cost for engineering and parks equipment of $77, new development will require an investment of $3.8 million for these facilities. Total costs for new facilities to serve new development are summarized in Table V-2. TABLE V-2 TOTAL FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS TO SERVE NEW DEVELOPMENT Total Facilities Cost Office Space' 57,831 square feet $11,032,700 Vehicles 189 vehicles 2,321,400 Equipment $3.8 million in equipment 3,816,100 Total $17,170,200 'Office space needed to serve new development is reduced by 100 square feet and its cost by $32-000 as a credit for the CSAC loan which will be used to fund the North County Regional Center, housing the community room. Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates Ione 21, 1991 Page V-5 Chapter V General Govemment & Other County Facilities FUNDING ALTERNATIVES General Fund Revenues In the past the County has relied primarily on general fund revenues to build new office buildings or expand existing facilities for general government operations. Due to increasing demands on the County budget, the potential for general fund revenues to be available is limited. However, the County Space Analysis does note that the County could fund the debt for construction of new space with the monies it is currently allocating to lease payments. If the County chooses to do this, the new space would improve fee standards and correct existing deficiencies. Federal& State Grants Some state and federal grant funds are available to the departments of social services, animal regulation and emergency services. As stated previously, Emergency Services does not see the need for additional operations space and therefore would not apply for funding. Grant funds available to the Department of Animal Regulation are only for spade/neuter clinics which the Department does not foresee operating. The Social Services Department has historically received 80 percent of its funding from the state via the federal government and the remaining 20.percent from the County; the Department anticipates that this will continue. These funds are predominantly used for operating expenses. The Social Services Department has to make special application for capital projects, as was the case for the new social services building that. is planned. COST ALLOCATION AND IMPACT FEE CALCULATION All the departments grouped into the General Government and Other County Facilities category provide services both to the county as a whole and to unincorporated areas exclusively. �l`'ftt 'fot Cl bT a8cli�on�fa fact>itie`s—fK based-on f June 21, 1991 Page V 6 Chapter V General Govemme % Other County Facilities percent of employees providing unincorporated services and 64 percent of employees serving the county-wide population. When this ratio is applied to the estimated $17 million total cost of general government facilities, the share going to the unincorporated General Government Facilities Fee equals $6 million and the county-wide share is $11 million. The new county-wide and unincorporated residents and employees enumerated in Chapter H constitute the adjusted service population base over which the respective costs for new county facilities will be spread. Thus, the allocation of the $11 million cost for facilities to serve county-wide growth results in a cost of $99 per resident and employee. The per capita cost of facilities to serve unincorporated development is $163 per resident and employee, based on the total cost of $6 million. Tables V-3 and V-4 calculate the public facilities fee for development in the unincorporated areas and county-wide. TABLE V-3 CALCULATION OF COUNTY-WIDE FEES FOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES Average Service Cost Per Fee Per Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit Residential Single-Family 2.73 per dwelling units $99 $270 Multi-Familyl 1.57 per dwelling units 99 155 Non-Residential Office/High Density'- 3.33 per 1,000 sq. ftb 99 330 Retail/Medium Density3 2.00 per 1,000 sq. ft.6 99 198 Industrial Low DensitV4 1.43 per 1,000 sq. ft 6 99 142 Includes all structures in which two or more units are located on one lot. Attached units with a common wall that forms a property line are considered single-family dwellings. '-Includes all development with more than 2.50 employees per 1,000 square feet. 3Indudes all development with 2..50 to 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. 4Includes all development with less than 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. 5Persons per dwelling unit based on CA Department of Finance estimates for 1 January 1990 of personsper household and vacancy rates for San Luis Obispo County, Report E-5, 1 May 1990, p. 46. Based on studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates. LL (OT June 21, 1991 Page V-7 Chapter V General Goven. xt & Other County Facilities TABLE V-4 CALCULATION OF UNINCORPORATED FEES FOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES Average Service Cost.Per Fee Per Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit Residential Single-Family 2.70 per dwelling units $ 163 $ 440 Multi-Family' 1.54 per dwelling units 163 251 Non-Residential Office/High Density2 333 per 1,000 sq. fL6 163 543 Retail/Medium Density3 2.00 per 1,000 sq. fL6 163 326 - Industrial w Density4 1.43 per 1,000 sq. fL6 163 233 Includes all structures in which two or more units are located on one lot. Attached units with.a common wall that forms a property line are considered single-family dwellings. 2Includes all development'with more than 2.50 employees per 1,000 square feet. 31nciudes all development with 2.50 to 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. 41ncludes all development with less than 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. SPersons per dwelling unit based on CA Department of Finance estimates for 1 January L990 of persons per household and vacancy rates for San Luis Obispo County, Report E-5, 1 May 1990, p. 46. °Based on studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Source: Recht Hausrath&Associates. /`ta5 June 21, 1991 Page V 8 CHAPTER VI JAILS & OTHER COUNTYWIDE SHERIFF'S FACILITIES DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES The Sheriffs Department provides the following six services: • Custody services (jails) • Coroner Services 0 Administrative services; s Court Services • Civil services • Patrol & Investigation Services The Sheriff provides all these services countywide, in both incorporated and r unincorporated areas, except for patrol and investigation. This latter service is provided largely to the unincorporated area only. This chapter is devoted to facilities for the Sheriffs countywide services, most of which relate to the main jail. Other countywide services addressed by this chapter include regional holding facilities, civil services, coroner services, the crime lab (part of patrol and investigation), and a countywide services share of department-wide administration. The remainder of facilities for Sheriff's patrol and investigation are addressed in Chapter X11. Main Jail The County's only jail facility, other than a holding facility associated with the courts, is located at the County Operations Center on Kansas Avenue near Highway 1, about four miles north of the City of San Luis Obispo. The existing main jail has a gross building area of 40,100 square feet.' Of this total, Administrative Services uses 9,900 square feet and enclosed outdoor recreation areas cover 4,500 square feet, leaving 25,700 square feet t See attachment to Board of Corrections*Cost Reporting/Space Allocation form submitted by the County for Phase I of the main jail expansion project. May 10, 1991 Page VI-1 Chapter 1/7 Jails & Other . ,unty-Wide Sheriff's Facilities for jail functions within the building. Other buildings located nearby on the same site provide facilities for laundry, shops, storage, and minimum security dormitories. The County is in the process of expanding its main jail with a project in two phases. Prior to expansion, the main jail had capacity for 303 beds. Phase 1 was occupied in December 1990 and added 73 beds. Phase 2 is anticipated to be occupied by January 1993 and will add 196 beds, for a total capacity of 572 beds. Total estimated construction costs equal $16.0 million. Adding debt reserve costs, debt issuance costs, and the value of land contributed by the County results in a total estimated project cost of $16.9 million. Existing development in the County will fund 94 percent of the beds added by the expansion through state grants, general fund reserves, land contributions, debt repayment, and unidentified funding sources. New development in the County from 1990 through 2010 will fund 6 percent of the beds added through new development's share of debt repayment and unidentified sources. Table VI-1 presents a summary of the expansion project with costs and beds allocated between existing and new development. Other Countywide Sh&Vfs Facffhi s The Sheriffs remaining existing countywide facilities include: • Space for the civil division and a court holding facility at the county government center; • Space for coroner and crime lab services in the detectives' building at the county operations center; and • An allocated portion of department-wide administrative services in the administration wing of the main jail, described previously. The County contracts for pathological studies and morgue services, and consequently does not maintain these facilities. The crime lab is the only major crime lab in the / /—&7 May 10, 1991 Page I Y 2 o Chapter VI Jails & Other Co v-Wide Sheriffs Facilities County, serves both the Sheriff and municipal law enforcement agencies, and therefore is included here with other countywide facilities. TABLE VI-1 S71DIG Mal JAIL FAcTuring Funding Responsibility: Existing New Develo ment Develo ment Total MAIN JAIL EXPANSION (PHASES, 1 AND 2) State Grants Proposition 52 $3,107,000 $3,107,000 Proposition 86 2,033,000 2,033,000 General Fund Reserves 4,262,000 4,262,000 CSAC Loam'- 4,798,000 768,000 5,566,000 Land Value3 72,000 72,000 Unidentified Sources2 1,595,000 255,000 1,850,000 Total Project Cost $15,867,000 $1,023,000 $16,890,000 Percents a 93.9 0 6.1 0 100.0% ALLOCATION OF MAIN JAIL BEDS Phase 1 and 2 Expansion 253 16 269 Pre-1990 Beds 303 0 303 Total Existing Beds 556 16 572 Part of pooled certificates of participation sponsored by County Supervisors' .association of California (CSAC). Includes prorated costs of$710,000 for debt reserve and $108,000 for debt issuance. - Fisting development will have a 72.5 percent share and new development a 27.5 percent share of total population and employment in 2010 (See Chapter II). Allocation based on an even rate of growth over the next twenty years, resulting in new development financing half of its share, or 13.8%. 3 Project requires 7.18 acres currently owned by the County. The land is valued at $10,000 per acre based on a 1987 appraisal of 58,127 per acre for an adjacent parcel. Source: Sheriff's Department; Recht Hausrath & Associates. The County is in the planning stages for north and south county regional centers which will provide holding facilities for more efficient countywide custody services, plus new Sheriff's substations and municipal court facilities. Of the total loan amount from the County Supervisors Association of California (CSAC) for the new regional centers, May 10, 1991 Page V1-3 Chapter VI Jails & Other County-Wide Sheriffs Facilities $830,000 is allocated to fund a portion of the holding facilities. Both existing and new development will participate in funding the loan repayment over its 20-year term. The County already has acquired the land for each of the regional centers. Land for the south county center is part of a 41-acre parcel owned by the County in Arroyo Grande which already has several other county facilities located on it. The 37.5 acres that is undeveloped and available for the new regional center represents an investment by existing population in future facilities. Land for the north county center in Templeton was purchased with a portion of the debt proceeds described above. The Sheriff's countywide facilities are summarized in Table VI-2. For the purposes of calculating an existing facility standard, the table includes additional building space equivalent to the two investments mentioned previously that existing development has made or will make towards the new regional centers. The first investment is existing development's share of debt repayments on the CSAC loan. The second investment is the value of that portion of undeveloped land at the south county regional center allocated.to the new holding facilities. FACILITIES STANDARDS As shown in Table VI-1 existing development has a total of 556 beds at the main jail upon completion of phase 1 and 2. Based on a 1990 county service population (including employment) of 292,500, the existing jail bed standard is 1.90.beds per 1,000 capita.l Table VI-2 shows other countywide Sheriff's facilities equal to 14,100 building square feet, equal to an existing standard of 482 square feet per 1,000 capita. tJail facility standards are often measured using population only, i.e excluding employment. Throughout this study, however,we use population plus employment (service population) to calculate facilities standards because both groups can influence the need for new facilities. 'To remain consistent with this methodology we use service population here as well, even though specialized jails needs assessment studies may differ in their methodology. l-�9 May 10, 1991 Page 1r1-4 Chanter Irl Jails & Other Co ,-Wide Sheriffs Facilities TABLE VI-2 S . Ft. County Government Center Civil Division 1,737 Holding Facility 850 County Operations Center Administrative Wingi 4,950 Detectives' Buildingi 2,560 Regional Center Holding Facilities CSAC Loan Allocation2 1,300 Land Value Allocation3 2,700 Total Fidstin Facilities 14.Q97 Portions of 9,900 square feet for the administrative wing and 9,480 square feet for the detectives' building allocated based on percent of employees providing countywide versus unincorporated area services. Total of 1,500 square feet funded by CSAC loan. For allocation method see Table VI-1, Note 2. 3 Equivalent to value of land for south county regional center allocated to holding facilities. Source: County Government Center Space Analysis, Personnel and Space (draft), General Services Department, November 29, 1990; Sheriffs Department; Recht Hausrath & Associates. FACILITIES NEEDS The Sheriff's Department has had two long-range facilities master plans completed in the last ten years by Jay Farbstein and Associates, Inc. The most recent study was completed in 1987. (See Jail Needs Assessment Update, Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc., October 13, 1987.) The study outlined the requirements for the jail expansion program that the Sheriffs Department is currently completing as phases 1 and 2. The facilities requirements for a third phase are also presented in that study. Additional funding for jails, including impact fee revenue, will be used to fund that third phase. The 1987 study estimated that the jail facilities standard will need to increase by 46 percent from 1990 to 2010 to accommodate increased demand for custody services. In this study we have held the existing 1990 standard constant to estimate the share of new /- 70 May 10, 1991 Page Vl-5 Chapter VI Jails & Other County-Wide Sheriff's Facilities facilities that are solely the responsibility of new development, for the purposes of calculating an impact fee. Facilities to accommodate new development are based on the standards discussed above and estimated growth in the county's service population of 111,200. New development will need 211 beds by 2010 to maintain the existing standard of 1.90 beds per 1,000 capita. New development will provide 16 of these beds through partial financing of phases 1 and 2 of the main jail expansion project, leaving 195 additional beds required to accommodate growth. To maintain the existing standard of 48.2 square feet per 1,000 capita for other countywide Sheriff's facilities, new development will need 5,400 additional square feet. Of this total, 3,300 square feet will be built as holding facilities at the north and south county regional centers.' The remaining 2,100 square feet will be needed in building space for other countywide facilities such as the civil division, coroner's office, crime lab, and department-wide administration. Of the total amount, 200 square feet will be financed by new development through contributions to repayment of the CSAC loan, leaving 5,200 square feet unfunded. Long-range facilities master plans for these facilities are summarized in Appendix B. The estimated costs for countywide facilities is shown in Table VI-3. For other countywide Sheriff's facilities besides the jail, the table is based on the assumption that the highest priority needs to accommodate new development are the new regional centers. Any remaining needs to maintain existing standards are allocated to other facilities such as the civil division, coroner, crime lab, and administrative services. 'The regional centers will have a total of 4,600 square feet for holding facilities, 1,300 of which is funded by existing development (see Table VI-2). 'f May 10, 1991 Page VI-6 Chapter lel Jails & Other Cc v-Wide Sheriffs Facilities TABLE VI-3 FACILITIES NEEDS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT MAIN JAIL Beds Cost Main Jail Facilities 211 $13,251,000 Credit For CSAC & Other Fundingl 16 1,005,000 Net Jail Facilities 195 $12.246,000 OTHER COUNTYWIDE FACU-XI'IES Sq. Ft. Cost Regional Center Holding Facilities 3,300 $1,738,000 Other Countywide Facilities2 2,100 410,000 Subtotal 5,400 $2,148,000 Credit For CSAC Loan3 200 116,000 Net Other Countywide Facilities 5,200 $2,032,000 Total Facilities Needs S14,278,00-01. New development's contribution to CSAC loan repayment. See Table VI-1. 2 Includes civil division, coroner, crime lab, and administrative Services. Costs based on $195 per building square foot including$20 per building square foot for land. Land costs are based on $7.00 per land square foot at a 035 floor-area ratio. 3 New development's contribution to CSAC loan repayment. See Table VI-2, Note 2 Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates. The jail facilities costs in Table VI-3 are based on $62,800 per bed which equals the combined estimated costs of phases 1 and 2 of the main jail expansion program. This cost is representative of the average cost of new jail facilities for the following reasons: • The expansion program is comprehensive: it includes not only jail cells and dorms, but also the kitchen, administrative, intake, holding, and other facilities required for a functioning jail. • The expansion program is also representative of the types of jail cells that are likely to be required, with about one-third of the added capacity allocated to minimum, medium, and maximum security cells, respectively. The County expects that additional expansion of the jail will likely occur at the County Operations Center where the existing jail and expansion project are located. Consequently, land values for future expansion will remain �, I—74 May 10, 1991 Page VI-7 . Chanter VI Jails & Other County-Wide Sheriff's Facilities comparable to those assumed for estimating the total cost of phases 1 and 2. The County anticipates that regional holding facilities will cost $533 per square foot based on preliminary estimates for the north and south county regional centers completed by Jay Farbstein and Associates. This estimate includes all construction and related costs, including architect and engineering, furnishings and equipment, construction management, and all related permit approval and utility connection fees. Land costs for the north county site in Templeton were funded by proceeds from the CSAC loan and are included.in this cost estimate. South county land costs are excluded because the County already owns the land. The impact fee will be adjusted based on final cost estimates. Other countywide facilities costs are based on $195 per square foot, including land, which is the County's current estimate for general office space. In addition, the table shows That a small portion of total facilities needs will be financed by new development through contributions to the debt service on the CSAC loan. The remaining amounts are unfunded. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES State Grants Prior to Proposition 13, the Sheriffs Department primarily relied on local revenue sources and debt financing, such as general obligation bonds, to finance jail facilities. During the past decade, state grants from voter-approved bond measures have helped to offset the reduction in resources caused by Proposition 13. If the Department receives additional state grants in the future, it likely will use them to increase its facility standard. The Department anticipates a standard higher than the existing 1990 standard will be necessary to meet the increased demand projected in previous needs assessment studies completed for the Department and referenced in Appendix B. /-73 May 10, 1991 Page VI-8 Chapter VI Jails & Other Co: -Tide Sheriffs Facilities General Fund Revenues To date, the County has contributed approximately $4.3 million to the current expansion project from its general fund. The County foresees difficulty allocating additional general fund resources for jail and other countywide Sheriff's facilities because of increasing demands on its operating budget. Penalty Auemi = The County levies penalty assessments on all fines ordered by the Court. The assessments are deposited in two funds: the criminal justice temporary construction fund and the county courthouse construction fund. Under state law, the County can use both these funds for criminal justice facilities. The County will use these funds for debt repayment of the CSAC loan for the new regional centers. The analysis summarized in Table VI-3 includes a credit to new development for its share of these payments. COST ALLOCATION AND IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Both residents and employees place demands on the criminal justice system. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that per capita this demand is constant across both population groups. Consequently, the need for additional jails and other countywide Sheriff's facilities is allocated equally among the total service population (residents plus employees). Results presented in Table VI-3 indicate that new development should contribute $14.3 million in new jail and other countywide Sheriff's facilities by,2010 to maintain the existing standard. Based on an increase in service population of 111,200, the cost is $128 per capita. To determine fee amounts for specific development projects, fees are calculated on a per dwelling unit basis for residential development, and on a square footage basis for non- residential development. Residents per dwelling unit and employees per square foot May 10, 1991 Page VI-9 Chapter VI Jails & Other County-Wide Sheriff's Facilities vary with the type of development. To fairly allocate costs fees must reflect this variance in facilities demand among projects. Development project categories based on service population densities, and their corresponding fees, are shown in Table V14- TABLE V1-4 JAILS & OTHER COUNTYWIDE SHERIFF'S FACILITIES IMPACT FEE Average Service Cost Per . Fee Per Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit Residential Single-Family 2.73 per dwelling units $128 $349 Multi-Family' 1.57 per dwelling units 128 201 Non-Residential Office/High Density2 3.33 per 1,000 sq. ft.6 128 426 Retail/Medium Density3 2.00 per 1,000 sq. ft.6 128 256 Industrial Low Density4 1.43 per 1,000 sq. ft.6 128 183 Includes all structures in which two or more units are located on one lot. Attached units with a common wall that forms a property line are considered single-family dwellings. 2 Includes all development with more than 2.50 employees per 1,000 square feet 3 Includes all development with 2.50 to 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet 4 Includes all development with less than L67 employees per 1,000 square feet 5 Persons per dwelling unit based on CA Department of Finance estimates for 1 January 1990, and includes vacancy rates, Report E-5, 1 May 1990, p. 46. 6 Based on studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates. May 10, 1991 Page 1/I-10 CHAPTER VII LAW & JUSTICE DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES The law and justice facilities analyzed in this chapter include the Municipal and Superior Courts and all related functions: District Attorney, Public Defender, Jury Services, Grand Jury, Juvenile Services, and Probation. (The Sheriff's Department operates related facilities such as holding facilities, jails and substations, and these are examined in Chapters VI and XII.) Law and justice facilities are a unique county responsibility not duplicated by cities, and services are provided countywide. The County's existing law and justice facilities are in various locations: • Court and related facilities at the County Government Center and in leased office space in San Luis Obispo; • The Juvenile Services Center at the County Operations Center on Highway 1 outside of San Luis Obispo; • A north county municipal court in Paso Robles, and a south county municipal court in Grover City. The County is in the planning stages to replace the north and south county municipal courts with two regional justice centers that will include new court facilities, along with Sheriffs substations and holding facilities. Of the total loan from the. County Supervisors Association of California (CSAC) for the new regional centers, $3.8 million is allocated to fund 15,000 square feet of the Court's portion of these facilities. This space includes the District Attorney, Public Defender, and jury services. Both existing and new development will participate in funding the loan repayment over its 20-year term. The County already has acquired the land for each of the regional centers. Land for the south county center is part of a 41-acre parcel owned by the County in Arroyo Grande lune 21, 1991 Page VII-1 Chapter VII Law & Justice which already has several other county facilities located on it. The 37.5 acres that is undeveloped and available for the new regional center represents an investment by existing population in future facilities. Land for the north county center in Templeton was purchased with a portion of the debt proceeds described above. Law and justice facilities are summarized in Table VII-1. For the purposes of calculating an existing facility standard, the table includes additional building space equivalent to the two investments mentioned previously that existing development has made or will make towards the new regional centers. The first investment is existing development's share of debt repayments on the CSAC loan. The second investment is the value of that portion of undeveloped land at the south county regional center allocated to the new court facilities. FACILITIES STANDARDS As shown in Table VII-1, the County currently has the equivalent of 112,480 square feet of owned facilities. These facilities serve a combined resident and employee service population of 292,500. Thus, the County's existing facility standard, not including leased facilities, is 385 square feet. per 1,000 capita. This facility standard represents new development's fair share contribution towards additional, county-owned law and justice facilities necessary to accommodate it. The existing standard excludes leased facilities because these are financed annually with general fund revenues generated by new and existing development. June 21, 1991 Page VII-2 Chapter VII Law & Justice TABLE VII-1 EXISTING OWNED AND LEASED FACILITIES (fzRQss BUTLDtNG SouARE FEET) Owned Leased Total County Government Center Area District Attorneyl 7,379 6,332 13,711 Superior Court 13,736 3,875 17,611 Municipal Court 15,152 - 0 - 15,152 Jury Services & Other2 41450 471 4,921 Probation/Juvenile Center 32,563 - 0 - 32,563 North & South Regional Centers CSAC Loan Allocation3 12,900 - 0 - 12,900 Land Value Allocation4 26,300 - 0 - 26,300 Total ExistingFacilities 112.480 10,678 123 158 Includes Family Support and Victim Witness. '- Includes Grand Jury and Law Library. 3 Total of 15,000 square feet funded by CSAC loan allocated based on existing development having a 72.5 percent share and new development a 27.5 percent share of total population and employment in 2010 (See Chapter 11). With an even rate of growth over.the neat twenty years, new development will finance half of its share, or 13.8%. 1 Equivalent to value of land for south county regional center allocated to court facilities. Sources: Department of General Services, County Government Center Space Analysis, Personnel and Space, November 29, 1990; Recht Hausrath & Associates. FACILITIES NEEDS The County has recently been analyzing its long-range space needs for law and justice facilities. The General Services Department completeda draft report, County Government Center Space Analysis, Personnel and Space, dated November 29, 1990, which projected space needs for facilities in the Government Center area through 2005. In addition, the space planning for and financing of the north and south county regional centers has been proceeding for several years. Together these studies outline the law and justice facilities required to accommodate new and existing development for the next 15 to 20 years. Appendix B includes a summary of the facilities needs described in these studies. June 21, 1991 Page VII-3 Chapter VII Law & Justice The existing facility standard presented above is used to calculate new development's share of these long-range facilities needs. Based on a standard of 385 square feet per 1,000 capita, and an increase in service population of 111,200 from 1990 to 2010, new development is responsible for 42,800 square feet of additional space. The County estimates that the average cost of law and justice facilities is $254 per square foot based on preliminary estimates for the north and south county regional centers completed by Jay Farbstein and Associates. This estimate includes all construction and related costs, including architect and engineering, .furnishings and equipment, construction management, and all related permit approval and utility connection fees. Land costs for the north county site in Templeton were funded by proceeds from the CSAC loan and are included in this cost estimate. South county land costs are excluded because the County already owns the land. The impact fee will be adjusted based on final cost estimates. Law and justice facilities associated with the county government center and juvenile service center are estimated to cost $220 per square foot including land. This estimate is higher than the $195 per square foot used.for general county office space to account for the added cost of juvenile residential facilities. The total estimated cost for law and justice facilities required to accommodate new development from 1990 to 2010 is $10.5 million, as shown presented in Table VII-2. Of this total, $523,000 is credited to new development for its share of CSAC loan repayment for the regional centers. The table is based on the assumption that the regional centers are the highest priority need to accommodate new development. Any remaining need to maintain the existing 1990 standard is allocated to the government center and juvenile services center. June 21, 1991 Page VII-4 Chapter VII Law & Justice TABLE VII-2 FACILITIES NEEDS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT (7990 To 907Q) Square Feet Cost N. & S. Regional Centers 31,200 719319000 Govt. & Juvenile Svcs. Centersl 11,600 2,552,000 Subtotal 42,800 $10,483,000 Credit For CSAC Loan` 2,100 523,000 Total Facilities Needs 40,700 9 960 000 Costs based on $200 per square foot for construction and S20 per building square foot for land. Land costs equal 57.00 per square foot for land area at a 0.35 floor-area ratio. 2 See Table VII-1, Note 3. Source•. General Services Department; Recht Hausrath & Associates. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES Penalty Aa=nents The County levies penalty assessments on all fines ordered by the Court. The assessments are deposited in two funds: the criminal justice temporary construction fund and the county courthouse construction fund. Under state law, the County can use both these funds for law and justice facilities. The County will use these funds for debt service payments for the regional centers. The analysis summarized in Table VII-2 includes a credit to new development for its share of these payments. General Fund Revenues The County currently uses general fund revenues to pay for over 10,000 square feet of leased space for law and justice facilities (see Table VII-1). The County foresees difficulty allocating additional general fund resources for these facilities because of increasing demands on its operating budget. I-8a June 21, 1991 Page V71--5 Chanter VII Law & Justice State Grants State grants have partially funded county justice facilities in the past. However, based on the results of the November 1990 election, state-wide voter approval of bond issues for such grants seems less likely, at least in the immediate future. If the County receives additional state grants in the future, it will use them to increase its facility standard. Law and justice departments anticipate a higher standard will be necessary to meet the increased demand projected in the recently completed government center space study, summarized in Appendix B. COST ALLOCATION AND IMPACT FEE CALCULATION The projected increase in countywide service population (including employment) from 1990 to 2010 is 111,200. As shown in Table VII-2, the unfunded portion of the law and justice facilities required to accommodate new development to maintain the existing standard is an estimated $10.0 million, or $90 per capita. Both residents and employees place demands on the law and justice facilities. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that per capita this demand is constant across both population groups. Consequently, the need for additional facilities is equally allocated among the total service population (residents plus employees). To determine fee amounts for specific development projects, fees are calculated on a per dwelling unit basis for residential development, and on a square footage basis for non- residential development. Residents per dwelling unit and employees per square foot vary with the type of development. To fairly allocate costs fees must reflect this variance in facilities demand among projects. Development project categories based on service population densities, and their corresponding fees, are shown in Table VII-3. June 21, 1991 Page VII-6 Chapter VII Law & Justice TABLE VII-3 LAw & JUSTICE FACILITIES IMPACT FEE Average Service Cost Per Fee Per Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit Residential Single-Family 2.73 per dwelling units $90 $246 Multi-Family' 1.57 per dwelling units 90 141 Non-Residential Office/High Density'- 3.33 per 1,000 sq. ft.6 90 300 Retail/Medium Density3 2.00 per 1,000 sq. fL6 90 180 Industrial Low Densitv4 1.43 per 1.000 sq. ft.6 90 129 Includes all structures in which two or more units are located on one lot. Attached units with a common wall that forms a property line are considered single-family dwellings. Includes all development with more than 250 employees per 1,000 square feet. 3 Includes all development with 250 to 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. Includes all development with less than 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. 5 Persons per dwelling unit based on CA Department of Finance estimates for 1 January 1990, and includes vacancy rates, Report E-5, 1 May 1990, p. 46. 6 Based on studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates. Jure 21, 1991 Page VII-7 CHAPTER VIII LIBRARIES DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES The San Luis Obispo City-County Library system currently operates a 31,455 square foot main library in the City of San Luis Obispo, 14 branch facilities totalling 31,833 square feet, approximately 3,960 square feet of storage space and one bookmobile. Two of the branch facilities occupy leased space totalling 2,134 square feet (three other leased facilities have so low a rental rate fixed for such a long term that they are appropriately treated as publicly-owned). Available in these facilities are over 343,000 volumes, including books, magazines, and audio-visual materials. Table VIII-1 presents a summary of existing facilities and their volumes. The library system serves the entire county with the exception of the City of Paso Robles which operates an independent library facility. Therefore, all references to county-wide data in this chapter will not reflect facilities in the City of Paso Robles or its population and employment figures. County residents may also use library facilities at Cuesta College and California Polytechnic Institute at San Luis Obispo (CPI). There is a $25 membership fee for non- students for use of the CPI library. FACILITIES STANDARDS The San Luis Obispo City-County Library system has 1.73 volumes and 036 square feet of library space per resident. These standards reflect library facilities owned by the County and in part by the cities of Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo, as well as the Simmler facility owned by a community services district. There is also one bookmobile to serve the county. June 21, 1991 Page PUI-1 Chapter VIII - Libraries TABLE VIII-1 EMSTING LIBRARY FACILITIES Owned Space Leased Space Fisting Facility (Square Feet) (Square Feet) Volumes i Atascadero 7,000 0 •40,975 Cambria 3,024 0 15,393 Cayucos 354 0 3,115 Creston2 306 0 5,302 Morro Bay 6550 0 25,547 Nipomo 0 600 6,335 POZ02 398 0 2,006 San Miguel 600 0 4,470 Santa Margarita 400 0 4,317 Shandon 0 400 4,878 Shell Beach2 430 0 4,614 Simmler 185 0 2,062 South Bay 39976 0 29,176 South County 12,000 0 77,486 San Luis Obispo 31,455 0 97,631 Storage Space 3,960 0 15,961 Boolanobile 3,762 TOTAL 70,638 1,000 343,030 Defined to include documents, magazine titles, pamphlets and audio-visual materials 'Me county leases these facilities under long-term, below market rate lease agreements, and therefore they are classified as being owned by the county. Source: San Luis Obispo City-County Library I-S / June 21, 1991 Page VIII-2 Chanter I/711 Libraries FACILITIES NEEDS The October 1990 library master plan,A Planning Framework for the Libraries of San Luis Obispo, lists specific library facilities to be expanded or constructed. The proposed facilities are presented in Appendix B. In identifying the projects, the plan recommends and incorporates higher facility standards for the San Luis Obispo City County Library • system than currently exist. The department does not expect to be able to fully fund the master plan's proposed projects. As a result, the department recommends using its existing facility standards, not the higher standards assumed in the plan, as the basis to determine the facilities required to accommodate new development, at least unless additional funding becomes available. These new facilities are summarized in Table VIII-2 on the following page. Facilities Costs As documented in the library master plan, the estimated cost of site development, construction, fees, furnishings and equipment for library facilities is $213 (1990 dollars) per square foot. This includes a construction cost of $117 per square foot, site development costs of $8 per square foot, legal and architectural fees at approximately 12 percent of projeci cost and a ten percent contingency. The amount of land needed is four times the amount of library floor space, or a floor-area ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.25. Current land prices range between $4.00 and $21.00 per square foot. Based upon the anticipated location of future libraries, the average weighted land cost is $10.00 per square foot. Adjusted for a 0.25 F.A.R., the cost per building square foot is $40. This results in a total cost of $253 per square foot for new library space. The replacement cost of the bookmobile is $125,000. The department has determined, however, that a second bookmobile is not needed in the county. Therefore, new development's fair share of bookmobile costs will be used to provide other library facilities. I- 85 June 21, 1991 Page 11711-3 Chaster VIII Librarie TABLE VIII-2 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR NEw DEVELOPMENT (1990 to 2010) New Population 65,895 Facility Space Facility Standard (sq. ft. per capita) 0.36 Additional Space Required (sq. ft.) 23,722 Cost Per Square Foot $253 Total Cost of New Facility Space $6,0029000 Volumes Facility Standard (volumes per capita) 1.73 Additional Volumes Required 114,000 Cost per Volume' $30.00 Total Cost of New Volumes $3,4209000 Bookmobile Replacement Cost $125,000 Facility Standard (cost per capita) $0.63 Total Cost of Boolonobile Equivalent $41500 Total Cost of New Facilities $9,463,500 Publu�kly, March 1990 Source: San Luis Obispo City-County Library FUNDING ALTERNATIVES . Prior funding sources for new library construction have included state and federal grants which typically required a local match and property taxes. Additionally, a Board of Supervisors' policy calls for 50 percent of the funding of major library projects be provided by the community in which the facility is located. As a result, in some cases, cities have funded up to half the cost of new facilities with their own revenue sources. June 21, 1991 Page VIII-4 Chanter Ir111 Libraries The remaining 50 percent has come from the County's library reserve budget which is funded from a library tax (1.73 percent of property tax revenues). The library does not expect that these funding options will continue to be available for capital projects. More of the library's general fund revenues are required for operation to maintain existing services and absorb reductions in state programs such as the literacy program. Local communities are also increasingly constrained in their abilities to provide the 50 percent match under Board of Supervisor policy from general funds. Therefore, the library recommends funding facilities to accommodate growth by implementing public facilities fees on new development in all areas of the county, including cities, except the City of Paso Robles. Both the county's contribution and the 50 percent local match required of communities would be provided through the public facilities fee. ALLOCATION OF FACILITY COSTS The San Luis Obispo City-County Library is a county-wide system with county residents having access to all library facilities and services. Therefore, the total costs for future system-wide expansion are allocated over development throughout the county, excluding Paso Robles. A June 1990 survey, conducted by HBW Associates, Inc. for the department, revealed that 14 percent of the surveyed patrons were using the library for work-related purposes and 86 percent were using the library for leisure activities. The allocation of new facility costs to residents and employees reflects this and is shown in Table VIII-3, on the following page. June 21, 1991 Page P71I-5 Chapter VIII Libraries TABLE VIII-3 ALLOCATION OF COUNTY-WIDE GROWTH (1990-2010) Growth Percent Residents 65,895 86% Employment) 10,727 14% Service Population 76,622 100% 11 'The ratio of employee patrons to residential patrons was multiplied by the 1990 population figure. The result was divided by 1990 employment to calculate that the average use per employee is 483% of the average use of a resident. Weighting employment by 483% yields the equivalent number of users.at the resident level of usage. Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates The cost of new facilities, as calculated in Table VIII-2, totals $9.5 million and is divided by the weighted service population of 76,622 that will use library facilities. Upon allocating this per capita cost between residential and non-residential development, the amount required to accommodate the next 20 years of growth is $124 per resident and $60 per employee according to the current standards. Table VIII4 presents the allocation of the total cost over the eligible county-wide population. June 21, 1991 Page VIII-6 Chanter VIII - Libraries TABLE V1114 LIBRARY FACILITIES FEE CALCULATION Average Service Cost Per Fee Per Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit Residential Single-Family 2.73 per dwelling units $124 $339 Multi-Family-' 1.57 per dwelling units 124 195 Non-Residential Office/High Density2 333 per 1,000 sq. ft.6 60 200 Retail/Medium Density3 2.00 per 1,000 sq. ft.6 60 120 Industrial Low DenSi a 1.43 per 1,000 s . fL6 60 86 - Includes all structures in which two or more units are located on one lot. Attached units with a common wall that forms a property line are considered single-family dwellings. =Includes all development with more than 2.50 employees per 1,000 square feet. 3Includes all development with 2.50 to 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. °Includes all development with less than 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. 5Persoa5 per dwelling unit based on CA Department of Finance estimates for 1 January 1990 of persons ger household and vacancy rates for San Luis Obispo County, Report E-5, 1 May 1990, p. 46. Based on studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Source: Tables VIII-2 and VIII-3; Recht Hausrath & Associates. June 21, 1991 Page VIII-7. . CHAPTER IX HEALTH SERVICES The Health Agency and the General Hospital are the two County departments responsible for health services. These departments provide services county-wide, and other than four private hospitals, there are no parallel health programs or services in the County. The Health Agency is.composed of the Air Pollution Control District, Alcohol Services, Mental Health and Public Health. The General Hospital manages two out- patient clinics in addition to the hospital. Health Agency The Air Pollution Control District maintains office space in the City of San Luis Obispo and has four air monitoring stations in various locations throughout the County. The District is also responsible for issuing and renewing stationary source permits. The State of California also operates two air monitoring stations in the County. The Department of Alcohol Services operates three community recovery centers which provide peer group counseling in the cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero and Cambria and operates an out-patient treatment service in the City of San Luis Obispo. The department also administers drinking driver programs. The Mental Health Department operates a clinic within the County General Hospital and, via the Hospital, is licensed for 14 psychiatric beds. The Department also provides outreach services in the cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover City and San Luis Obispo. The County Department of Public Health is responsible for programs and services which include: family planning; prenatal care; immunization; the Women, Infants and Children (W.I.C.) Program; child health clinics; health education; school health; public health lab; June 21, 1991 Page N-1 Chapter IX Health Services home health care; and environmental health services including hazardous waste management and food sanitation. The Department operates five clinics located in Atascadero, Grover City, Morro Bay, Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo. General Hospital The County General Hospital is located in the City of San Luis Obispo. In addition to the main hospital facility, there are two out-patient clinics, in Atascadero and San Luis Obispo, as well as a walk-in clinic in the Hospital itself. The Hospital is licensed for 78 non-psychiatric beds. However; due to space needs for various services, the Hospital is only able to accommodate 49 beds. The average daily census in 1989-90 was 25 patients. The County General Hospital has experienced two trends that have reduced the demand for in-patient care provided by its facilities over the past five years: 1) the increase of alternative rare offered by private hospitals in the county, and 2) a shift from in-patient care at hospitals to outpatient care at satellite clinics and care at home. These two downward trends have been roughly offset by the rapid aging of the county's population which requires the largest proportion of in-patient care. The net result of these counter balancing trends has been a flat demand for the hospital's in-patient care facilities over the last two years. The County believes that demand for in-patient care will increase however and is presently undertaking a financial feasibility study for a new hospital. This chapter does not address the need for new hospital facilities pending the outcome of the feasibility study. Table IX-1 presents the inventory of space currently used by County health departments. Vehicles used by these departments are discussed in Chapter V, General Government and Other County Facilities. June 21, 1991 Page IX-2 Chapter A' Health Services TABLE IX-1 COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENTS SPACE UTILIZATION Owned Leased Total Department Space Space Space Health Agency Administration 4,188 0 4,188 Air Pollution Control 2,072 0 2,072 Alcohol Services 0 13,592 13,592 Mental Health 13,589 15,851 29,440 Public Health 23,005 6,969 29,974 Subtotal" 42,854 36,412 79,266 Hospital Hospital 67,202 0 67,202 Out-Patient Clinics 6,204 8,903 15,107 Subtotal 73,406 8,903 82,309 TOTAL 116,260 45,315 161,575 Source: San Luis Obispo County Departments of Alcohol Services, General Services. Public Health, Mental Health, and the County General Hospital. FACILITIES STANDARDS Because the County is considering impact fees as a capital facilities funding alternative, it is necessary to distinguish between facilities standards and fee standards. Fee standards represent the capital investment made by existing development, i.e. owned space. Facilities standards, however, represent owned and leased space, i.e. total facilities, necessary to provide services. As an operating expense, leased space will be paid for by both existing and new development through general tax revenues and service fees. To treat new development equitably vis-a-vis existing development, impact fees can only fund up to the fee standard (the capital investment made by existing development) and not the higher facility standard associated with inclusion of leased space. lune 21, 1991 Page IX-3 Chow IX Health Services Existing fee standards are based upon the existing county-wide service population, residents and employees, of 292,500. The existing fee standard, in terms of space per 1,000 capita was calculated for both the Health Agency and the Hospital's out-patient clinics based on the 1990 service population. The County has a capital investment equal to 147 square feet of space per 1,000 capita for Health Agency programs and services. The out-patient clinics have a standard of 21 square feet per 1,000 capita. The Air Pollution Control District has four air monitoring stations. The replacement cost for the stations is approximately $365,000. Thus, the existing fee standard is $1,248 per 1,000 capita. FACILITIES NEEDS None of the departments discussed in this chapter have long-range master plans adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Most of the departments, however, are currently at capacity and are pursuing expansion of facilities to address short-term program needs and reduce the amount of leased space. These plans are summarized below. Health Agency Air Pollution Control District plans to restructure its existing office and storage space to improve efficiency, but will require additional space in the next few years. Department of Alcohol Services has identified the need to acquire 4,200 square feet of space in the City of Atascadero, at which time.it would terminate its lease, resulting in a net increase of 1,300 square feet. Department of Mental Health does not have expansion plans at present, but is undertaking a long-range plan to assess future need. Department of Public Health has identified need for 4,000 square feet of space in the City of Paso Robles, for a net increase of about 2,500 square feet when its current lease there expires. "The Department also plans to relocate its Home Health office for an increase of 1,300 square feet of leased space. -9.3 June 21, 1991 Page IX-4 Chapter ff Health Services Hospital& Out-Pates Clinics The Hospital has identified a need to purchase 17,000 square feet of modular unit space for a clinic in the City of San Luis Obispo. This would enable the Hospital to terminate its lease at the Bishop Complex, for a net increase of about 8,000 square feet. This public facilities financing plan examines facilities needs through the year 2010 based upon existing standards and anticipated growth in service population. These needs are greater than the short-term needs outlined above for each department because of the plan's 20-year time frame. In Table IX-2, below, the additional facilities required by the health departments through the year 2010 are calculated based on existing fee standards. The department needs based on existing facilities standards are discussed in Appendix B. TABLE IX-2 HEALTH SERVICES FACILITIES NEEDS TO SERVE NEW DEVELOPMENT (1990 - 2010) Service Population Growth 111,200 New Fee Space Standard' Needed Hospital Clinic Space Needs 21 2,335 Health Agency Space Needs 147 16,346 Fee Investment Standard Needed [Air-Monitoring Stations $1,248 139,000 'Square feet of gross building space per 1,000 service population. 2Capital facilities costs per 1,000 service population. Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates As shown in Table IX-2, based on existing fee standards, new development is solely responsible for 16;346 square feet of health agency space and 2,335 square feet of /-9'k June 21, 1991 Page 1X-5 Chapter IX Health Services hospital clinic space. In addition, $139,000 of air monitoring equipment is also allocated solely to new development. It is these amounts that can be.funded by impact fees. FACILITIES COST Health Agency departments use approximately 58 percent of their space for general office operations and the remaining 42 percent for clinic space. The cost of general office space is $175 per square foot, based on cost estimates for the County's Social Services building. The cost of new clinic space is $210, based on Marshall & Swift valuation data. It is expected that this 42/58 mix will be representative of future space needs. Thus a weighted cost of $190 per square foot is used to estimate future facilities costs for Health Agency departments. Land costs are estimated at $7 per square foot based on information from local realtors. Adjusting this for a floor-area ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.35 results in a land cost per building square foot of $20. Thus, total facilities costs for Health Agency departments is $210 per square foot. Future facilities costs for hospital clinic space are $210.per square foot plus land costs of $20 per building square foot, for a total of $230 per square foot. Air monitoring stations range in cost from $50,000 to $100,000. The most recent station purchased by the District cost about $75,000 in 1988. This cost includes the trailer that houses the air monitoring instruments and the instrumentation itself. As shown in Table IX-3, on the following page, the total cost of health facilities to serve new development is $4 million. 1-95 June 21, 1991 Page IX-6 Cil aster IX Health Services TABLE IX-3 FACILITIES COSTS FUNDED BY IMPACT FEES FOR COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES Square.Feet Total Cost Hospital Clinic Space Needs 2,335 $ 537,000 Health Agency Space Needs 16,346 3,428,000 ' Air Monitoring Stations NA 139,000 Total 18,681 $ 4,104,000 Source: Table DC-2, Recbt Hausrath & Associates. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES Funding alternatives for the health services departments are limited to general fund revenues, state and federal grants, and in the case of Alcohol Services and the Air Pollution Control District, fees charged for services. Other than general fund monies, there are generally no other sources of funding for capital facilities for the departments of Mental Health and Public Health. The Department of Public Health did receive 5140,000 from Proposition 99, a tobacco control tax, which it used to purchase modular additions for the Grover City Complex. This was a one-time revenue source and the Department does not anticipate additional funding. The Air Pollution Control District and the Department of Alcohol Services both receive fee revenues for their services and do not receive general fund monies. The Air Pollution Control District receives revenues from four sources: permit fees, a portion of the one percent property tax revenue, State subventions, and beginning this fiscal year motor vehicle permit and registration fees. All revenues are used for operating expenses. Although, in the past, there have been State grant monies available for capital facilities financing, this is no longer the case. June 21, 1991 Page 1X-7 Chanter !X Health Services The Department of Alcohol Services receives from one-half to two-thirds of its annual revenues from State and Federal revenue sharing. Approximately five percent of its annual budget comes from fees from its non-residential counseling program. The Department also receives an annual appropriation from its state-mandated alcohol fines trust fund. The Department's Drinking Driver Program is paid for entirely with client fees. Funding sources for the Hospital's out-patient clinics include general fund revenues, revenues collected for services as an enterprise fund and federal monies. The 1255 Federal Program provides funds for capital facilities or operating expenses via an application to the State. The Hospital is presently considering this alternative for the modular additions in the City of San Luis Obispo. Capital facilities funding sources for health services are limited. Therefore, the County has chosen to adopt development impact fees to pay for facilities to accommodate new development. COST ALLOCATION AND IMPACT FEE CALCULATION The total health agency facilities cost allocated to new development including air monitoring equipment is $3.6 million and the total hospital facilities cost is $537,000, from Table IX-3. The total costs are divided by the estimated increase in service population of 111,200 to calculate a per capita cost. Thus, the per capita cost for health agency facilities is $32, and the per capita cost for hospital facilities is $5. To determine fee amounts for specific projects, fees are calculated on a per dwelling unit basis for residential development and on a square footage basis for non-residential development. Residents per dwelling units and employees per square foot vary with the type of development. To fairly allocate costs, fees must reflect this variance in facilities demand among projects. 1-91 June 21, 1991 page 1X-8 Chapter IX Health Service Development project categories based on service population densities and their corresponding fees are shown in Tables IX-4 and IX-5. The fust table calculates the health agency fee and the second table calculates the hospital facilities fees. Both fees apply to ail development county-wide. TABLE IX4 CALCULATION OF COUNTY-WIDE FEES FOR HEALTH AGENCY FACILITIES Average Service Cost Per Fee Per Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit Residential Single-Family 2.73 per dwelling units $32 $87 Multi-Family' 1.57 per dwelling units 32 50 Non-Residential Office/High Density' 3.33 per 1,000 sq. ft.' 32 107 Retail/Medium Density3 2.00 per 1,000 sq. ft.' 32 64 Industrial Low Densi 4 1.43 per 1,000 Sq. fL6 32 46 Includes all structures in which two or more units are located on one lot. Attached units with a common wall that forms a property line are considered single-family dwellings. 'Includes all development with more than 2-50 employees por 1,000 square feet. 3Includes all development with 2-50 to 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. 4Includes all development with less than 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. SPersons per dwelling unit based on CA Department of Finance estimates for 1 January 1990 of persons per household and vacancy razes for San Luis Obispo County, Report E-5, 1 May 1990, p. 46. Based on studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates. June 21, 1991 Page IX-9 Chapter IX Health Services TABLE IX-5 CALCULATION OF COUNTY-WIDE FEES FOR HOSPITAL CLINICS Average Service Cost Per Fee Per Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit Residential Single-Family 2.73 per dwelling units $ 5 $ 14 Multi-Family' 1.57 per dwelling units 5 8 Non-Residential Office/High Density2 3.33 per 1,000 sq. ft.6 5 17 Retail/Medium Density3 2.00 per 1,000 sq. ft.6 5 10 Industrial Low Density4 1.43 per 1,000 sq. ft.6 5 7 Includes all structures in which two or more units are located on one lot. Attached units with a common wall that forms a property line are considered single-family dwellings. '-Includes all development with more than 2.50 employees per 1,000 square feet. 3Includes all development with 2.50 to 1.67 employees per 1,000.square feet. 4Includes all development with less than L67 employees per 1,000 square feet. SPersons per dwelling unit based on CA Department of Finance estimates for 1 January 1990 of personsper household and vacancy rates for San Luis Obispo County, Report E-5, 1 May 1990, p. 46. Based on studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates. /-99 June 21, 1991 Page 1X-10 CHAP'T'ER X PARKS & RECREATION This chapter presents the financing plan for park and recreation facilities that will be required to serve new county residents for the next twenty years. The chapter examines both neighborhood and community parks which only serve unincorporated areas of the county, and regional facilities which serve the whole county. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES The Parks Division of the San Luis Obispo County Department of General Services maintains 14,028 acres of park land. The County's park acreage is divided into three categories: 1) neighborhood and community parks, 2) regional parks (including open space) and 3) special use facilities. The neighborhood and community parks and the developed portions of the regional parks generally offer similar facilities, including: multi-use playing fields, volleyball and tennis courts, horseshoes, swimming pools, and picnic and playground areas. Additional facilities provided in the regional parks include: campgrounds, clubhouses, a grocery store and a tackle shop. Two lakes offer a wide variety of water-related activities, and the open space areas of the regional parks are used for hiking and other passive recreation activities. Special use facilities maintained by the County include two golf courses, land for a regional bike trail (not yet developed) and 4.3 acres of developed coastal accessways. Six of the cities in San Luis Obispo County own park land that serves or is expected to serve as a regional facility. Atascadero Lake Park, owned by the City of Atascadero, includes the only zoo in the county, considered a special use facility, a lake and developed park areas. The City of San Luis Obispo's Laguna Lake Park offers developed and open space recreational areas in addition to the lake. The cities of Pismo Beach, Paso Robles and Morro Bay own undeveloped park acreage designated for regional facilities. Barney Schwartz Park in Paso Robles primarily will be developed ^� June 21, 1991 . Page X-I Chapter X Park & Recreation with playing fields, and Chumash Park in Pismo Beach will offer both developed and open space areas. The Morro Bay Coleman Park will be developed with beach-oriented facilities. The City of Arroyo Grande will complete development of its Elm Street Park/Soto Sports Complex. The Templeton Community Services District (CSD) is the only portion of the County's unincorporated area with neighborhood parks owned and operated independently of the County.. The CSD has one developed neighborhood.park and additional acreage set aside for a second park. The CSD has adopted park development impact fees to finance neighborhood and community park facilities needed to accommodate growth in the DistricL Because the District already has a financing plan for park facilities, its existing parks and future needs are not included in this chapter. Currently, there are four special use facilities which serve all residents county-wide. These are the Chalk Mountain and Morro Bay golf courses, .97 and 100 acres respectively; the five acre Atascadero Zoo, two acres of which are undeveloped; and 32 developed vertical coastal accessways totalling 9.3 acres.' (Five of these accessways are maintained by the City of Pismo Beach.) The accessways are developed with landscaping, paved walkways, stairways and occasionally bike racks and vehicle parking areas. The County also has 20 undeveloped vertical accessways. A fifth special use facility that the County will develop is the 10.5 acre Avila Bike Trail. Total size of special use facilities is 221.8 acres. The existing inventory of parks is presented in Tables X-1 and X-2. The inventory is presented to show total acreage that will be used in the next section to calculate existing facilities standards. Currently, the County has $183,970 of State Proposition 70 money that it has not yet spent but has allocated for three park projects. Additionally, the County has received a 'Vertical coastal accessways run perpendicular to the shoreline. /./0/ June 21, 1991 Page X-2 Chapter X Parks & Recreation $300,000 grant to further develop Santa Margarita Lake and has a $60,000 grant to develop Lampton Park. These funds total $543,970 and translate to 2 acres of developed regional park land and 1.6 acres of developed neighborhood and community park land, based on the County's park development costs. The department has determined that the grant funds will be used to improve the existing fee standards, so Tables X-1 and X-2 include the additional acreage. TABLE X-1 COUNTY NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS' Developed Total Facility Acres Acres Biddle Park' 22.0 47.0 Cayucos Beach- 14.0 14.0 Cuesta Park 5.0 5.0 C.W. Clarke Park 11.5 11.5 Hardie Park 25 4.0 Heilman Park' 17.0 102.0 Lampton Park 0.0 2.2 Oceano Park 11.8 11.8 Paul Andrew Park 1.0 1.0 Rios-Caledonia 2.8 2.8 San Miguel Park 43 4.3 Shamel Park 6.0 6.0 South Bay Park 5.0 6.2 Subtotal 102.9 217.8 Funds To Be Allocated 1.6 0 TOTAL 104.5 217.8 Includes parks operated and maintained by the County which serve primarily the population in unincorporated areas. 'Although this is called a regional park, it serves as a community park. 3The County has leased this land from the State of California at below market rates since 1944. The current lease expires in 2000 and has been renewed every time it has expired. Source: San Luis Obispo Department of General Services - Parks Division. 'l_'I oIL/ June 21, 1991 Page X-3 Chapter X Parks & Recreation TABLE X-2 COUNTY AND CITY REGIONAL PARKS EXCLUDING FEDERAL LEASED LAND (Acres) Developed Undeveloped Total Open Grand Facility Park Land Park Land Park Land Space Total County Parks Chalk Mountain Park' 0 85 85 0 85 EI Chorro Park 35 265 300 410 - 710 Lopez Lake2 300 0 300 3,976 4,276 Morro Bay Open Space3 0 0 0 25 25 Nipomo Park 40 104 144 0 144 Rocky Canyon Park 0 4 4 4 4 Santa Margarita Lake 1.504 4 4 4 4 Funds To Be Allocated 2 (2) 0 0 0 Subtotal 527 452 829 4,411 5,240 City Parks Atascadero Lake-Park 27 3 30 0 30 (Atascadero) Barney Schwartz 0 39 39 0 39 (Paso Robles) Chumash Park 0 M M 0 40 (Pismo Beach) Coleman Park 0 20 20 0 20 (Morro Bay) Elm Street Park 25 5 30 0 30 (Arroyo Grande) Laguna Lake 25 0 25 390 415 (San Luis Obispo) Subtotal 77 87 164 410 574 TOTAL 656 603 993 4,821 - 5,814 Tpresents acreage adjacent to the Chalk Mountain Golf Course, which when developed will serve as a regional park. 2Owned by the County Flood Control District and operated by the Department of General Services. h1us open space is adjacent to the Morro Bay Golf Course. The.entire acreage (golf course and open space) is leased.from the State of California until the year 2000 at no cost 4The County leases this parkland from the federal government Only 150 acres of land developed at County cost is included here for purposes of establishing developed park land e:tisting fee standards. This acreage is not included in total parkland. Assuming current lease negotiations are successful, Rocky Canyon will include 40 acres of undeveloped park land and 2,160 acres of open space, and Santa Margarita Lake will include 40 acres of undeveloped park land and 5,389 acres of-open space. Source: San Luis Obispo County Department of General Services - Parks Division, parks departments of the cities_of Atascaderb, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo. June 21, 1991 Page X-4 Chagter X Parks & Recreation The department has chosen not to include undeveloped federal lands which it leases for park purposes in calculating existing facilities standards for regional parks, so this acreage is not shown in Table X-2. At present, the County leases 1,068 acres from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) at Santa Margarita Lake and is in negotiations for an additional 4,511 acres which would be leased from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and ACE. The County is also seeking to negotiate a lease for 2,200 acres at Rocky Carryon Park Assuming successful completion of these negotiations, the County will be leasing 7,779 acres, or 60 percent of its total regional park land and open space from the federal government. FACILITIES STANDARDS The existing facilities standards provided to county residents are presented in Table X-3, on the following page. The neighborhood and community parks' standards apply to unincorporated area residents only (except Templeton Community Services District residents). The regional parks and special use facilities standards apply to all county residents. Undeveloped regional park land that is leased from the federal government is not included. FACILITIES NEEDS The San Luis Obispo County 1988 Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies new park facilities needed to serve the County through the year 2010. These facilities, as well as those identified by the cities for their regional parks, are listed in Appendix B and are intended to improve existing standards as well as serve new development. Thus, the Master Plan recommends higher facilities standards as established by the National Recreation and Park Association: neighborhood and community parks - six acres per 1,000 residents (unincorporated areas only), and regional parks including open space - 20 acres per 1,000 residents county-wide. June 21, 1991 Page X-S Chaffer X Parks & Recreation TABLE X-3 EXISTING STANDARDS Existing Park Category Acres Standards' Neighborhood and Community Parks Developed 104.5 1.16 Total 217.8 252 Regional Parks2 Developed 656 3.02 Park Land 993 4.57 Open Space 4,821 22.21 Special Use Facilities3 221.8 1.02 Acres per 1,000 residents based on county-wide population, except neighborhood and community parks based on unincorporated population only and not including Templeton CSD. 2undeveloped regional park land that the County leases from the Bureau of Land Management and the Army Corps of Engineers is not included. However, 150 acres of federally-leased developed park land at Santa Margarita Lake is included in the "Developed" category. 3Indudes bike trail, golf courses, zoo and coastal accessways. Source: Tables X-1 and X-2. The County surpasses the regional park/open space standard in terms of total acres. With only 221 acres of neighborhood and community parkland and only 49 percent of it developed, the neighborhood/community master plan standard is not met. These standards are high, however, and it is unusual for communities to have as much parkland as the County does. FacgWes Carts The cost of new park facilities is a combination of land and development costs. Land cost figures were determined after conversations with several realtors located throughout San Luis Obispo County. Currently, land costs range from $50,000 to $250,000 per acre in those areas for which the master plan has identified new neighborhood and community parks. Factoring in the anticipated location of the new parks results in an C �-IDS June 21, 1991 Page X-6 Chapter X Parks & Recreation average land cost of $125,000 per acre. Land costs for regional parks are estimated at $10,000 per acre and open space costs are estimated at $2,000 per acre. Historically, the County has acquired marginal agricultural land or land that is in a flood plain for its open space and regional parks, thus explaining the lower costs for this type of park land. The County Parks Division has determined that park development costs average $156,700 per acre for neighborhood and community parks and $121,800 per acre for regional parks. Neighborhood and community park development costs include: tennis courts, swimming pools, horseshoe pits, children's play areas, covered picnic areas, volley ball courts, a baseball diamond with seating, a maintenance building, turfed playing field and restrooms. Development costs for regional parks include the same facilities, except swimming pools. These costs also include campgrounds that range from primitive to fully developed with utility hook-ups for recreational vehicles, trails, docks and other facilities needed for water recreation activities. The cities of Atascadero and San Luis Obispo believe that $121,800 per acre is representative of their regional park development costs also. The County estimates that the cost to develop golf courses is $25,000 per acre. Land costs for the golf courses are also estimated at $25,000 per acre, thus making total golf course costs $50,000 per acre. The cost to develop an accessway averages $20,000. Given typical conditions, this translates to a $125,000 per acre cost (4.3 acres/27 accessways = .16 acres per accessway, $20,000 /.16 = $125,000 per acre). There is no land cost to the County for the accessways as the Coastal Commission requires developers to dedicate the land. The County has approximately 20 accessways that are not yet developed. The City of Atascadero estimates that the cost to fully develop the remaining two acres of zoo is $435,000, or $217,500 per acre. This includes a labor contribution from California State University students which reduces construction costs substantially. Zoo land costs are valued at $150,000 per acre. Land costs for the Avila Bike Trail are $21,875 per acre, based on the recent purchase of 1.6 acres for the bike trail at a total cost of $35,000. /o June June 21, 1991 Page X-7 Chanter X P & Recreation Facilities To Serve New Development It is estimated that the unincorporated residential population will increase by 29,300 (excluding Templeton CSD) and the total county population by 82,500. County policy is to provide facilities for new development so that the existing facilities standards shown in Table X-3 are maintained. The County has developed 10 percent of its regional parks (including open space) not including land leased from the federal government. The County's parks master plan recommends that more park acreage be developed than acquired, to increase this percentage. As a result, to serve new development, the department plans to acquire fewer acres in exchange for more developed acres, for the same total cost based on the standards in Table X-3. The department will acquire 49 acres of regional park land and open space and develop 306. Combining the new land to serve development with the existing acreage will result in 962 developed acres out of 5,863 total acres. This plan will increase developed acres from 10 to 16 percent. Similarly, the County has 49 percent of its neighborhood and community parks undeveloped. The County plans to acquire 24 acres and develop 75 acres to increase this percentage to 75 percent of its neighborhood and community parks developed. Special use facilities represent an investment by the existing population. The department expects to accommodate new development by making special use facility investments proportionate to what the existing population has made. These investments may not necessarily be used to replicate existing facilities but also to provide new types. For example, the department does intend to develop additional golf courses and coastal accessways but does not plan on purchasing more acreage for a bike trail. Similarly, the City of Atascadero does not anticipate expanding the zoo beyond the two remaining acres that are slated for development. /-/07 June 21, 1991 Page X-8 Chapter X Parks & Recreation Table X-4 presents the County's park facilities plan to accommodate new development from 1990 to 2010 by maintaining existing standards. The plan integrates the policy described earlier of developing more and acquiring fewer acres to increase the percentage of developed land. In the table, "Developed" acres are those to be developed and costs only represent development costs. These acres and their land acquisition costs are included in "Acquired" acres. TABLE X-4 FAcu= REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT BASED ON EXISTING FACILITIS STANDARDS (1990-2010) Acres Unit Improvement Facilities Developed Acquired Cost Cost Neighborhood & Community Parks Park Land Acquisition) 23.9 S 125,000 $ 2,981,000 Park Development 75.0 156,700 11,753,000 Subtotal 75.0 23.9 14,734,000 Regional Parks Park Land Acquisition' 49.0 10,000 490,000 Park Development 306.0 121,800 37,271,000 Open Space Acquisition 0.0 2,000 0 Subtotal 306.0 49.0 37,761,000 Regional Special Use Facilities'- Golf Course Development 75.0 75.0 50,000 3,750,000 Coastal Accessway Development 3-5 125,000 438,000 Avila Bike Trail 4.0 21,875 88,000 Atascadero Zoo Development 1.1 217,500 239,000 Atascadero Zoo Land 1.9 150,000 285,000 Subtotal 79.6 80.9 4,800,000 Regional Subtotal 385.6 129.9 42,561,000 TOTAL 460.6 153.8 57,295,000 Includes acres to be acquired and developed. ZAmounts shown indicate investment required proportionate to investment by existing population; acres columns do not necessarily represent the facilities that are planned for acquisition or development. Source: Table X-3 lune 21, 1991 Page X-9 Chapter-X Parks & Recreation FUNDING ALTERNATIVES The master plan identifies various funding alternatives, including: implementation of a Quimby Ordinance to provide for neighborhood and community parks, bond issues, designation of certain facilities as special revenue fund activities which will be partially or fully self supporting from user fees, the use of special districts, local tax measures and development impact fees. Additionally, the County may apply for state grants or receive an allocation from a state bond issue for parks. Another alternative is an in-lieu fee for open space and greenbelt land acquisition. These alternatives are also available to the cities. Currently, all of the cities have development impact fees and/or Quimby fees_for parks and recreational facilities; these fees however, are essentially for city neighborhoods and do not address the deficiency in parklands for unincorporated neighborhoods. County staff have prepared documentation for a draft Quimby ordinance to be considered by the Board of Supervisors. If adopted, the Quimby ordinance would require.subdivision projects to dedicate three acres per 1,000 persons or pay an in-lieu fee. Land dedicated or fees collected in accordance with Quimby would be used for neighborhood and community park acquisition and development The County Planning and Building Department expects that most new residential development will occur in subdivisions subject to the proposed Quimby Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors has recently designated a reserve fund to pay for golf course development costs. The Parks.Division anticipates that the Board will'establish the per round fee once water rights have been secured. The suggested fee will be one to two dollars. Based upon the 190,000 rounds ofgolf at Morro Bay and Chalk Mountain golf courses, the County could collect $190,000 to $380,000 annually to be used for golf course development The area Council of Governments (COG) is considering a half cent sales tax increase to be placed on the.June 1992 ballot Tax revenues would be used to pay for new park :Tune 21, 1991 Page X-10 Chapter X Parks & Recreation facilities and road improvements. If this measure is passed, any park impact fees that are adopted would be revised to reflect the additional funds for park projects and the increased facility standard that would result. In the past the County has received considerable state and federal assistance to help expand and develop its park system. Assuming successful negotiation of additional leased land, the County will lease 60 percent of its regional park acreage from the Bureau of Land Management, the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of California (see footnote #3, Table X-2). These are below market rate leases and in most cases, the County does not have any lease payments for the land. The County Parks Division estimates that there is an additional 160 acres of federal land that is available for leasing, largely for open space only. The County also applies for any available state or federal grants. The County has two grant applications pending, one for development of Avila Bike Trail and one to purchase additional acreage at Santa Margarita Lake. Over the last five years, the County's non-grant funded acquisition and development budget has decreased 20 percent. The County will continue to apply for available grants and seek out other sources of revenue, but the County believes that they will not be adequate to provide needed park facilities. Therefore, the Parks Division recommends funding facilities to accommodate growth by implementing public facilities fees on new development. If grant monies are realized in the future, the County can determine whether to use them to improve existing standards, or reduce the public facilities fees on new development. This policy issue will also arise if the golf fee discussed above is implemented. COST ALLOCATION AND IMPACT FEE CALCULATION While the parks primarily serve the residential population of the county, some facilities are used by employees for such events as company ball games and picnics. The extent to June 21, 1991 Page X-11 Chapter X Parks & Recreation which this occurs, however, is believed to be small. The County intends to research use of the parks for employee-related uses to determine actual demand. At this time, the cost of new park facilities will be allocated solely to new residential development. The allocation of costs may be revised, however, pending the outcome of the County's study. Regional Parks.and Open Space Impact Fee The regional parks and open space fee would be assessed on all new development county-wide to provide regional park facilities and open space in both the unincorporated portions of the county and the cities. The total cost of regional facilities to serve new development is $42.6 million. Dividing this by the 82,500 new residents county-wide results in a per capita fee of $516. Table X-5 calculates the fee. TABLE X-5 COUNTY-WIDE FEES FOR REGIONAL PARK FACILITIES Average Service Cost Per Fee Per Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit Residential Single-Family 2.73 per dwelling unit' $516 $1,409 Multi-Family' 1.57 per dwelling unit' 516 810 Includes all structures in which two or more units are located on one lot. Attached units with a common wall that forms a property line are considered single-family dwellings. 'Persons per dwelling unit based on CA Department of Finance estimates for 1 January 1990 of persons per household and vacancy rates for San Luis Obispo County, Report E-5, 1 May 1990, p. 46. Source: Table X-4; Recht Hausrath &Associates. Neighborhood and Community Parks Impact Fee The neighborhood and community parks fee would be levied only on development in the unincorporated areas of the county. Tables X-6 presents the unincorporated parks fee. The fee is based on a per capita cost of $503 calculated by dividing the total HI hire 21, 1991 Page X-12 Chanter X Parks & Recreation neighborhood and community facilities cost of $14.7 million by the estimated 29,300 new residents in the unincorporated areas. TABLE X-6 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARRS FEE Average Service Cost Per Fee Per Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit Residential Single-Family 2.70 per dwelling unit' $503 $1,358 Multi-Famil 1 1.54 per dwelling unit' 503 775 Includes all structures in which two or more units are located on one lot. Attached units with a common wall that forms a property line are considered single-family dwellings. '-Persons per dwelling unit based on CA Department of Finance estimates for 1 January 1990 of persons per household and vacancy rates for San Luis Obispo County, Report E-5, 1 May 1990, p. 46. Source: Table X-4; Recht Hausrath & Associates. If the County adopts a Quimby ordinance, subdivision developers would be required to dedicate or pay at the tentative map stage a comparable in-lieu fee for land, based on Quimby Act standards of 3.0 acres per 1,000 capita. At the time of building permit issuance, subdivision developers would then pay the difference between the parks impact fee and the Quimby ordinance land dedication or in-lieu fee.- Total ee:Total fees for development in the unincorporated areas of the county are shown in Table X-7. TABLE X-7 TOTAL UNINCORPORATED AREA PARKS FEES Type of Development Fee Tv pe Single Family Multi-Familv Regional Parks $ 1,409 $ 810 Neighborhood and Community Parks 1,358 775 TOTAL $ 2,767 $ 1,585 Source: Tables X-5 and X-6 1-112 Jute 21, 1991 Page X-13 CHAPTER XI REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION This chapter estimates needs and costs for regional transportation facilities, located in both incorporated and unincorporated areas throughout the county. Regional transportation facilities include state routes and other principal roads that link major population centers in the County. Also included are transit facilities such as buses, bus garage and transfer facilities, park and ride lots, and bikeways. Regional transportation facilities are limited to those that serve the entire county, so local roads for example that primarily serve sub-areas are not analyzed here. Estimating the need for transportation facilities to accommodate new development requires substantial and sophisticated analysis, including the use of computerized traffic models. In the case of regional facilities a countywide traffic model is necessary. No public agency in the county currently maintains a countywide traffic model. The regional transportation needs determined here are based on the best available information, including circulation elements of county and city general plans, existing traffic studies of unincorporated areas and cities, and the regional transportation plan developed by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council. A countywide traffic model would be necessary to verify this chapter's conclusions. PROJECTIONS OF TRIP GENERATION FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT We have made projections of the other public facilities needs analyzed in this study using the population and employment projections summarized in Chapter.IL Transportation facilities require an additional step to estimate needs: the projection of vehicle trips generated by new development. As is common in traffic analysis, the number of vehicle trip ends is used to assign traffic impacts based on the particular land use at each end of the trip. A trip end is defined as either a departure or a destination. In this chapter "trip" is used to mean trip end. /-//3 May 15, 1991 Page XI-1 Chapter.0 Regional Transportation Trip generation refers to the number of trips on the road system during a given time period, and it varies throughout the day. Transportation engineers typically use peak hour trips to measure the impact of new development. Peak hour trips represent the busiest single hour in a 24-hour period, which occurs usually at the evening rush hour. As the occasion of greatest potential congestion, peak hour trip generation determines the need additional road or transit system capacity. Thus, new development's need for expanded traffic facilities is based on the estimated number of peak hour trips that it will generate, and trip generation rates vary by land use. Total trip generation by new development is based on the five categories used to project new development in Chapter Q. Total peak hour trip generation is shown in Table M-1, based on the number of new dwelling units and additional non-residential space expected countywide between 1990 and 2010. The peak hour trip generation rates in the table are commonly used averages from studies done nationwide and compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 1- IIIA May IS, 1991 page XI-2 Chapter XI Regional Transportation TABLE XI-1 TRIP GENERATION FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT (7990 To 2070) Land Use Growth Ratel Trips Single-Family 23,200 dwelling units 1.14 26,448 Multi-Family 12,200 dwelling units 0.58 7,076 Office 4,620 thousand sq. ft. 2.84 139121 Retail 4,100 thousand sq. ft. 4.14 16,974 Industrial 5,100 thousand sq. ft. 1.27 6,477 Evening peak hour traffic generation on adjacent street based on the following ITE land uses-and interrupted trip adjustment factors developed by the San Diego Association of Governments: Single Family. Land use #210 (detached housing) and 1.124 adjustment factor Multi-Family. Land use #220 (apartment) and 0.928 adjustment factor Office: Land use #710 (50,000 square feet of building area) and 127 adjustment factor Retail:- Land use #820 (50,000 square feet of building area) and 0.49 adjustment factor Industrial: Land use #110 (general.light industry) and 1.30 adjustment factor Source: Chapter R, Table II-5; Trip Generation (5th Edition), Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 1991;Attachment XI-1; Recht Hausrath & Associates. The remainder of this chapter is undergoing review by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council. The results of this review will be incorporated into a preliminary draft and made available for public comment. I — I �S May 15, 1991 Page XI-3 CHAPTER XII SHERIFF'S PATROL & INVESTIGATION The Sheriffs Department provides some services countywide through its custody (jails) and civil divisions, and other services solely to the unincorporated area. Facilities associated with countywide services are examined in Chapter VII,Jails & Other Countywide Sheriff Facilities. Unincorporated area services are provided through the Department's patrol and detective divisions. Facilities associated with these unincorporated area services are included in this chapter. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES The patrol and detective divisions of the Sheriffs Department provide services to the unincorporated area that are similar to those of a municipal police department. These services include routine patrol of unincorporated areas, response to emergency and non- emergency calls, and investigation of alleged crimes. Patrol services are provided through three Sheriffs substations located in Paso Robles, Los Osos, and Grover City. All these facilities are leased. The remainder of facilities associated with patrol and investigation services are located at the county operations center, on Kansas Avenue about four miles north of San Luis Obispo. These services and facilities include: investigative services located in the detectives' building, communications and dispatch services located in the emergency operations center, and administrative services located in the administration wing of the main jail. Because administration is a department-wide function, only a portion of administration space is allocated to unincorporated area services. This portion is based on the percentage of employees directly providing patrol and investigation services compared to countywide services. June 21, 1991 Page XII-1 Chapter XII Sheriff's Patrol & Investigation The County is in the planning stages to replace the Paso Robles and Grover City substations with two regional centers that will include new substations, plus municipal court and holding facilities. Of the total loan from the County Supervisors Association of California (CSAC) for the new regional centers, $705,000 is allocated to fund 3,000 square feet of the substation portion of these facilities. Both existing and new development will participate in funding the loan repayment over its 20-year term. The County already, has acquired the land for each of the regional centers. Land for the south county center is part of a 41-acre parcel owned by the County in Arroyo Grande which already has several other county facilities located on it. The 37.5 acres that is- undeveloped sundeveloped and available for the new regional center represents an investment by existing population in future facilities. Land for the north county center in Templeton was purchased with a portion of the debt proceeds described above. Sheriffs facilities for the unincorporated area are summarized in Table XII-1. For the purposes of calculating an existing facility standard, the table includes additional building space equivalent to the two investments mentioned previously that existing development has made or will make towards the new regional centers. The first investment is existing development's share of debt repayments on the CSAC loan. The second investment is the value of that portion of undeveloped land at the south county regional center allocated to the new court facilities. FACILITIES STANDARDS As shown in Table XII-1, the Sheriffs Department currently has approximately 21,000 square feet of facilities serving the unincorporated area. Based on a 1990 service population of 111,700 in the unincorporated area, this equals a facility standard of 188 square feet per 1,000 capita. This facility standard represents new development's fair share contribution towards additional, county-owned Sheriffs facilities necessary to accommodate it: As a result, the existing standard excludes leased facilities because 1- Ii7 June 21, 1991 Page XII-2 Chapter XII Si fs Patrol & Investigation these are.financed annually with general fund revenues generated by new and existing development. TABLE XII-1 EXISTING OWNED FACILITIES G= Building . a Feet) Sq. Ft. County Operations .Center Detectives' Building, 6,920 Emergency Operations Center 1,320 Administration Wing, 4,950 Regional Substations CSAC Loan Allocation2 2,600 Land Value Allocation3 5,200 Total 20,990 Portions of 9,480 square feet for the detectives' building and 9,900 square feet for the administrative wing allocated based on percent of employees providing unincorporated area versus countywide services. Z Total of 3,000 square feet funded by CSAC loan allocated based on Busting development having a 72.5 percent share and new development a 27S percent share of total population and employment in 2010 (See Chapter ln. With an even rate of growth over the next twenty years, new development will finance half of its share, or 13$%. 3 Equivalent to value of land value for south county regional center allocated to substations. Source: Sheriff's Department; General Services Department; Recht Hausrath & Associates. FACILITIES NEEDS The space planning for and financing of the north and south county regional centers has been proceeding for several years. The latest study, North and South County Courts/Sheriff's Facilities Functional Program, was completed by Jay Farbstein and Associates, Inc. on February 15, 1991. The new substations will accommodate new and existing development for at least the next 20 years. The existing facility standard presented above is used to calculate new development's share of these long-range facilities needs. Based on a standard of 189 square feet per pp /-IIU June 21, 1991 Page XII-3 Chapter XII Sheriff's Patrol & Investigation 1,000 capita, and an increase in unincorporated area service population of 37,900.from 1990 to 2010, new development is responsible for 7,100 square feet of additional space. Of the total amount, 400 square feet will be financed by new development through contributions to repayment of the CSAC loan, leaving 6,700 square feet unfunded. The County estimates that the average cost of the substations is $237 per square foot based on preliminary estimates for the north and south county regional centers completed by Jay Farbstein and Associates. This estimate includes all construction and related costs, including architect and engineering, furnishings and equipment, construction management, and all related permit approval and utility connection fees. This cost is assumed to be appropriate for expansion of facilities at the county operations center for other unincorporated area services. Land costs for the north county site in Templeton were funded by proceeds from the CSAC loan and are included in this cost estimate. South county land costs are excluded because the County already owns the land. The impact fee will be adjusted based on final cost estimates. Other facilities costs are based on $.195 per square foot, including land, which is.the County's current estimate for general office space. The total estimated cost of Sheriff's facilities for the unincorporated area required to accommodate new development from 1990 to 2010 is $1.6 million, as presented in Table XII-2. Of this total, $97,000 is credited to new development for its contribution to repayment of the CSAC loan for the regional center substations. The remaining amounts are unfunded. The table is based on the assumption that the highest priority needs to accommodate new development are the substations at the new regional centers. Any remaining needs to maintain existing standards are allocated to other facilities such as expansion of the Los Osos substation, and investigative services, communication and dispatch, and administration at the county operations center. H �q June 21, 1991 Page XII-4 Chapter XII Shc ,'s Patrol & Investigation TABLE XII-2 FACILITIES NEEDS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT (7990 7 lo 201Q) Sq. Ft. Cost Regional Center Substations 6,200 1,474,000 County Operations Centers 900 . 176,000 Subtotal 7,100 $19650,000 Credit For CSAC Loan2 400 97,000 Total Facilities Needs 6,700 $1.553.000 Includes potential expansion of Los Osos substation. 2 New development's contribution to the CSAC loan repayment. See Table XII-1, note 2. Source: General Services Department; Recht Hausrath & Associates. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES Genera!Fund Revenues The County currently uses general fund revenues to pay for 6,550 square feet of leased space for the three existing substations. Even though 3,350 square feet will be replaced by the new regional centers, the County foresees difficulty allocating additional general fund resources for these facilities because of increasing demands on its operating budget. COST ALLOCATION AND IMPACT FEE CALCULATION The projected increase in unincorporated area service population (including employment) from 1990 to 2010 is 37,900. As shown in Table XII-2, the Sheriff's facilities required to accommodate new development to maintain the existing standard will cost an estimated $1.6 million, or $41 per capita. Both residents and employees place demands on patrol and investigation facilities. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that per capita this demand is constant across /qzu June 21, 1991 Page XII-S Chapter XII SherhTs Patrol & Investigation both population groups. Consequently, the need for additional facilities is equally allocated among the total service population (residents plus employees). To determine fee amounts for specific development projects, fees are calculated on a per dwelling unit basis for residential development, and on a square footage basis for non- residential development. Residents per dwelling unit and employees per square foot vary with the type of development. To fairly allocate costs fees must reflect this variance in facilities demand among projects. Development project categories based on service population densities, and their maximum corresponding fees, are shown in Table XII-3. TABLE XII-3 SHERIFF'S PATROL & INVESTIGATION IMPACT FEE Average Service Cost Per Fee Per Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit Residential Single-Family 2.70 per dwelling units $41 $111 Multi-Family' 1.54 per dwelling units 41 63 Non-Residential Office/High Density2 3.33 per 1,000 sq. ft.6 41 137 Retail/Medium Density3 2.00 per 1,000 sq. ft.6 41 82 11 Industrial Low Density4 1.43 ger 1,000 s . ft.6 41 59 Includes all structures in which two or more units are located on one lot. Attached units with a common wall that forms a property line are considered single-family dwellings. '- Includes all development with more than 2-50 employees per 1,000 square feet. 3 Includes all development with 2.50 to L67 employees per 1,000 square feet. ° Includes all development.with less than 1.67 employees per 1,000 square feet. 5 Persons per dwelling unit based on CA Department of Finance estimates for 1 January 1990, and includes vacancy rates, Report E-5, 1 May 1990, p.46. 6 Based on studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the San Diego Association of Governments. Source: Recht Hausrath &Associates. 1-I21 June 21, 1991 Page XII-6 CHAPTER XIII AFFORDABLE HOUSING The County's adopted general plan and land use ordinance include the provision of affordable housing as a land use policy goal. The existing housing programs identified in the County's adopted housing element have not fully achieved. this goal. Nonetheless, the County is concerned that the public facilities impact fees documented in Chapters IV through XII of the Plan would be a disincentive for residential developers to help achieve the County's housing policy objectives. This chapter documents an in-lieu mitigation fee on market rate units of residential projects to prevent the impact fee program from undermining the County's affordable housing goals. The in-lieu mitigation fee is not calculated to fund the entire subsidy necessary to build affordable housing units. Rather, the objective of the in-lieu fee is to charge development projects that include less than the appropriate share of affordable units a sufficient amount to pay impact fees of other projects to the extent that they include more than that share. The in-lieu fee will apply to all new residential development in unincorporated areas unless individual cities elect to participate. both in cities and in unincorporated areas. The fee will not apply to non-residential development because by definition such projects do not have the option whether or not to make available new affordable residential units. The fee may be an interim fee because the County is in the process of formulating a comprehensive affordable housing program, the results of which could affect the fee. IN-LIEU MITIGATION FEES COMPARED TO IMPACT FEES The fee presented in this chapter is an in-lieu mitigation fee, not another impact fee as documented in Chapters IV through XII of the Plan. An affordable housing impact fee June 21, 1991 Page XIII-1 Chapter XIII Affordable Housing would not be the appropriate method for achieving the policy objective of mitigating the cost fees on affordable housing for the reasons discussed below. If local agencies adopt impact fees they must do so in accordance with Government Code section 66000 et seq, also known as AB. 1600. Impact fees can only fund the cost of public facilities required to accommodate new development. However, the County is not anticipating that low and moderate income housing units assisted by these fees would be publicly owned making an impact fee to fund such facilities open to legal challenge. Equally important, there is currently little publicly owned housing in the county, i.e. there is a large existing deficiency. Thus, imposing.an affordable housing impact fee also could be challengedas forcing new development to cure this deficiency. However, California law allows counties and cities to adopt policies to promote the availability of affordable housing. These policies are usually implemented by requiring residential projects to include a certain percentage of affordable units. This mitigates the otherwise negative impact of the project on the availability of affordable housing. Because this is not feasible or efficient in many projects the law allows residential developers alternatively to meet the requirements by payment of in-lieu mitigation fees: Such a program is often termed "inclusionary zoning' based on the idea that new housing projects should include an appropriate amount of affordable housing. The County is in the process of formulating an inclusionary zoning program to achieve its affordable housing goals. The fee documented in this chapter,will presumably become a part of that program once implemented, and is not based on the impact fee approach governed by AB 1600. The County-already has in place another component of a housing program in the form of a density bonus under the County's land use ordinance which allows greater densities if a project provides a specified amount of affordable housing. June 21, 1991 Page XIII-2 Chanter XIII Affordable Housing FEE AS A COMPONENT OF AN INCLUSIONARY ZONING PROGRAM All new development must pay all applicable impact fees to maintain equity between different types of new development, and between new development and the existing population. However, as stated previously, the County does not want its impact fee program to inhibit attainment of its affordable housing goals. To this end, the in-lieu mitigation fee is structured so that developers will not have an incentive not to include the appropriate amount of affordable units in their residential projects. The support of an inclusionary zoning program provided by this in-lieu fee program is explained below. All residential projects will fall into one of the following categories: 1. If the proposed residential project includes exactly enough affordable units to comply with the policy, then the in-lieu fee paid will equal the impact fees needed to fund the public facilities associated with those affordable units. 2. If the proposed residential project includes fewer affordable units than needed to comply with the policy, then the in-lieu fee paid will provide a surplus to fund the impact fees on the remaining number of required affordable units, wherever those units may be built in the-County. 3. If the proposed residential project includes more affordable units than needed to comply with the policy, then the impact fees associated with those units above the goal amount will be paid by the surplus in-lieu fees generated by projects in category (2), above. The effect of this approach is that to the extent a project finds it infeasible to comply with the County's policy it will supply funds to pay impact fees for affordable units in projects that are over the standard. Projects that include exactly the amount of the standard are not affected. Their combined in-lieu and impact fees equal the cost of impact fees applied to all units (market rate and affordable) assuming no in-lieu fee in addition. June 21, 1991 Page XIII-3 Chapter XIII Affordable Housing FEE CALCULATION Two key assumptions are needed to calculate the affordable housing in-lieu mitigation fee. The first assumption is the definition of an affordable unit. For the purposes of the in-lieu fee, the definition is the same as that used by the County in its density bonus program. To qualify as an affordable unit, the sales price must be lower than three times the county median household income. Rental housing units would be considered affordable if the rents do not exceed the "market rents" published by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. The second key assumption is the countywide policy standard for affordable housing as a percentage of all new housing. The County is in the process of formulating an inclusionary zoning program and has not adopted a standard at this time. Until this program is implemented, the affordable housing in-lieu mitigation fee should be based on the average number of new housing units that likely will be affordable in the absence of such a program. This approach should result in the surplus in-lieu fees paid by residential projects with fewer affordable.units than average equalling the impact fees required for projects with more affordable units than average. Based on recent residential development, the interim in-lieu fee assumes that 5 percent of all new units were affordable. Based on this assumption, calculation of the in-lieu mitigation fee is shown below: Projectin-Lieu Fee - 5'0% x Total Impact Fee 1.00-5.0% 5.3% x'-Total Impact Fee June 21, 1991 Page XIII-4 Chapter XIII Affordable Housing The interim fee as calculated would apply to all market rate housing units, regardless of the number of affordable units included in the proposed project. Neither the in-lieu fee nor any impact fees would apply to affordable units. With this approach the in-lieu fee is mathematically equivalent to the impact fees that would be assessed on the number of affordable units that would be necessary to add to the project to achieve the policy standard. The fee will be reviewed and revised as appropriate as the County considers implementation of an inclusionary zoning program for affordable housing. June 21, 1991 Page XIII-5 APPENDIX A POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS This appendix provides greater detail for the population and employment projections presented in Chapter II, and the projections for the fire service area used in Chapter IV. POPULATION Tables A-1 present the population projections for each city and the unincorporated area that are summarized in Chapter H. The 1990 population is based on the 1990 census. TABLE A-1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS 1990 2010 Change Arroyo Grande 14,378 19,365 41987 Atascadero 23,138 32,860 9,722 Grover City 11,656 16,000 4,344 Morro Bay 9,664 11,441 1,777 Paso Robles 18,583 35,188 16,605 Pismo Beach 7,669 12,529 41860 San Luis Obispo 41,958 51,592 91634 Um*ncorporated Area 90,117 120,649 309532 IQlal 217.163 222&2L 82,461 Source: County Planning and Building Department,January 1991 projections. The Department's 2010 estimates for Atascadero and Grover City were changed to reflect buildout prior to 2010, as reported by city staff. Estimates for the City of San Luis Obispo were changed to reflect buildout at 54,000 in 2015, also as reported by city staff. EMPLOYMENT Table A-2 presents the employment projections for each city and the unincorporated area that are summarized in Chapter H. Employment is estimated by multiplying the employment factor in the second column of the table by the appropriate population June 21, 1991 Page A-1 Appendix A Population Qc Employment Ptoiections estimate in Table A-1. The employment factors for Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo are based on estimates by city staff. The factors for the other cities and the unincorporated area were developed by Recht Hausrath & Associates. These estimates were based on comparisons with the three cities just mentioned, and were controlled to a county-wide average factor of 35 percent. The county-wide factor is based on a 17-year trend of population and employment in.the County. TABLE A-2 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS Employ- ment Factor 1990 2010 Change Arroyo Grande 35% 5,032 6,778 1,746 Atascadero 24% 5,553 7,886 2,333 Grover City 35% 4,080 5,600 1,520 Morro Bay 24% 2,319 2,746 427 Paso Robles 46% 8,548 16,186 7,638 Pismo Beach 35% 2,684 41385 1,701 San Luis Obispo 61% 25,594 319471 5,877 Unincorporated Area 24% 21,630 28,957 7,327 Total 35% 75,440 1040009 28,569 Source: County-wide estimate from 17-year trend of employment and population from California Employment Development Department,Annual Planning Information reports, and the California Department of Finance population estimates. City employment factors estimated by Recht Hausrath & Associates based on interviews with city staff. Population assumptions from Table A-1. FIRE SERVICE AREA POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Table A-3 presents detailed population estimates for unincorporated areas of the County servedby the County Fire Department and the three fire districts presented in Chapter N. Employment projections for the fire service area are based on a 24 percent employment factor for all communities, as explained previously and shown in Table A-2. .lune 21, 1991 Page A-2 Appendix A Popula ,,n & Employment Proiections TABLE A-3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR FIRE FACILITIES 1990 2010 Change North Coast Region Adelaida 2,814 3,404 590 Cayucos 2,880 3,058 178 Estero (rural) 1,588 1,845 257 Nacimiento 2,167 7,544 5,377 Cambria 59099 69153 1,054 North Coast (rural) 838 982 144 Subtotal 15,386 22,986 7,600 Inland Regi El Pomar/Estrella 6,634 10,102 3,468 Las Pilitas 1,262 1,547 285 Los Padres 288 336 48 San Miguel 1,041 1,645 604 Salinas River (rural) 5,298 9,063 3,765 Shandon-Carrizo 29282 2,821 539 Subtotal 16,805 25,514 3,709 South Coast Re 'on Huasna-Lopez 758 817 59 San Luis Bay (rural) 39948 5,446 19498 San Luis Obispo (rural) 11,799 13,934 29135 Nipomo 8,063 12,392 4,329 Nipomo (rural) 7,533 9,354 1,821 Subtotal 3ZI01 41,943 9,842 1 90,4435 Source: County Planning and Building Department, January 1991 projections. lune 21, 1991 Page A-3 APPENDIX B PLANNED FACILITIES This appendix identifies public facilities that could be funded by impact fee revenues based on facilities plans of County departments. In many cases departments have identified facilities needs that are greater than can by justifiably funded by impact fees. The principal reasons for this are: • Master plans are based on facilities standards that are higher than 1990 existing standards because the department has determined that existing standards are inadequate or will be inadequate within the 20-year time frame for this study; and/or • The department currently has a significant amount of leased space which cannot be included in the existing standard for purposes of calculating a justifiable impact fee. Leased space cannot be included because it is funded with general fund revenues generated by both new and existing development. /-/30 June 21, 1991 Page.B-1 FIRE Table B-1 is a preliminary list of facilities needs from 1990 to 2010 developed by the County Fire Department, the Cambria Fire Department, the Cayucos Fire Protection District, and the San Miquel Fire Protection District. Facilities include those required to serve new development based on the existing facility standard, and those needed to increase facility standards for the benefit of both new and existing development. Costs are based on a $1,230,000 prototype 4,000 square foot station on two acres of land, and equipped with one engine and one squad vehicle. All facilities are for the County Fire Department unless otherwise noted. Existing County Fire Department facilities that will require replacement during this period are not included. Thus, for example, if a station is planned to be replaced and expanded only the additional square footage is shown. Also, if a vehicle is to be replaced, impact fee revenues can only fund the cost net of the value of the replaced vehicle. The list is not final and will be refined as part of each agencies' master planning process. For the County, the master planning process will also address the sequencing of new facilities based on service priorities, and the master plan is subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors. /- 81 .lune 21, 1991 Page B-2 Appendix B Planned Facilities TABLE B-1 PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR NEW FIRE FACILITIES to 201Q) Station Approximate Facility Number Location Costl North Coast Region Water tender 10 Cambria $ 70,000 Expand station, new squad 14 •Morro-Toro 630,000 New station 37 Hwy. 46 west @ Vineyard 1,180,000 New station TBD San Simeon area 1,180,000 Utility vehicle TBD To be determined 85,000 Expand station, new engine2 1 Cambria Comm. Svcs. Dist. 686,000 Expand station, new vehicles3 NA Cayucos Fire Prot. Dist. 325,000 Subtotal $4,156,000 Inland Region New station (land not incl.)`[ 36 Hwy. 46 east @ Branch 1,190,000 New station (land not incl.) 44 Santa Margarita area 1,080,000 Expand station 33 Heritage Ranch 540,000 Water Tender 43 Creston 70,000 Water Tender 40 Parkhill 70,000 Two utility vehicles TBD To be determined 30,000 Expand station NA San Miguel Fire Prot. Dist. 100,000 Subtotal $3,080,000 South Coast Region New station 23 Arroyo Grande @ Hwy. 227 1,180,000 New station (land not incl.) 24 Black Lake (Nipomo Mesa) 1.080,000 Expand station, tender6 12 SLO City @ Hwy. 1 270,000 Expand station, squad 13 Avila Valley 710,000 Complete new station 22 Nipomo Mesa 350,000 Water Tender 20 Nipomo 70,000 Utility vehicle TBD To be determined 15,000 Subtotal $3,675,000 Total cin 911 000 All stations based on a prototype 4,000 square foot building costing $200 per square foot for a "turnkey" project, including furniture and equipment, but not including vehicles. All new stations are assumed to require two acres of land at 550,000 per acre, and to be equipped with engine and squad, unless otherwise noted. Vehicle costs are $300,000 per track, $210,000 per engine, $110,000 per heavy rescue, 370,000 per squad, $70,000 per water tender, and$15,000 per utility vehicle. All costs in 1990 dollars. /-/32, .hone 21, 1991 Page B-3 Appendix B Planned Facilities Notes to Table B-1, continued 2 Expand station 2,130 square feet ($426,000), one additional acre ($50,000), new engine ($210,000). 3 Expand station 500 square feet ($100,000), new engine and utility vehicle ($225,000). 4 Vehicles include engine, water tender, and heavy rescue. Land already acquired. eExpand station 500 square feet ($100,000). Expand administrative space 1,000 square feet. Cost includes truck, squad, and water supply ($70,000). Remainder of station is funded. Source: County Fire Department; Cambria Community Services District; Cayucos Fire Protection District; San Miguel Fire Protection District. June 21, 1991 Page B-4 GENERAL GOVERNMENT & OTHER COUNTY FACILITIES The San Luis Obispo Department of General Services prepared the County Government Center Space Analysis, Personnel and Space in November 1990 to determine department needs in the County Government Center through the year 2005. The study included space leased for related department-operations. The analysis covered all but five of the departments included in Chapter V and the community room. These departments are: Animal Regulation, County Garage, Emergency Operations Center, Social Services and Veterans Services and are not located in the Government Center. The space study determined the amount of square footage needed to accommodate new growth as well as enable the County to terminate existing contracts for leased space. The study determined that a total of 115,280 square feet of space would be needed, for the departments covered in this chapter, by 2005. The calculation of additional square feet required reflects the relocation of some departments and consolidating certain department operations. In order to calculate the amount of space needed in 2010, we assumed that demands for space in each department between 2005 and 2010 would follow the trend between 2000 and 2005. Thus, the total space needs would be 124,613 square feet, for an increase of 48,255 square feet from present amounts in 1990. Facility needs for the five departments not included in the County Government Center analysis are discussed below. With the exception of Social Services, the facilities needs for these departments are based on existing fee standards and thus, are funded totally by impact fees. The Department of Animal Regulation currently has no existing deficiency but estimates that a new facility will be needed by the year 2000. Based upon the existing fee standard, the Department will need an additional 2,000 square feet by 2010. The 1- 13� June 21, 1991 Page B-5 Appendir B Planned Facilities amount of additional space needed for Veteran's Services, based on existing fee standards, is 852 square feet. The County Garage is currently at capacity and will need an additional 8,377 square feet at its current location, the County Operations Center. The total square footage needed by these departments to maintain existing standards is 11,229. As was noted in Chapter V, Table V-1, the Department of Social Services is building a new facility and anticipates completion in 1993. The site for the new building has been master planned to accommodate a second facility, part of which may be used by the Social Services Department. At present there is no time frame for the second phase: The Department believes that the phase one building, 56,000 square feet, will be at capacity upon completion. Based upon the department's existing facility standard, Social Services will need 37,678 square feet in addition to the new building being constructed by 2010. Emergency services staff believe that the current facility is sufficient to meet the needs of the County through 2010, and therefore no additional space is required. Similarly, no additional room is needed to augment the community room in the North County Regional Center. Summing all of the facility needs, the. County will require an additional 98,390 square feet of space by 2010. Based on the fee standard calculated in Chapter V, 57,831 square feet (59 percent) of this amount will be needed to serve new development. The remaining 40,559 square feet is needed by existing development to correct existing deficiencies. . As noted previously, space leased by the County is not included in calculating fee standards and is considered a deficiency. The cost of facilities to maintain facilities standards is $7.7 million, based on a land and construction cost of $191 per building square foot. This is in addition to the facilities funded by impact fees, approximately $17 million. /`/35 June 21, 1991 Page B-6 JAILS & OTHER COUNTY-WIDE SHERIFF FACILITIES MAIN JAIL Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc. completed a draft jail facilities master plan for the County in October 19871, covering the period through 2010. The plan projected jail population and bed requirements by modeling an offender's path through the detention system from arrest through incarceration. The model incorporated assumptions such as arrest rates, sentencing rates, lengths of stay, and pealing factors that were developed using historical data. In addition, results were adjusted for policy changes anticipated in the criminal justice system. The required bed capacity to accommodate the actual 1990 jail population was 509 beds, based on standards assumed in the master plan, and calculated as follows: The main jail had an actual average daily population (ADP) of 411 in 1990. During the year, however, 4,166 misdemeanants were not incarcerated after sentencing to reduce jail overcrowding. They would have served their sentence in jail had space been available. Master plan standards include beds necessary to accommodate this demand. Correcting for the "weekenders" results in a 1990 ADP of 435. ADP was increased by a peaking factor to account for fluctuations in the jail population above (and below) the average. Based on historical data, the 1987 master plan assumed a 17 percent peaking factor which results in a jail population above capacity for a few days each year. Applying this peaking factor to the ADP results in the need for 509 beds in 1990. The required capacity of 509 beds and a 1990 county population of 217,100 results in a standard of 234 beds per 1,000 capita. This is the number of beds necessary to tCounty of San Lois Obispo Department of General Services:Jail Needs Assessment Update (Volumes I and II), Jay Farbstein & Associates. Inc., October 13, 1987, (Draft). aa —/JG June 21, 1991 Page B-7 Appendix B Planned Facilities accommodate existing development in 1990 using the standards presented in the master plan. This discussion uses resident population only to calculate facilities standards, not residents plus employment used in Chapter VI, to enable comparisons with the Farbstein report. The 1987 master plan estimated that the jail standard (beds per 1,000 capita) will have to increase in response to social and policy influences on the criminal justice system. First, social factors such as increased population densities and homelessness are associated with increases in arrest rates. Based on analysis of historical data, the master plan estimates that arrest rates in the county will increase 42 percent for felonies and 47 percent for misdemeanors by 2010. Second, criminal justice policies such as increased mandatory sentencing and higher bails for felony offenses are causing incarceration rates to increase. The master plan's incorporation of these social and policy factors into the model caused the-number of beds required per 1,000 capita to increase 46% from 1990 to 2010. Applying this increase to the 1990 standard of 234 results in a 2010 standard of 3.41 beds per 1,000 capita. Based on a 2010 population of 299,600, the Sheriffs Department projects a need for 449 beds in addition to those now being added through phases 1 and 2 of the main jail expansion program. This is 238 beds more than can be funded by impact fees as shown in Chapter VI. This represents a potential unfunded facilities need of $16.0 million- OTHER illionOTHER COUNTYWIDE SHERIFF"S FACILITIES The Sheriff has studied the need for regional holding facilities. The results of studies indicate that deputies could realize significant efficiency gains by using temporary holding facilities in the north and south county instead of immediately transporting all persons in custody to the main jail, as is required now. June 21, 1991 Page B-8 Appendix B Planned Facilities With regard to other countywide facilities, the Sheriff's Department believes that it has a significant existing deficiency, particularly in administrative space. The Department also anticipates that the need for space will increase at least as fast as the growth in the county's population. 1--13 June 21, 1991 Page B-9 LAW & JUSTICE The County expects that it will need 98,800 square feet of additional building space for law and justice facilities between 1990 and 2010. This projection is from the following three sources, and is summarized in Table B-2: • County Government Center space projections.were prepared in a recent study by the Department of General Services.' The study included projections to 2005, and we extrapolated these to 2010 based on the growth rate from 2000 to 2005. • Space projections for the Probation Department are based on the need for 25,000 square feet of additional juvenile residential space and 13,500 square feet of additional administrative space. • For north and south county court facilities, the planned regional centers are assumed to be adequate for 2010. These centers will replace the existing owned and leased facilities in Paso Robles and Grover City. i Department of General Services, County Government Center Space Analysis, Personnel and Space, November 29, 1990. June 21, 1991 Page B-10 Appendix B Planned Facilities TABLE B-2 LAW & JUSTICE FACILITIES NEEDS, 1990 AND 2010 (QYrnqqz Building 5=am Feet) Department/Service 1990 2010 Increase County Government Center Area District Attorneyl 13,711 19,446 5,735 Superior Court 17,611 40,995 23,384 Municipal Court 15,152 24,235 9,083 Jury Services & Other'- 4,921 6,279 1,358 Probation 32,563 71,063 38,500 N. & S. Regional Centers3 39,200 44,100 4,900 Total 123 158 2 6 118 82 960 Includes Family Support and Victim Witness. z Includes Grand Jury and Law Library. 3 Existing 1990 useable space is 9,940 square feet in Paso Robles and Grover City facilities. 1990 space shown in table represents funded portions of new regional centers and the value of land contributed by existing development. (See Chapter VII, Table VII-1 for more explanation.) 2010 space represents total planned regional center space, including space for District Attorney, Public Defender, and Jury Services. Sources: County General Services Department, County Government Center Space Analysis, Personnel and Spac4 November 29, 1990; Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc, North and South County Courts/Sheriffs Facilities Functional Program, February 15, 1991; Recht Hausrath & Associates. As indicated in Chapter VII new development can fund 42,800 square feet through impact fees, and existing development is contributing 12,900 square feet through financing of the regional centers. This leaves 27,300 square feet that is unfunded. Based on a conservative cost estimate of $220 per square foot, including land, the unfunded facilities cost is $6.0 million. l-lam June 21, 1991 Page B-11 LIBRARIES Table B-3 presents the proposed future library expansion, ranked by priority, as suggested in the October 1990 library master plan,A Planning Framework for the Libraries of San Luis Obispo. The list includes the additional square footage that would result from expansion of existing facilities shown in Chapter VIII in Table VIII-1 or from construction of new facilities. The master plan proposes that four of the new facilities be leased. It is possible, however, that the County may purchase land and construct the libraries. Thus, their costs are included in Table B-3. In identifying the proposed projects, the plan recommends and incorporates the following standards for the San Luis Obispo City County Library system: 2 volumes per capita and OS gross square feet per resident, except for a 0.7 gross square feet standard for residents of the City of San Luis Obispo. These facility standard goals are higher than the existing standards. Additionally, the plan uses a projection of population that is higher than more recent estimates by the county to identify facility needs. As discussed in Chapter VIII, the department recommended using the existing facility standards rather than the higher standards presented above due to funding constraints. Therefore, as calculated in Chapter VIII in Table VIII-2, development impact. fees would only provide half of the 49,000 square feet of new library facilities identified in the master plan. As documented in the library master plan, the estimated cost of site development, construction, fees, furnishings and equipment for library facilities is $213 (1990 dollars) per square foot. This includes a construction cost of $117 per square foot; site June 21, 1991 Page B-12 Appendix B Planned Facilities TABLE B-3 PROPOSED LIBRARY EXPANSION Size Land Building Total Facility (Sq. Ft.) Cost Cost Cost Nipomo Library 5,000 $ 140,000 $ 1,065,000 $ 1,205,000 South County Expansion 89000. 2249000 19704,000 1,9289000 South Bay Expansion 6,024 96,400 19283,100 19379,500 Atascadero Expansion 8,000 256,000 19704,000 1,960,000 Morro Bay Library 10,000 280,000 2,130,000 2,410,000 Cambria Expansion 1,976 35,600 420,900 456,500 San Miguel Libraryl 1,000 16,000 213,000 229,000 _ Santa Margarita Libraryl 1,000 16,000 213,000 229,000 Shell Beach Library 19000 289000 213,000 2419000 Simmler Libraryl 1,000 16,000 213,000 ?9,000 Cayucos Library' 2,000 56,000 426,000 482,000 Creston Library 19000 16,000 213,000 229,000 Pozo Expansion 1,000 16,000 213,000 229,000 Shandon Library 1,000 169000 213,000 229,000 Templeton Library 19000 16,000 213,000 229,000 TOTAL FACILMES 49,000 $ 19228,000 $ 10,437,000 $ 11,665,000 t The master plan proposes that the County lease these facilities, therefore, new development would not be required to contribute to their cost. Source: A Plmming Framework for lite Libraries of San Luis Obispo, library master plan, October 1990; Recht Hausrath &Associates. June 21, 1991 Page B-13 Appendix B Planned Facilities development costs of $8 per square foot; legal, architectural and engineering fees at approximately 12 percent of project cost and a ten percent contingency. The amount of land needed is four times the amount of library floor space, or a floor-area ratio (FAR) of 0.25. Four different land prices were used to reflect the general project locations. Adjusting the land prices for the FAR resulted in a $32 cost per building square foot for the Atascadero library; $28 per building square foot for facilities in Nipomo, South County, Morro Bay and Shell Beach; $18 per building square foot for the Cambria library; and $16 per building square foot for the remaining library projects. June 21, 1991 Page B-14 HEALTH SERVICES. The County health departments lease approximately 28 percent of their space. Consequently, the facilities standards differ from the fee standards. In order to maintain existing facilities standards these departments will require facilities in addition to those that can be funded by impact fees. The total facilities needs of the health services departments are calculated below. The existing facility standard for Health Agency departments is 271 square feet per 1,000 capita. This represents total space, including leased spaced, used by the departments to serve the existing service population. The facility standard for the Hospital out-patient clinics is 52 square feet per 1,000 capita. The air monitoring station facility standard is the same as the fee standard, i.e. 51.248 per 1,000 capita based on the total value of the. four stations. To maintain existing facility standards, an additional 5,782 square feet of space is needed for new clinic space, and 30,135 square feet is required for health agency departments. In addition, $150,000 is required for two air monitoring stations. The District estimates that two additional air monitoring stations will be needed to serve the 2010 service population. This is in addition to the two stations that are currently owned and operated by the State but which may be given to the District. Table B-4 presents health services needs based on the facilities standards enumerated above. As calculated in Chapter X, new development is responsible for 53 percent of the cost. Hence, those facilities that cannot be allocated solely to new development because they are based on existing standards that include leased facilities, or in the case of air monitoring stations represent an investment above the existing standard include 3,513 square feet in hospital clinic space, 14,287 square feet in Health Agency space, and $6,670 for air monitoring stations. H44T June 2I, 1991 Page B-15 Appendix B Planned Facilities TABLE B-4 TOTAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITIES NEEDS TO MAINTAIN EXISTING FACILITIES STANDARDS (1990 - 2010) Service Population Growth 111,200 New Facilities Space Total Standard' Needed Cost Hospital Clinic Space Needs 52 5,782 $1,330,000 Health Agency Space Needs 271 30,135 6,319,000 Facilities Investment Standard; Needed Air Monitoring Stations3 $1,349 $150,000 150,000 TOTAL $7,799,000 Square feet of gross building space per 1,000 service population. z Capital facilities costs per 1,000 service population. 3 The current standard, as calculated on page IX-4, is $1,248 per 1,000 residents and employees which results in a required investment of$139,000. This, however, does not provide for the total cost of the stations needed by the Air Pollution Control District. The difference, $11,000, represents the investment needed to improve the e:dsting standard. Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates 1 - 1�5 June 21, 1991 Page B-16 PARKS & RECREATION Tables B-5 and B-6 list County park facilities needed through the year 2010 as identified in the 1988 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. These tables include projects both to correct existing deficiencies and to serve new development through 2010. The plan assumes a higher 2010 population (60,000 more persons) than the County planning department currently estimates. According to the standards in the master plan the County should have 562 acres of developed neighborhood and community parks and 4,436 acres of regional parks and open space to serve the 1990 population. While the County surpasses the regional park standard in terms of total acres, the master plan identifies some deficiencies at the planning area level. There is also an existing deficiency of developed neighborhood and community parks. There is some use of city parks by unincorporated residents and vice versa, but it is reasonable to assume that each group places approximately the same proportional demand on the other's parks. Therefore, in considering only unincorporated residents and neighborhood and community park facilities, the County has an existing deficiency of 454 acres of developed parks based on the master plan standards. Currently, the County has 114 acres of neighborhood and community park land that is available for development. It would therefore need to acquire an additional 340 acres and develop 454 acres of park land to meet the master plan standard and improve the existing level of service. June 21, 1991 Page B-17 Appendix B Planned Facilities TABLE B-5 MASTER PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARK PROJECTS (Acres) Park Acquisition Development Existing Neighborhood and Community Parks Biddle Neighborhood and Park 0.0 22.0 Hardie Park 0.0 1.5 Heilman Park . 0.0 20.0 Ocean Park 3.0 3.0 Lampton Park 0.0 2.1 South Bay Park 1.2 0.0 New Neighborhood and Community Parks W. Templeton/Rossi Rd. 7.5 75 W. Templeton Field 0.0 1.0 Ocean - 13th Street 3.0 3.0 Ocean/Arroyo Grande 25.0 25.0 Santa Margarita Park 25.01 25.0 Los Osos/Tum Road 200.0 200.0 Cambria Park 25.0 25.0 Creston Park 5.0 5.0 Lodge Hill-Cambria 20.0 20.0 Pecho-Binscarth Rd. 4.0 4.0 TOTAL 317.7 363.1 The master plan notes that this land would be dedicated to the County, not purchased. Because the master plan includes cities' neighborhood and community parks in determining the entire county's e)dsting level of service, the number of acres needed through the year 2010 as identified above is less than what would be derived if only the County's neighborhood and community parks were included_ Source: County of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Master P&n, 1988, and subsequent revisions to the Plan. 1-147 June 21, 1991 Page B-18 Appendix B Planned Facilities TABLE B-6 COUNTY REGIONAL PARK PROJECTS' (Acres) Park Acquisition Development Existing Regional Lopez Lake 0 792 Santa Margarita Lake 400 250 Nipomo Park 0 124 El Chorro Park 0 300 New Regional North County Park 500 500 Price Canyon 350 350 Salinas River Park 500 500 South County Park 60 60 TOTAL 1,810 2,876 Includes projects to correct e)asdng deficiencies and serve new development based upon planning areas. Thus, while the County surpasses the overall standard of 20 acres per 1,000, some planning areas do not meet the standard. Therefore, the master plan identifies new acreage to meet regional needs which will result in the County having more than 20 acres per 1,000 by the year 2010. Source: County of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 1988 Assuming the average weighted land cost of $125,000 for neighborhood and community parks, $10,000 for regional parks and $2,000 for open space, the new parks would cost $45.5 million dollars. This assumes that 15 percent of the regional park acres to be purchased would be suitable for development. Development of the 3,239 acres would cost $109 million dollars, assuming development costs of $156,700 and $121,800 per acre for neighborhood and community parks and regional parks, respectively, and development of only. 15 percent of the regional park acres. Table B-7, on the following page, lists the seven cities' regional park improvement plans. The cities of Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo are currently completing master plans LLO June 21, 1991 Page B-19 Appendix B Planned Facilities for Chumash Park and Laguna Lake Park, respectively.- The City of Pismo Beach anticipates that approximately half of the 40 acre park will be developed with play apparatus, tennis courts, playing fields and picnic areas. The remaining acreage consists of steep hills and will be used for trails and an oak tree memorial reserve. Total development costs are estimated at $1.2 million. The City of San Luis Obispo anticipates completion of its master plan in mid-1991. At present it is unknown what total development costs will be or the improvements that will be undertaken. The city of Pismo Beach will also develop three coastal accessways and construct a downtown boardwalk along the shoreline. The total cost estimate is $2.4 million. (This reflects only a third of the cost of the boardwalk.) The City of Paso Robles estimates that development of Barney Schwartz Park will be $5 million. The City of Atascadero plans to develop two acres of zoo and six acres of park. The city is currently in the process of purchasing three of those six acres. Development costs for the zoo and the three acres the city owns are $800,400. The City of Arroyo Grande estimates that development of the remaining five acres of Elm Street Park/Soto Sports Complex will cost $1.3 million. This costs includes new,playing fields, parking and drainage improvements. The 20 acre Morro Bay Coleman Park will be developed with beach-oriented facilities. The estimated cost is $3.3 million. Grover City plans to acquire a six acre parcel in close proximity to Arroyo Grande's Elm Street Park and develop it with playing fields. In addition, Grover City anticipates building a four mile pedestrian pathway to Pismo Beach. No cost estimates are available for these projects at this time. Thus, excluding Laguna Lake Park and the Grover City projects, total development costs of the cities' regional park facilities is $14 million. June 21, 1991 Page B-20 Appendix B Planned Facilities TABLE B-7 CITY REGIONAL PARK PROJECTS Acres To Acres To Park Be Purchased Be Developed Atascadero Lake Park 3 g Barney Schwartz Park 3 43 Chumash Park 0 40 Coleman Park 0 20 Elm Street Park 0 5 Grover City Park 6 6 Laguna Lake Park NA NA Source: Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo. The difference between total facility needs, as identified in this Appendix, and those allocated to new development, as calculated in Table X-4, is $112 million. This amount represents what is needed to improve the existing level of service to meet the master plan goals. The facilities required to accomplish this are the responsibility of both new and existing development since both will benefit from the improved service. H50 June 21, 1991 Page B-21 �`ONFG•.It City of. EI Paso de Robles O "r2gz ass of E{u DaL" November 5, 1990 To: City Managers in San Luis Obispo County From: Jerry Bankstol�y of Paso Robles Subject: City/County Participation Group As a follow-up to the introductory meeting of ,the City/County Participation Group held on October 10, 1990, the City Managers met on October 26, 1990. The purpose of the M"t.Lgers meeting was to define and consider the County request foci financing alternatives for County capital facilities. It is the City Managers understanding of the County's consultant (Becht Haysrath Associates) presentation that consideration be given to assessing development fees county-wide for facilities in the following three categoriee: 1. Central County fac' ities which serve the entire county - e.g. , courts, jails, pub is health offices to include the hospital, veteran services, co ty administration, transportation system "spines". 2. Facilities / or services provided solely to unincorporated areas - e.g. , file stations, sheriff substations. 3. Facili es constructed in either a city or unincorporated area whichfer "shared benefit" - e.g. , libraries, parks, local area stree systems. The City'Managers propose the following CONCEPTUAL - STATEMENT OF POSITIOX: 1. City/County Participation Group continue to meet in consideration of imposition of County impact fees by cities for Category 1 - Central County Facilities, which can be confirmed to serve the entire county. However, the cities should be fully briefed by the County--as to the fee concept and methodolocry pri r o ini is in an ex s. epen ing upon conclusions reached after full understanding of the proposed fee, cities may choose not to participate further. 2. County proceed on its own initiative to assess impact fees within the unincorporated areas for Category 2 - Facilities for servicing unincorporated areas. 3. County and e+ty�[cities eparately meet in consideration of imposition of City/County impact fees in incorporated and unincorporated areas for mutually agreed Category 3 - "shared benefit" facilities. JB Clty Manager P.O.Box 307,Paso Robles,CA 93447-0307 (805)238.0400 FAX(805)238-4704 �� I�ui IIID �►��Illll�"" I� CTY O SMWIS OBIW 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 November 20, 1990 Robert E Hendrix County Administrative Officer County Government Building San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Dear Mr. Hendrix: In following up on your request, on October 2, 1990 the City Council appointed me to represent the City Council of San Luis Obispo on the "City/County Participation Group". Since that appointmerrt, our City has learned a little more about the fee through the initial briefing on October 10, but in general we strongly feel that more information is necessary before we can support the fee concept and assure long-term participation on the advisory group. With this in mind, our current position regarding the three categories of potential fees outlined by your consultant on October 10 is as follows: 1. The City/County Participation Group should continue to meet in consideration of imposition of County impact fees by cities for Category 1 - Central County Facilities, which can be confirmed to serve the entire county (e.g., a jail, the i hospital, courts, etc.). During these meetings the cities should be fully briefed by the County as to the fee concept and methodology. This should occur g i to initiating an extensive public review and input process. We are interested in knowing exactly how such a fee would be assessed, the basis for determining proportionate "responsibility" between jurisdictions, specific projects to be funded, i methods of collection, etc. Specific information about how the fee works in Stanislaus County would be helpful, too. Depending upon conclusions reached after we fully understand the proposed fee, our City (and others) may choose to continue, with the process, or not to participate further. 2. The County should proceed on its own initiative to develop impact fees within the unincorporated areas for Category 2 - Facilities for servicing solely unincorporated areas. Consideration of such fees should not be a part of the Participation Group process. 3. The County and appropriate cities can separately meet in consideration of imposition of City/County impact fees in incorporated and unincorporated areas for mutually agreed "shared benefit° facilities (Category 3). Like Category 2, these issues should not be a part of the Participation Group Agenda ��/52 Page Two Hendrix In dosing, I would like to emphasize that I am a very strong advocate of cooperation between jurisdictions and joint problem solving. As such, I am supportive of the basic intent of processes like the City/County Participation Group. In this specific case, I am asking for the opportunity to participate more fully so that we can reasonably understand the fee concept at the earliest possible time. In this way, prior to initiating an extensive public process, all parties involved can make a better decision regarding the feasibility and potential benefits of Countywide development fees. Sincerely, . Penny Rappa Councilmember, City of San Luis Obispo c: San Luis Obispo City Council City Councils - SLO County Cities Board of Supervisors :hendrix:bw AUG-16-1991 16:22 FROM City of Pismo Beach TO 5497109 P.01 CITY OF PISMO. BEACH, CALIFORNIACITY HALL 1000 BELLO ST. . P.O. BOX 3 PISMO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, 93449 wtwlwm� TELEPHONE 805/773/4657 - August 16, 1991 Mr. Robert Hendrix County Administrator County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Mr. Hendrix: The San Luis Obispo County City Managers Group met on August 14, 1991 to discuss the Preliminary Draft of the County's Public Facilities Financing Plan prepared by Recht Hausrath & Associates. We understand that the County would like to meet with each--of the City Councils to determine the level of support to implement the plan. In terms of methodology, much of this study could serve as a model for the cities. Our concerns are more fundamental. We believe that it is important for each of the Cities to have time to fully digest the impact that the County imposed fees will have on each city. For several cities, this means completing their own fee programs first and considering the County fee afterward. We do not disagree that public facility fees should be imposed to help pay for the cost of additional infrastructure to serve growth. However, we are concerned with the cumulative fees imposed by the county and cities to serve growth, and the "cost-benefit" of such County fees must be evaluated in this light. We have developed a list of questions posing other concerns that will be forwarded to our respective City Councils for their consideration. We understand that some cities have planned meetings with Recht Hausrath & Associates. Answers to the attached questions would be most helpful. We would appreciate your response. Sincerely, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CITY MANAGERS GROUP chard r woo Chairman City Managers Group RLK=jy cc: City Managers File AUG-16-1991 16:23 FROM City of Pismo Beach TO 5497109 P.02 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CITY MANAGER GROUP QUESTIONS REGARDING COUNTYWIDE DEVELOPMENT FEES 1. All local cities are in the process of updating and/or adopting development fees to support specific projects within city boundaries. The cities feel that it would be preferable to complete these "AB 1600 processes" and consider countywide development fees afterward, and within the contest of the full scope of potential fees (in approximately one year) . What compelling reason exists for the cities to take action on County fees prior to that time? 2. Will the participation of cities in any countywide development fee program be considered as an "offset" to the County's assessment of SB 2557 fees? If not, why not? The cities believe that countywide support of such fees would be consistent with the cost sharing goals identified by the Coalition for Cooperative Government Task Force, of which the County is a part. 3 . Will the implementation of countywide development fees .inappropriately encourage urbanization in the unincorporated areas? Basically, will the fees be growth inducing. 4. The study does not clearly explain the approach to programming and funding regional projects. How is this proposed to be handled? What direct role can cities expect to play in determining the timing of projects and assuring the allocation of county impact fee revenues toward their completion? So far, this has not been specifically outlined. 5. Does the County envision entering into enforceable agreements between the cities and the County to assure completion of regional projects consistent with established time frames and original project concepts? 6. Who will establish project priorities for countywide facilities, such as jails, regional courts, sheriff substations, etc. ? Will cities have a say, or will this be through Board action only? 7. What is the rationale for a County overhead charge? In addition, if cities are to collect the fees, why should the County retain 1. 5% of the proposed 2.5% administrative fee? 8. Can individual cities "pick and choose" fee support for certain countywide facilities, but exclude others? For example, a city may not wish to support the proposed 189 vehicles to support County general government operations - can vehicles be excluded from the fee cost computation for such a city? Can a city which opposes the construction of a new County hospital exclude that cost component from the countywide fee? RUG-16-1991 16:23 FROM City of Pismo Beach TO 5497109 0.03 Page Two Development Fees 9. Assuming an individual city can choose to support the imposition of a "single purpose" fee (e.g. for libraries) , will the County agree to a sunset provision to be effective upon project completion? 10. If cities choose not to adopt the fee program, will this effect the County's approach to other city-county issues? For example, annexations, General Plan updates, review of EIR's for projects within City boundaries? With regard to the latter, does the County intend to litigate against EIR's if the County fee program is not adopted by cities? li. If cities do not adopt the fee program, can the County legally impose the fees on cities? If counties can impose the fees, is it the intention of the County of San Luis Obispo to do so?