CC RESOLUTION 4687RESOLUTION NO. 4687
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR
POLICE, FIRE, LIBRARY, AND PARKS FACILITIES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH TITLE 15 CHAPTER 27A OF THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL
CODE.
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:
A. New land development generates impacts on public services and public
facilities for which revenues generated through property taxes and other
means are generally insufficient to accommodate;
B. Objective LU7 -1 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the City
of El Segundo states that it is the City's objective to provide the highest
and most efficient level of public services and public infrastructure
financially possible;
C. Policy LU7 -1.2 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the City of
El Segundo states no new development is allowed unless adequate public
facilities are in place or otherwise provided;
D. It is the City's intent and desire to have developers pay for their fair share
of public costs associated with new development while at the same time
facilitating growth that is in the public interest;
E. The imposition of impact fees is one of the preferred methods of ensuring
that development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital
facilities necessary to accommodate such development. This must be
done in order to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare;
F. The City Council may establish development impact fees for police, fire,
library and parks under the provisions of the State of California Mitigation
Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000- 66025);
G. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Title 15 Chapter 27A of the El
Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) for the purposes of calculating
development impact fees;
H. The fees established by this Resolution are derived from, are based upon,
and do not exceed the costs of providing capital facilities necessitated by
the new land developments for which the fees are levied;
-1-
I. The report entitled "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study" dated August 30,
2010, prepared by Willdan Financial Services, set forth a reasonable
methodology and analysis for the determination of the impact of new
development on the need for and costs for additional capital facilities
improvements in the City. The Fee Study is attached as Exhibit "A," and
incorporated by reference;
J. City Staff has evaluated the "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study," prepared
by Willdan Financial Services and has recommended a reduced fee
schedule identified in Section 3 of this Resolution;
K. Pursuant to Government Code § 66016, the City made data available
regarding the cost, or estimated cost, of providing services for the
proposed public facility impact fees ten (10) days before the public hearing
held on September 21, 2010;
L. On September 21, 2010 the City Council heard public testimony and
considered evidence in a public hearing held and noticed in accordance
with Government Code §§ 66016 and 66018, closed the public hearing
and continued this matter to the October 5, 2010 City Council meeting;
M. After careful consideration, including a review of the documentary and
testimonial evidence submitted during the public hearing, the City Council
finds that the imposition of impact fees to finance major public facilities is
in the best interests of the general welfare of the City and its residents and
workers, is equitable, and does not impose an unfair burden on new
development;
N. At the recommendation of the City's Departments and the City Manager,
the City Council believes that it is in the public interest to establish the
recommended fees to recover the costs of police, fire, library, and parks
facilities;
O. On October 5, 2010 the City Council approved a statutory exemption and
adopted this draft Resolution; and
P. This Resolution relies on the documentary and testimonial evidence
submitted to the City during the public hearing held on September 21,
2010 and continued to the October 5, 2010 City Council meeting in
addition to such additional information that may be in the administrative
record.
SECTION 2: Calculation of Development Impact Fees.
A. The "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study" ( "Fee Study "), prepared by
Willldan Financial Services calculates fire, library, police and library fees
-2-
that would fund the fair share cost to new development for additional
capital facilities and equipment improvements;
B. The study is based on a 20 -year planning horizon. The City's residential
and worker populations as well as future facilities needs are estimated for
the year 2030;
C. The study determines a fair share of future planned public facilities using
the System Plan method to calculate police, fire and library fees. This
method is used for police, fire and library as each is part of a system that
benefits both existing and new development. Using the System Plan
method ensures that new development does not pay for existing service
deficiencies;
D. The study uses the Existing Inventory method to calculate the parks fee.
This method assumes no existing service deficiencies and sets a fee that
will fund the expansion of park facilities at the same standard that
currently serves existing development;
E. The level of development fees in the Fee Study is based on a reasonable
methodology to determine the impacts and costs of new development.
However, based on an evaluation of the development impact fees charged
in neighboring jurisdictions, City staff recommends a reduced level of fees
be adopted;
F. The City may adopt development impact fees up to the amounts legally
justified in the Fee Study. Staff recommends that the City reduce the fees
proposed in the Fee Study by removing the cost of land from the System
Plan and Existing Inventory method calculations. This will establish the
City's development impact fees at a level more consistent with the fees
charged by neighboring jurisdictions; and
G. Staff recommends that the impact fees for new single - family and two -
family residences be reduced by an additional 50% to keep the
development impact fee in line with the average fees charged to single -
family development in neighboring jurisdictions.
H. Residential development fees are calculated on a per dwelling unit basis.
When existing residential development on a site is demolished and
replaced with new residential development, impact fees are required for
the net new residential units added to the site.
Non - residential development fees are calculated on a per square foot
basis. When existing non - residential development on a site is demolished
and replaced with new non - residential development, impact fees are
required for the net new non - residential building area added to the site.
-3-
J. For any change in use or uses, if the new use or uses are in a fee
category that has fee amounts greater than the existing use or uses, then
the additional impact fees will be an amount equal to the difference
between the impact fees for the new use or uses and the impact fees for
the former use or uses.
SECTION 3: Schedule of Development Impact Fees. Based upon the methodology
identified in Section 2 and City Council direction at the September 21, 2010 public
hearing to phase in the fees over a five -year period, the development impact fees are
established as follows:
Development Impact Fee Table effective January 1. 2011 - December 31. 2011
LAND USE
POLICE
LIBRARY
FIRE
PARKS
TOTAL
Residential
SFR, Two-Family
$197
$247
$86
$332
$862
Multi-Family
$263
$328
$114
$442
$1,147
Caretaker
$170
$213
$74
$287
$744
Non - Residential
Commercial
$0.18
N/A
$0.20
$0.08
$0.46
Office
$0.19
N/A
$0.21
$0.10
$0.50
Industrial
$0.14
N/A
$0.16
$0.05
$0.35
Development Impact Fee Table effective January 1. 2012 - December 31. 2012
LAND USE
POLICE
LIBRARY
FIRE
PARKS
TOTAL
Residential
SFR, Two-Family
$394
$493
$172
$665
$1,724
Multi-Family
$526
$656
$229
$884
$2,295
Caretaker
$341
$426
$148
$573
$1,488
Non - Residential
Commercial
$0.25
N/A
$0.26
$0.16
$0.67
Office
$0.27
N/A
$0.29
$0.19
$0.75
Industrial
$0.17
N/A
$0.18
$0.09
$0.44
Development Impact Fee Table effective January 1. 2013 - December 31. 2013
LAND USE
POLICE
LIBRARY
FIRE
PARKS
TOTAL
Residential
SFR, Two-Family
$592
$740
$259
$997
$2,588
Multi - Family
$788
$984
$343
$1,325
$3,440
Caretaker
$511
$638
$223
$860
$2,232
Non - Residential
Commercial
$0.31
N/A
$0.31
$0.25
$0.87
Office
$0.36
N/A
$0.36
$0.29
$1.01
Industrial
$0.19
N/A
$0.20
$0.14
$0.53
-4-
Development Impact Fee Table effective January 1, 2014 — December 31, 2014
LAND USE
POLICE
LIBRARY
FIRE
PARKS
TOTAL
Residential
SFR, Two-Family
$789
$986
$345
$1,330
$3,440
Multi-Family
$1,051
$1,312
$458
$1,767
$4,588
Caretaker
$682
$851
$297
$1,146
$2,976
Non - Residential
Commercial
$0.38
N/A
$0.37
$0.33
$1.08
Office
$0.44
N/A
$0.44
$0.38
$1.26
Industrial
$0.22
N/A
$0.22
$0.18
$0.62
Development Impact Fee Table effective January 1, 2015
LAND USE
POLICE
LIBRARY
FIRE
PARKS
TOTAL
Residential
SFR, Two-Family
$986
$1,233
$431
$1,662
$4,312
Multi-Family
$1,314
$1,640
$572
$2,209
$5,735
Caretaker
$852
$1,064
$371
$1,433
$3,720
Non - Residential
Commercial
$0.45
N/A
$0.43
$0.41
$1.29
Office
$0.52
N/A
$0.51
$0.48
$1.51
Industrial
$0.25
N/A
$0.24
$0.23
$0.72
SECTION 4: Fee Adjustment. Unless otherwise revised, the fees established by this
Resolution will be automatically adjusted on an annual basis concurrently with the
adoption of the capital improvement plan (CIP) each fiscal year beginning on October 1,
2015. The method for annual inflation adjustment is established as set forth in Exhibit
A, "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study."
SECTION 5: Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. In accordance
with the Public Resources Code (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.; "CEQA ") and
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. Title 14,
Code §§ 15000, et seq.), the proposed resolution is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Statutory
Exemption 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges). CEQA does not apply to the
establishment of the public facilities mitigation fees as the fees are for the purpose of a)
purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; and b) obtaining funds for
capital projects, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. This
Resolution, therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under Cal.
Code Regs. Title 14, § 15273.
SECTION 6: Effective Date of this Resolution. This resolution will become effective
immediately upon adoption. The development impact fees that are established
pursuant to Section 3 of this Resolution and imposed upon development projects are
effective on January 1, 2011. Building plans that are submitted to the City of El
Segundo for plan check and that are determined to be complete by the City of El
-5-
Segundo Planning and Building Safety Director, or designee (that is, detailed
architectural plans including dimensioned site plan, floor plans, elevations, and
structural plans, and all plan check application fees have been paid to the City)
submitted before January 1, 2011 are exempt from the regulations contained in this
Resolution and are subject to the City's existing impact fee policy. Completed building
plans expire within one (1) year unless the City issues a valid building permit.
Thereafter, an applicant must submit new building plans and pay all impact fees
pursuant to this Resolution. Any dispute regarding the Director's final determination that
(a) building plans are incomplete; or (b) whether complete plans were submitted before
January 1, 2011 must be appealed pursuant to ESMC § 15 -25 -2. Any dispute regarding
the amount of impact fees due for a project must be appealed pursuant to ESMC § 15-
27A -10.
go
SECTION 7: City Clerk. The City Clerk will certify the passage and adoption of this
Resolution; will enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and will
make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the record of proceedings of the
City Council of said City, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and
adopted.
PASSED AND ADO D t t" day of October 2010.
Eric Busch, Mayor
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. 4687 was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and
signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the 5th day of October 2010, and the same was so passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
n
Cindy McNensen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
By: I 4.
KarL.H.'Berger, Assistant City Atto ey
Busch, Fisher, Brann
Jacobson
Fuentes
None
-7-
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE STUDY
AUGUST 30, 2010
W "" WILLDAN
Financial Services
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................ ............................... 4
Background and Study Objectives
Demographic Assumptions
Facility Standards and Costs of Growth
Fee Schedule Summary
4
4
6
6
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................... ............................... 7
Background and Study Objectives
Public Facilities Financing in California
Public Facilities Financing in El Segundo
Public Facility Standards
Organization of the report
7
7
8
8
11
2. DEMOGRAPHIC ASSUMPTIONS ........................... ............................... 12
Use of Growth Forecasts for Impact Fees
12
Service Population
12
Land Use Types
12
Occupant Densities
13
Demographic Assumptions for City of El Segundo
14
3. POLICE FACILITIES ............................................ ............................... 16
Service Population
Facility Standards and Planned Facilities
Facility Needs and Costs
Fee Schedule
16
16
17
19
4. LIBRARY FACILITIES .......................................... ............................... 20
Service Population 20
Facility Inventories and Standards 20
Facility Needs and Costs 21
Fee Schedule 23
5. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES ............................ ............................... 25
Service Population
Facility Inventories, Plans and Standards
Facility Needs and Costs
Fee Schedule
25
26
26
28
6. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES .................... ............................... 29
Service Population 29
Facility Standards 30
Fee Schedule 35
7. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................. ............................... 37
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
WILLDAN
FinaticW Services
37
Inflation Adjustment
Reporting Requirements
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
37
38
38
8. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ......................... ............................... 40
Purpose of Fee 40
Use of Fee Revenues 40
Benefit Relationship 40
Burden Relationship 41
Proportionality 41
APPENDIX A: VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT INVENTORIES ...........................A -1
APPENDIX B: WORKER DEMAND SURVEY FOR PARKS ........................... B -1
Park Survey B -1
WILLDAN
Financial Services I I I
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of the need for public facilities and capital improvements to
support future development within the City of El Segundo through 2030. It is the City's intent that
the costs representing future development's share of these facilities and improvements be
imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public
facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis of the City's public
facilities fee program are divided into the fee categories listed below.
• Police
• Library
• Fire Protection
• Parks
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development
pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to complete a
comprehensive fee study and determine the maximum justified public facilities fee levels to
impose on new development to maintain the City's facilities standard. The City should review and
update this report and the calculated fees once every five years to incorporate the best available
information.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act,
contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the
necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the public facilities fees presented in the
fee schedules contained herein.
Demographic Assumptions
To estimate facility needs, this study uses residential and household population data provided by
the City of El Segundo, the California Department of Finance (DOF), the U.S. Census, and the
Southern California Council of Governments' (SCAG) 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
Current year population estimates came from the DOF data. Population and residential dwelling
unit projections are based on growth rates derived from the City's building permit history.
Employment projections for 2030 came from the RTP data. Employment square footage was
derived using the RTP data and employment density factors from the Natelson Company
Employment Density Study Summary Report. The development projections used in this analysis
are summarized in Table E.1.
*WILLDAN a
Financial Services
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table EA: Demographic Assumptions
2009 2030 Increase
Residents'
16,970
17,690
720
Dwelling Units'
Single Family, Two - Family
3,590
3,650
60
Multi - Family
3,770
4,060
290
Caretaker
10
30
20
Total
7,370
7,710
340
Employment2,3,4
Commercial
8,130
9,770
1,640
Office
21,150
25,410
4,260
Industrial
17.920
21.530
3,610
Total
47,200
56,700
9,500
Building Square Feet (OOOs)5
Commercial 4,020 4,840 820
Office 8,920 10,720 1,800
Industrial 16,000 19,220 3,220
Total 28,940 34,780 5,840
Note: All values rounded to nearest ten; totals may not be exact.
' California Department of Finance (DOF).
2 Excludes local government employment.
3 Assumes percentage of employees by land use remains constant to total from 2009 to 2030. 2030
estimates based on existing ratio of sector by sector employment and rounded to hundreds to account
for error.
4 Estimates by land use type for 2009 based on employment data provided from EDD by North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) category.
5 Based on employment by land use and occupant density shown in Table 2.1.
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E -5, 2009; Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) 2008 Regional Transportaion Plan Growth Forecast; California Employment
Development Department (EDD); Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared by the
Natelson Company, October 2001; Willdan Financial Services.
Permit records in the City of El Segundo show the development of 12 caretaker units during the
past 10 years. The SCAG RTP data did not include a projection for caretaker units, so
development projections in this land use category are based on the historical permit data from the
City. Caretaker units are assumed to continue to develop at the rate of 12 units every 10 years, or
approximately 1.2 units per year.
Employment projections for 2030 are based on the assumption that the proportion of employees
located in each land use category listed remains consistent with the base year.
WILLDAN
F,nancwl Services
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Facility Standards and Costs of Growth
This fee analysis uses two different facilities standards to determine the costs to accommodate
growth. For the parks and recreation facility category, the City's existing facilities standard is used
to determine the costs to accommodate growth. Under this approach, new development funds the
expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition
the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing
development. This method is often used when a long -range plan for new facilities is not available.
For the police, library and fire facility categories, the system plan facility standard is used. This
method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits
both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely
to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations
that together achieve the desired level of service.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing
development up to the policy -based standard. The City must secure non -fee funding for that
portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development
receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.
Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.2 summarizes the schedule of maximum justified public facilities fees based on the
analysis contained in this report. The City may adopt any fee up to those shown in the table. If the
City adopts a lower fee then it should consider reducing the fee for each land use by the same
percentage. This approach would ensure that each new development project would fund the
same proportionate share of public facilities costs.
Table E.2: Development Impact Fee Summary
Land Use
Residential
Single Family, Two - Family
Multi - Family
Caretaker
Nonresidential
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Police Library Fire Parks Total
(Fee per Dwelling Unit)
$ 2,294
$ 2,464
$1,037 $
17,141
$
22,936
1,527
1,640
691
11,406
15,264
990
1,064
448
7,399
9,901
(Fee per 1, 000 Building
Square Feet)
$ 517
N/A
$ 521 $
2,119
$
3,157
607
N/A
612
2,485
3,704
287
N/A
289
1,174
1,750
Note: Fees per dwelling unit, per 1,000 square
nonresidential.
Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.6, 5.6 and 6.8; Willdan Financial Services.
WILLDAN I 6
F,,,a -val Svic
eres
1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new
development in the City of El Segundo. This chapter explains the study approach and
summarizes results under the following sections:
• Background and study objectives;
• Public facilities financing in California;
• Public facilities planning and financing in El Segundo;
• Public facility standards; and,
• Organization of the report.
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development
pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to complete a
comprehensive fee study and determine the maximum justified public facilities fee levels to
impose on new development to maintain the City's facility standards. The City should review and
update this report, as well as the calculated fees, once every five years to incorporate the best
available information.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act,
contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the
necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the public facilities fees presented in the
fee schedules contained herein.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the
financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in
1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;
• Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next
generation of residents and businesses; and
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have adopted a policy of "growth pays its own
way ". This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and
taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the
imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public
facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners and are
appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property.
Development fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit
all development jurisdiction -wide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative
body for adoption.
LLDAN
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Public Facilities Financing in El Segundo
The City of El Segundo has a number of existing infrastructure needs, as well as a potential need
to expand existing infrastructure to meet the demands of community growth. Existing funding
sources have not allowed for master planning at a level sufficient to develop either an exhaustive
list of infrastructure projects or a phasing or scheduling plan for such projects. However,
preliminary suggestions concerning facility needs are identified and described in the "Facility
Needs and Costs" section of each chapter.
There are known infrastructure issues that will best be addressed through master planning
efforts. A suggested use of fee revenues would be to fund master planning to more specifically
identify capital facilities necessary to serve new development. Fee revenues can fund that portion
of master plan costs associated with facilities to serve growth. Upon completion of the master
planning effort and the identification of capital facilities needed to accommodate growth, the City
should update its public facilities fee program to include these new projects and any financing
costs that may be required to construct facilities when needed.
Through the process of preparing master plans, the City may choose to submit planned facilities
for consideration of impact fee revenue apportionment. The City of El Segundo has provided a
preliminary list of planned facilities, which are accordingly documented in this fee update. New
development will pay a fee based on the value of existing and planned facilities through the
development horizon. However, new development cannot be required to pay for future projects
designed to correct deficiencies in existing facilities. The City will have to secure non -fee funding
for that portion of planned facilities required to correct any deficiency in existing facilities.
By their nature, public facilities fee programs are constrained by rates of growth and the timing of
revenue collection. Since public facilities fees represent a pay -as- you -go system, cities may
confront the problem of only being able to partially fund large projects with fee revenues at the
time of project implementation. Therefore, facility needs may require alternative financing options
in order to implement projects in a timelier manner. The cost of financing (e.g. interest payments)
can legitimately be included in the public facilities fee. By using fee revenues to fund a master
planning effort and updating the fee to reflect the identified projects and possible financing costs,
the City will maximize its ability to maintain its facilities standard and fund the capital facilities
necessary to serve new development.
Finally, all fee - funded capital projects should be programmed through the City's Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City of El Segundo identify and direct its fee
revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee
revenues to specific capital projects, the City of El Segundo identifies the use for fee revenues as
expressly required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Public Facility Standards
The key public policy issue in public facility fee studies is the identification of facility standards for
each category of facilities in a fee program. A facility standard is a public policy that states the
amount of facilities required per unit of new development to accommodate the increased service
WILLDAN
F.,anc,W Services
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
demand. Examples of facility standards include park acres per capita and wastewater generation
per equivalent dwelling unit. Standards also may be expressed in monetary terms such as the
total cost of facility investments per capita.
The facility standard assists in documenting statutory findings required for adoption of a public
facilities fee. First, the standard documents a reasonable relationship between the type of new
development and the total need for new facilities. Where applicable, the same facility standard is
applied to both existing and new development to ensure that new development does not fund
deficiencies associated with existing development. Second, the facility standard is often used to
allocate facility costs to each development project, documenting a reasonable relationship
between the amount of the fee and the cost of facilities allocated to each development project.
Types of facility standards and their application in specific situations are discussed below. This
section concludes with a description of how facility standards are used in the current study.
Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
• Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate
growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space
per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of
service such as the vehicles -to- capacity (V /C) ratio used in traffic planning.
• Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected
demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure
for city office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of
an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our
approach incorporates current facility design standards into the fee program to reflect
the increasing construction cost of public facilities.
• Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities
required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost
standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the
facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be
analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), useful when disparate facilities
are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, per
vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.
Often there is a two step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new
development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned
facilities costs: the existing inventory method, the system plan method, and the planned facilities
method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged
in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.
The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is
summarized below:
WILLDAN
Fnancml Services 9
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand
from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
= $ I unit of demand
Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard
currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no
facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long -
range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are
identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital
improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.
This method is used only in the parks and recreation facility category of this report.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to
demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
_ $ /unit of demand
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when specific planned facilities can be identified that only benefit new
development. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a
sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This method is also appropriate
when planned facilities would not serve existing development, or if planned facilities represent a
level of service that is lower than the current level of service. Under this method new
development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards identified by facility planners. This
method is not used to calculate any fees in this report.
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned
facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities
Existing + New Development Demand
= $ I unit of demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that
benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire
station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system
of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service. Police substations, civic centers,
and regional parks provide examples of similar facilities.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than
existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required
WILLDAN
Fnancial S—ces 10
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
to bring existing development up to the policy -based standard. The local agency must secure
non -fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure
that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This method is used
to calculate the police, library and fire facilities fees in this report.
Organization of the report
This report is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1, Introduction (this chapter): summarizes facilities financing in California,
the history of public facilities impact fees in the City of El Segundo, and the general
approach;
• Chapter 2, Demographic Assumptions: describes the growth forecasts used to
estimate future demand and the unit costs used to estimate total facility costs;
• Chapter 3, Police Facilities: Summarizes existing police facility inventory, discusses
planned police facilities and describes the methodology that underlies the police
facilities fee.
• Chapter 4, Library Facilities: Summarizes existing library facility inventory, discusses
planned library facilities and describes the methodology that underlies the library
facilities fee.
• Chapter 5, Fire Protection Facilities: Summarizes existing fire facility inventory,
discusses planned fire facilities and describes the methodology that underlies the fire
facilities fee.
• Chapter 6, Park and Recreation Facilities: Summarizes existing parks and recreation
facility inventory, discusses planned parks and recreation facilities and describes the
methodology that underlies the parks and recreation facilities fee.
• Chapter 7, Implementation: Provides guidelines for the implementation and ongoing
maintenance of the public facilities fee program.
• Chapter 8, Mitigation Fee Act Findings: summarizes the five statutory findings
required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the
Mitigation Fee Act (codified in Califomia Govemment Code Sections 66000 through
66025).
WILLDAN
Fnm,cial Se cm
2. Demographic Assumptions
Estimates of existing development and new development growth projections are used to assist in
determining the appropriate fee structure. The base year used in this study is 2009, and the
planning horizon is 2030.
Use of Growth Forecasts for Impact Fees
Estimates of the existing service population and forecasts of growth are critical assumptions used
throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• Estimates of existing development in 2009 are used to determine the existing facility
standards in the City.
• Estimates of total development at the 2030 planning horizon are used:
— To determine the total amount of public facilities required to accommodate
growth based on the existing facility standards (see Chapter 1), and
— To estimate total fee revenues.
To measure existing service population and future growth, residential and worker population data
are used for all facility categories with the exception of library facilities, which only use population
data. These measures are used because the amount of residents and workers is a reasonable
indicator of the level of demand for public facilities. The City builds public facilities primarily to
serve these populations and, typically, the greater the population the larger the facility required to
provide a given level of service.
Service Population
Different types of new development use public facilities at different rates in relation to each other,
depending on the services provided. For all fee categories in this study a specific service
population is identified to reflect total demand. The service population weights residential land
use types against nonresidential land uses based on the relative demand for services between
residents and workers.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the
fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use classifications. The land use types
used in this analysis are defined below per the City of El Segundo Municipal Code.
• Single - Family, Two - Family: A single family dwelling unit is a detached dwelling unit
with only one kitchen, designed for occupancy by one family. A two- family dwelling
unit is a building designed to be occupied by two (2) families living independently, the
structure having only two units. For the purpose of assessing impact fees, single -
family and two- family units have been grouped into a single category because the
probable occupant density of these types of units is the same, as confirmed by the
City's Planning Division.
• Multi - Family: A building or portion thereof designed for occupancy by three (3) or
more families living independently in which they may or may not share common
entrances and /or other spaces. Individual dwelling units may be owned as
/WILLDAN
F angel Se ,cea 12
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
condominiums, or offered for rent. For the purposes of assessing impact fees, senior
housing facilities are also considered multi - family units.
• Caretaker: A dwelling unit in the Smoky Hollow specific plan area used for a
caretaker of the property on which it is located and limited to five hundred (500)
square feet in area.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel /motel development.
• Office: All general, professional, and medical office development.
• Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development.
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as an industrial warehouse
with living quarters (a live -work designation) or a planned unit development with both single and
multi - family uses. In these cases the public facilities fee would be calculated separately for each
land use type.
The City should have the discretion to impose the public facilities fee based on the specific
aspects of a proposed development regardless of the zoning designation where the project will be
located. Should the project be located in an area that is not zoned as any of the above stated
land use types, the guideline to use is the probable occupant density of the development, either
residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot, to determine which fee will be
charged. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the
probable occupant density of the development.
Occupant Densities
Occupant densities ensure a reasonable relationship between the increase in service population
and amount of the fee. To do this, they must vary by the estimated service population generated
by a particular development project. Developers pay the fee based on the number of additional
housing units or building square footage of nonresidential development, so the fee schedule must
convert service population estimates to these measures of project size. This conversion is done
with average occupant density factors by land use type, shown in Table 2.1.
The residential occupant density factors are derived from the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau's Tables
H -31 through H -33. Table H -31 provides vacant housing units data, while Table H -32 provides
information relating to occupied housing. Table H -33 documents the total 2000 population
residing in occupied housing. The US Census numbers are adjusted by using the California
Department of Finance (DOF) estimates for January 1, 2009, and the most recent State of
California data available at the time the research for this report was completed. The occupant
density factor for caretaker units was provided by the City of El Segundo.
The nonresidential density factors are based on Employment Density Study Summary Report,
prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments, October 2001 by The Natelson
Company. The factors used here were derived from the Los Angeles County data set. The
industrial density factor represents an average for light industrial, heavy industrial, and
warehouse uses likely to occur in the City.
Facility demand is estimated based on service population increases. Developers pay the public
facilities fee based on the number of additional housing units or building square footage of
WILLDAN
F.anc®l Services 13
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
nonresidential development, so the fee schedule must convert service population estimates to
these measures of project size. This conversion is done with average occupant density factors by
land use type, shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family, Two - Family 2.78 Residents per dwelling unit
Multi - Family 1.85 Residents per dwelling unit
Caretaker 1.20 Residents per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.02 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 2.37 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Note: Nonresidential occupant density factors derived from Natelson Company data are specific to
Los Angeles County.
Sources: 2000 Census, Tables H31 -H33; California Department of Finance (DOF); The Natelson
Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, October 31, 2001, pp. 15 -23; City of El
Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
Demographic Assumptions for City of El Segundo
Table 2.2 summarizes the demographic assumptions used in this analysis. The base year for this
study is the year 2009. The existing facilities in 2009 will constitute the existing facilities standard
in our study.
The base year residential estimate is calculated using the density factor from Table 2.1, multiplied
by the dwelling units identified in the California Department of Finance (DOF) January 1, 2009
estimates. Population projections are based on historical building permit data provided by the
City. Employment projections for 2030 were derived from the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) data. Employment square footage
was derived using the RTP data and the employment density factors displayed in Table 2.1. The
development projections used in this analysis are summarized in Table 2.2.
WW I LLDAN a
F na cal Sermft
City of El Segundo
Table 2.2: Demographic Assum
Residents'
Dwelling Units'
Single Family, Two - Family
Multi - Family
Caretaker
Total
Employment2,3,4
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
Building Square Feet (000s)5
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
16,970
17,690
720
3,590
3,650
60
3,770
4,060
290
10
30
20
7,370
7,710
340
8,130
9,770
1,640
21,150
25,410
4,260
17,920
21.530
3,610
47,200
56,700
9,500
4,020
4,840
820
8,920
10,720
1,800
16,000
19.220
3.220
28,940
34,780
5,840
Note: All values rounded to nearest ten; totals may not be exact.
' California Department of Finance (DOF).
2 Excludes local government employment.
3 Assumes percentage of employees by land use remains constant to total from 2009 to 2030. 2030
estimates based on existing ratio of sector by sector employment and rounded to hundreds to account
for error.
° Estimates by land use type for 2009 based on employment data provided from EDD by North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) category.
5 Based on employment by land use and occupant density shown in Table 2.1.
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E -5, 2009; Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) 2008 Regional Transportaion Plan Growth Forecast; California Employment
Development Department (EDD); Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared by the
Natelson Company, October 2001; Willdan Financial Services.
Permit records in the City of El Segundo show the development of 12 caretaker units during the
past 10 years. Development projections in this land use category are based on the assumption
that caretaker dwelling units will continue to develop at the rate of 12 units every 10 years, or
approximately 1.2 units per year.
Employment projections for 2030 are based on the assumption that the proportion of employees
located in each land use category listed remains constant relative to the base year.
WILLDAN
F.,mK.al Se"Kes 15
3. Police Facilities
The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of police facilities.
The City will use fee revenues to expand general facilities to accommodate new development.
Police facilities include, but are not limited to: buildings, vehicles, and capital equipment items. A
fee schedule is presented based on the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development
provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Service Population
Police facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for both services and
associated facilities is based on the City's service population, including residents and workers.
Table 3.1 shows the estimated service population in 2009 and 2030. In calculating the service
population, workers are weighted less than residents to reflect a lower per capita service demand.
Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units, so it is
reasonable to assume that average per- worker demand for services is less than average per -
resident demand. The 0.31 - weighting factor for workers is based on a ratio of 40 hours at work to
the remaining 128 hours spent outside of work.
Table 3.1: Police Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers Total
Existing (2009) 16,970 47,200
Weighting factor' 1.00 0.31
Existing Service Population 16,970 14,630 31,600
New Development (2009 -2030) 720 9,500
Weighting factor' 1.00 0.31
New Development Service Population 720 2,950 3,670
Total 2030 Service Population 17,690 17,580 35,270
Note: Totals rounded to nearest ten.
' Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on the ratio of 40 working hours per week to 128 non-
working hours.
Sources: Table 2.2; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Standards and Planned Facilities
Police facilities in El Segundo include land, buildings and equipment. Table 3.2 shows that the
City currently owns 2.44 acres of land, which serves as the site of the Civic Center Police Station.
This facility consists of approximately 33,000 square feet of building space. The Police
NVWILLDAN
F-a Cml Services 16
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Department owns approximately $6.8 million worth of vehicles, computers and equipment,
bringing the total value of police facilities in El Segundo to approximately $18.3 million. Itemized
calculations of police facility values appear in Appendix A. The inventory of police vehicles is
shown in Appendix Table A.I. An inventory of computer equipment is shown in Appendix Table
A.2, and an inventory of communications and miscellaneous equipment is shown in Appendix
Table A.3.
Table 3.2: Existing Police Facilities
Inventory Unit Cost Units Value
Land (acres) 2
Civic Center Police Station 2.44 $ 1,630,000
acres $
3,977,000
Buildings (square feet)
Buildings (square feet) 32,868 $ 230
$
7,560,000
Equipment
Vehicles (See Appendix A.1)
$
1,967,000
Computers (See Appendix A.2)
628,000
Communications and Miscellaneous (See Appendix A.3)
4.211.000
Subtotal - Vehicles, Computers, Communications and Misc.
$
6,806,000
Total Value - Existing Facilities
Note: Total values rounded to nearest thousand.
' Unit costs based on market value.
Z Land value of $1.63 million per acre based on a recent appraisal of parcels within the City.
Sources: Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3; City of El Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
$ 18,343,000
The cost of land per acre is based on the average of two appraisals of similarly located parcels
within the City on February 2010. These appraisals were chosen because they are representative
of the types of land that the City would purchase in the future.
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 3.3 presents the list of police facility improvements planned for the City of El Segundo, as
identified by the City of El Segundo Police Department. Expected police capital infrastructure
projects include: adding a new gymnasium to the existing station, the construction of a parking
structure for the Police and Fire Departments, and numerous additions to the fleet. Together,
planned police facility costs amount to approximately $10.2 million.
WILLDAN
Fina CW services 1
City of E! Segundo _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 3.3: Police Department Planned Facilities
Planned Facility
Quantity
Units Unit Cost
Total Cost
Gymnasium addition to existing station
3,000
Sq. Ft. $ 500
$ 1,500,000
Parking Structure for Police, Fire Department
N/A
N/A N/A
7,000,000
Armored Bearcat (Armored van)
1
400,000
400,000
Trailerable Patrol Boat
1
150,000
150,000
Narcotics detection dog /vehicle
1
50,000
50,000
Explosives detection dog /vehicle
1
50,000
50,000
Flat top DUI patrol Dodge Charger
2
40,000
80,000
SWAT Van
1
300,000
300,000
BMW Motorcycle
3
53,333
160,000
Command Post Vehicle
1
500,000
500,000
Total Cost of Planned Police Facilities
$10,190,000
Source: City of El Segundo Police Department.
Planned police facilities are likely to serve both existing residents and new development. As a
result, this study uses the system plan approach to calculating new development's fair share of
planned facility costs. This is done by taking the total value of existing and planned facilities in
2030 and dividing it by the total 2030 service population to obtain a facility standard per capita.
This calculation appears in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Existing and Planned Police Facilities
Existing Facilities Value $ 18,343,000
Planned Facilities Costs 10,190,000
Total Facilities Value in 2030 $ 28,533,000
Service Population in 2030 35,270
Cost per Resident $ 809
Cost per Worker 251
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3; City of El Segundo Police Department; Willdan
Financial Services.
Table 3.5 shows the estimated fee revenue generated by the police facilities fee. This fee is
projected to generate approximately $3 million in revenue by 2030. Projected fee revenue falls
short of the total cost of planned police facilities in the City of El Segundo. The remaining $7.2
million in planned facility costs must be funded by non - impact fee sources.
WILLDAN I s
Fina..01 services
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 3.5: Estimated Police Facilities Fee Revenue
Cost Per Capita $ 809
Growth in Service Population (2009 -2030) 3,670
Anticipated Fee Revenue $ 2,969,000
Total Cost of Planned Police Facilities $ 10,190,000
Additional Funding Required $ 7,221,000
Note: Anticipated fee revenue rounded to hundreds
Sources: Tables 3.3 and 3.4; Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 3.6 shows the police facilities fee schedule, which is based on the assumption that El
Segundo will be charging new development no more than its fair share of planned facility costs.
The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and
building space densities (persons per dwelling unit (DU) for residential development and workers
per 1,000 square feet of building space for nonresidential development). The total fee includes an
administrative charge to fund costs that include impact fee related administrative costs, such as:
revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
Table 3.6: Police Facilities Fee
A B
Cost Per
Land Use Capita Density
C =AxB
Base Feel
D
Admin
Charciel '=
E =C -D
Total Fee
F =E /1.000
Fee per Sq.
Ft.
Residentiai
Single Family, Two - Family $ 809
2.78
$ 2,249
$ 45
$ 2,294
Multi - Family 809
1 85
1,497
30
1,527
Caretaker 809
1.20
971
19
990
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 251
2.02
$ 507
$ 10
$ 517
$ 0.52
Office 251
2.37
595
12
607
061
Industrial 251
1.12
281
6
287
0.29
Note. Fees rounded to nearest whole dollar
' Fee per dwelling unit. or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space
Administration fee equal to 2.0 percent of base fee to fund impact fee program
administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue
and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses
Sources Tables 2 1 and 3 4. W Ildan Financial Services
WILLDAN
Financel Services 19
4. Library Facilities
This chapter provides the documentation to enable the City impose a public facilities fee to fund
library facilities. The City would use fee revenues to help fund expanded library facilities to serve
new development.
Service Population
Residents are the primary users of libraries in the City of El Segundo. Therefore, demand for
libraries and associated facilities are based on the City's residential population, rather than a
combined resident - worker service population. Estimates of the existing service population and
projected growth are shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Library Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2009) 16,970
New Development (2009 -2030) 720
Total (2030) 17,690
Note: Values rounded to nearest ten.
Sources: Table 2.2; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Inventories and Standards
The City Library is located at Library Park. This land is listed in the parkland inventory in Chapter
6, so the value of that land is not included in this chapter, to avoid double counting. The City of El
Segundo currently owns nearly $7 million worth of building and annex facilities. Library collections
are also an important component of a library system's facilities and are a significant investment.
Collections include books, online databases, audio - visual materials, periodical subscriptions, and
other documents. The City owns approximately $6.9 million dollars worth of collections, as shown
in Table 4.2. Itemized costs for existing library collections and equipment are shown in Appendix
Tables A.4 and A.5, respectively.
WILLDAN I zo
F.wc,al Sw Km
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 4.2: Existing Library Facilities
Inventory Unit Cost Units Total Value
Existing Facilities
Land' 3.40 $ - acres $ -
Building + Annex (sq. ft.) 30,329 230 sq. ft. 6,976,000
Collections (See Appendix A.4) 6,892,000
Furniture \Shelving \Equipment (See Appendix A.5) 277,000
Total Facilities $ 14,145,000
Note: Total values rounded to nearest thousand.
The library is located at Library Park, which is included in the parkland inventory in Chapter 6. The value
of that land is not included in this inventory to avoid double counting.
Sources: Tables AA and A.5; City of El Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Needs and Costs
The City of El Segundo plans to expand its library facilities by adding $1.2 million worth of
equipment and building expansions through 2030. The planned facilities are shown in Table 4.3.
WILLDAN
Fna Ial sem es 21
City of El Segundo_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 4.3: Planned Library Facilities
Planned Facility
Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Expansion to the children's library (approximately 2,000 sq. ft.)
2,000
$ 300
$ 600,000
Additional internet computers
20
2,000
40,000
Tables for internet computers
2
3,500
7,000
Wiring for additional internet computers and expanded Wi -Fi
1
18,000
18,000
Wi -Fi expansion
1
10,000
10,000
Switch for new internet computers
1
8,000
8,000
Additional Envisionware internet licenses
1
20,000
20,000
Chairs for internet computers
20
400
8,000
Online download computers
4
2,000
8,000
Download computer station table
1
2,500
2,500
Chairs for download computer station table
4
400
1,600
E -book readers for checkout
50
250
12,500
E -books for checkout
600
75
45,000
Study rooms (approximately 700 sq. ft.)
700
300
210,000
Tables for study rooms
5
2,000
10,000
Chairs for study rooms
20
750
15,000
Game room stations, inc. game console, TV, security
3
3,000
9,000
Chairs for game room
6
400
2,400
Video game software for game room
25
50
1,250
Additional Children's Library internet computers
5
2,000
10,000
Children's Library early literacy computers
4
2,000
8,000
Stools for Children's Library computers
9
250
2,250
Self -service checkout machine
1
54,000
54,000
Wiring and maintenance for self - service checkout machine
1
5,000
5,000
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) security system
1
13,000
13,000
RFID library material tags for checkout
1
105,000
105,000
RFID library material tag protectors
1
7,000
7,000
Total
$ 1,232,500
Source: City of El Segundo Public Library.
These improvements are likely to benefit both members of the existing service population and
new development, since both groups will be using the existing and new facilities. Accordingly, this
study uses the system plan approach to calculate new development's fair share of new library
facilities. This is done by dividing the total value of existing and planned facilities in 2030 by the
total 2030 service population to calculate a standard per resident. This calculation appears in
Table 4.4.
V/WILLDAN
Fwwncal Services 22
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 4.4: Existing and Planned Library Facilities
Existing Facility Value
Planned Facility Costs
Total Facility Value in 2030
Service Population in 2030
Cost per Capita
$ 14,145,000
1,232,500
$ 15,377,500
17,690
$ 869
Sources: Table 6.1; City of El Segundo Public Library; Willdan Financial Services.
Table 4.5 shows the total revenue that the library facilities fee is expected to generate through
the 2030 planning horizon. Multiplying the per capita facility standard by the growth in service
population produces an estimated $626,000 in revenue. It is important to note that this revenue
estimate falls short of the City's $1.2 million in planned facilities. As a result, approximately
$607,000 worth of library facilities will have to be funded by non - impact fee sources, or new
development will have paid too high a fee.
Table 4.5: Estimated Library Facilities Fee Revenue
Cost Per Capita $ 869
Growth in Service Population (2009 -2030) 720
Anticipated Fee Revenue $ 625,700
Total Cost of Planned Library Facilities $1,232,500
Additional Funding Required $ 606,800
Note: Total anticipated fee revenue rounded to nearest hundred.
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4; Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 4.6 presents the library facilities fee schedule based on the planned facilities method. The
cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit
densities. The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: revenue
collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
WWILLDAN
F -w�vai S« ces 23
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 4.6: Library Facilities Fee
A B
Cost Per
Land Use Capita Density
C =AxB
Base Fee
D
Admin
Charge'
E =C +D
Total Fee
Residential
Single Family, Two - Family $ 869 2.78
$ 2,416
$ 48
$ 2,464
Multi - Family 869 1.85
1,608
32
1,640
Caretaker 869 1.20
1,043
21
1,064
Note: Fees rounded to nearest whole dollar.
' Administration fee equal to 2.0 percent of base fee to fund impact
fee program administrative costs
including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting,
and fee justification
analyses.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 4.4; Willdan Financial Services.
WILLDAN I za
FinanctW Serm
5. Fire Protection Facilities
The purpose of this development impact fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair
share of fire protection facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the facilities needed to
ensure that new development fund its fair share of the City's facility needs.
Service Population
Fire protection facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and
associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.
Table 5.1 shows the estimated service population for 2009 and 2030. In calculating the service
population, residents are given a weight of 1.0 and workers are weighted at 0.69 to reflect lower
per capita service usage. Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than
dwelling units, so it is reasonable to assume that average per- worker usage of services is less
than average per- resident usage.
Table 5.1: Fire Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers Total
Existing (2009) 16,970 47,200
Weighting factor' 1.00 0.69
Existing Service Population 16,970 32,570 49,540
New Development (2009 -2030) 720 9,500
Weighting factor' 1.00 0.69
New Development Service Population 720 6,560 7,280
Total 2030 Service Population 17,690 39,130 56,820
' Workers are weighted at 0.69 of residents based on an survey of worker demand on fire services conducted in the
City of Phoenix. Totals rounded to nearest ten.
Sources: Specific Infrastructure Financing Plan: Equivalent Land Use Derivation and Projection, City of Phoenix
Planning Department, November 6, 1996; Table 2.2; Willdan Financial Services.
The 0.69 per- worker weighting used here is derived from a study carried out in the City of
Phoenix. This study is one of the best sources of this data currently available. Data from that
study was used to calculate a per capita factor that is independent of land use patterns. Relative
demand for fire service between residents and workers does not vary substantially on a per
capita basis across communities, ensuring that this data can be used for all of the communities
which must document a public facilities fee for fire stations.
WILLDAN I z5
F,nancial Services
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Facility Inventories, Plans and Standards
Table 5.2 shows existing fire facilities in the City of El Segundo. The City owns 2.19 acres of land
and two fire stations totaling almost 32,000 square feet. In addition to land and buildings, the City
of El Segundo owns approximately $6.9 million worth of vehicles and equipment. Appendix
Tables A.6, A.7 and A.8 summarize the inventories of fire suppression, administration,
paramedics and prevention equipment and vehicles, respectively.
Table 5.2: Existing Fire Facilities Standard
Inventory Unit Cost Value
Land (acres)'
Fire Station #1
Fire Station #2 Complex
Subtotal
Buildings (sq. ft.)
Fire Station #1
Hose Tower
Fire Station #2 Complex
Subtotal
Fire Department Vehicles
(See Appendix Table A. 6)
Fire Department Computer Equipment
(See Appendix Table A.7)
Fire Department Communications Equipment
(See Appendix Table A.7)
Fire Department Misc. Equipment
(See Appendix Table A.8)
Total Existing Facilities
1.32 $ 1,630,000 $ 2,151,600
0.87 1,630, 000 1,418,100
2.19 $ 3,569,700
17,800 $
105
13,959
31,864
230 $ 4,094,000
230 24,200
230 3,210,600
$ 7,328,800
Note: Total values rounded to nearest hundred.
' Land value of $1.63 million per acre based on an recent appraisal of parcels within the City.
Sources: Tables A.6, A.7 and A.8; City of El Segundo.
$ 5,177,800
$ 237,900
$ 423,100
$ 1,017,400
$17,754,700
Facility Needs and Costs
The City of El Segundo plans to add approximately $3 million worth of fire facilities to its inventory
by 2030. These facility expansions are summarized in Table 5.3, and include additions to Fire
Station #1, along with new equipment and furnishings.
WILLDAN
F.namao se'n 26
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 5.3: Fire Department Planned Facilities
Planned Facility Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost
Addition to Fire Station #1 for offices and storage
3,100
Sq. Ft. $ 500
$ 1,550,000
Addition to Fire Station #1 apparatus bay
2,800
Sq. Ft. 500
1,400,000
Sedans with radios and emergency warning devices
2
35,000
70,000
Computers
3
2,000
6,000
Office furniture sets
3
4,000
12,000
Total Cost of Planned Fire Facilities
$ 3,038,000
Source: City of El Segundo Fire Department.
These improvements are likely to benefit both members of the existing service population and
new development, since both groups will be placing calls to the expanded station. Accordingly,
this study uses the system plan approach to calculate new development's fair share of new fire
facilities. This is done by dividing the total value of existing and planned facilities in 2030 by the
total 2030 service population to calculate a standard per resident and per worker. This calculation
appears in Table 5.4.
Table 5A Existing and Planned Fire Facilities
Existing Facility Value $ 17,754,700
Planned Facility Costs 3,038,000
Total Facility Value in 2030 $ 20,792,700
Service Population in 2030 56,820
Cost per Resident $ 366
Cost per Worker 253
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3; City of El Segundo Fire Department; Willdan
Financial Services.
Table 5.5 shows the total revenue that the fire facilities fee is expected to generate through the
2030 planning horizon. Multiplying the per capita facility standard by the growth in service
population produces an estimated $2.7 million in revenue. It is important to note that this revenue
estimate falls short of the City's $3 million in planned facilities. As a result, approximately
$374,000 worth of fire protection facilities will have to be funded by non - impact fee sources, or
new development will have paid too high a fee.
WILLDAN I Z�
Fnancm ices
i Sery
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 5.5: Estimated Fire Facilities Fee Revenue
Cost Per Capita $ 366
Growth in Service Population (2009 -2030) 7,280
Anticipated Fee Revenue $ 2,664,500
Total Cost of Planned Fire Facilities $ 3,038,000
Additional Funding Required $ 373,500
Note: Total anticipated fee revenue rounded to nearest hundred.
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4; Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 5.6 shows the fire facilities fee schedule based on the existing standard. The cost per
capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and building
space densities (persons per dwelling unit (DU) for residential development and workers per
1,000 square feet of building space for nonresidential development). The total fee includes an
administrative charge to fund impact fee program administrative costs including: revenue
collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
Table 5.6: Fire Facilities Fee
A B
Cost Per
Land Use Capita Density
C = A x B
Base Fee'
D
Admin
Charge- 2
E =C +D
Total Fee
F =E /1,000
Fee per Sq.
Ft.
Residential
Single Family, Two-Family $ 366 278
$ 1,017
$ 20
$ 1,037
Multi - Family 366 1.85
677
14
691
Caretaker 366 1.20
439
9
448
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 253 202
$ 511
$ 10
$ 521
$ 0.52
Office 253 2.37
600
12
612
061
Industrial 253 1.12
283
6
289
0.29
Note. Fees rounded to nearest whole dollar.
Fee per dwelling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space
Administration fee equal to 2 0 percent of base fee to fund impact fee program
administrative costs including revenue collection,
revenue
and cost accounting mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Sources Tables 2 1 and 5.5. Willdan Financial Services
LLDAN
vial Services 28
6. Park and Recreation Facilities
The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of park facilities.
The City will use fee revenues to expand park facilities to serve new development. This analysis
documents fees based on the guidelines set forth in the Mitigation Fee Act.
Service Population
Facility standards for parks are typically expressed as a ratio of park facilities per 1,000 residents.
Recognizing that park facilities within the City are used by workers as well as residents, the City
of El Segundo conducted a survey to determine the level of park facility use by nonresidents, and
found that workers in the City used City parks at approximately 17 percent of the rate of resident
use. The survey was conducted by asking users of the Campus El Segundo Fields and
Recreation Park facilities whether they worked in the City, lived in the City or both on both. The
survey was repeated for weekdays and weekends; levels of park use were weighted accordingly.
Accordingly demand for parks and associated facilities are based on the City's combined
resident - worker service population. A detailed summary of the survey can be found in Appendix
B.
Table 6.1 provides estimates of the resident and worker population with a projection for the year
2030.
Table 6.1: Parks Service Population
Residents Workers Total
Existing (2009) 16,970 47,200
Weighting factor' 1.00 0.17
Existing Service Population 16,970 8,020 24,990
New Development (2009 - 2030) 720 9,500
Weighting factor' 1.00 0.17
New Development Service Population 720 1,620 2,340
Total 2030 Service Population 17,690 9,640 27,330
Note: Service population totals rounded to nearest ten.
' Workers are weighted at 0.17 of residents based on a survey of use at Recreation Park and Campus El Segundo
Fields submitted by the City.
Sources: City of El Segundo; Tables 2.1 and B.1; Willdan Financial Services.
WILLDAN I
Financial Services 29
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Facility Standards
The City owns and operates various park and recreation facilities throughout the City. The City's
inventory of parks facilities includes a total of 74.76 acres, and is summarized in Table 6.2. An
inventory of existing recreation facilities is shown below in Table 6.3.
Table 6.2: Parkland Inventory
Name
Acres
Parkland (acres)
Recreation Park
20.40
Hilltop Park
1.20
Campus El Segundo Athletic Fields
4.96
Candy Cane Park
0.10
Acacia Park
0.50
Library Park
3.40
Camp Eucalyptus
0.30
The Lakes Golf Course
28.00
Holly Kansas Park
0.40
Holly Valley Park
0.20
Dog Park
1.90
Cutlers Park
0.10
Imperial Parkway: Memory Row
7.70
Imperial Parkway: Btw Dog Park and Main
4.80
Sycamore Parkette
0.80
Total
74.76
Source: City of El Segundo.
WILLDAN
Finannel Services 30
City of El Segundo _
Table 6.3: Recreation Facilities Inventory
Facility
Square Feet
Checkout Building
3,880
Urho Saari Swim Stadium
16,270
Camp Eucalyptus Building
1,815
The Lakes Facility
7,552
Clubhouse
11,623
Concession Stand
584
Scorer's Booth
100
Main Complex
510
Joslyn Center
7,667
Elevator Tower and Shed
510
Office and Shop
510
Campus El Segundo Athletic Fields Facility
1,442
Teen Center
5,480
Raquetball Courts
1,870
Announcer's Booth
110
Hardball Concession Stand
1,000
Softball Concession Stand
640
Total Recreation Facilities
61,563
Source: City of El Segundo.
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 6.4 shows the existing standard of parkland per person served in the City of El Segundo.
Table 6.4: Parkland Standards
--- - - - - -- Existing (2009) -- - - - - --
Standard per 1,000
Type of Acreage Acres service population
Acres of Parkland 74.76
Existing Service Population 24,990
Standard (acres per 1,000 service population) 2.99
Note: Facility standard rounded to the hundredths.
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2; Willdan Financial Services.
WILLDAN I 31
F,ns cwl Se ,ce8
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the
need for expanded park facilities. Information regarding the City's existing inventory of existing
parks facilities was obtained from City staff.
The most common measure used to calculate new development's demand for parks is the ratio of
park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act
(using a city's existing inventory of park facilities), or an adopted policy standard contained in a
master facility plan or general plan.
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for
public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must
not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to
existing development.' A simple and clearly defensible approach to calculating a facility standard
is to use the city's existing ratio of park acreage per 1,000 residents. Under this approach, new
development is required to fund new park facilities at the same level as existing residents have
provided those same types of facilities to date.
Unit Costs for Land Acquisition and Improvements
Unit costs represent the land costs and level of improvements that existing development has
provided to date. Using unit costs to determine a facility standard ensures that the cost of facilities
to serve new development is not artificially increased, and that new development is not unfairly
burdened relative to existing development.
The unit costs used to estimate the total investment in parkland facilities are shown in Table 6.5.
All costs are expressed in 2009 dollars. Land acquisition costs and improvement costs are based
on the City's experience with park development and information from a recent market analysis of
land values in El Segundo.
1 See the benefit and burden findings in Chapter 8, Mitigation Fee Act Findings.
W I LLDAN
F-wcW Sern m 32
City of El Segundo_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 6.5: Parkland Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre Share
Park Improvements
Special Use Facilities'
Urho Saari Swim Stadium $ 5,369,000
Subtotal $ 5,369,000
Golf Course Building
Building Sq. Ft. 5,500
Cost per Sq. Ft. $ 189
Subtotal $ 1,039,500
Camp Eucalyptus
Building Sq. Ft. 1,270
Cost per Sq. Ft. $ 189
Subtotal $ 240,000
Recreation Facilities
(Checkout Building, Clubhouse, Scorer's Booth, Office,
Racquetball Courts, Announcer's Booth, Hardball and Softball
Concession Stands, Offices and Concession Stands at Campus
El Segundo Athletic Fields, Teen Center, Concession stand, Main
Complex, Joslyn Center, Elevator Tower)
Building Sq. Ft. 35,926
Cost per Sq. Ft. $ 189
Subtotal $ 6,790,000
Park Equipment and Vehicles (Table A.9) $ 887,600
Total Special Use Facilities $ 14,326,100
Improved Park Acres 74.76
Special Use Facilities Cost per Improved Acre
Standard Park ImprovementS2
Park Improvements Per Acre Subtotal
Land Acquisition
Total
$ 191,600
200,000
$ 391,600 19%
$ 1,630,000 81%
$ 2,021,600 100%
Note Total facility cost estimates rounded to nearest hundred.
Recreation facilities only include special use facilities (such as recreation centers and pools) that are not part of standard park
improvements.
2 Improvement costs are estimated at $200,000 per acre for site improvements (curbs, gutters, water, sewer, and electrical access),
plus basic park and school field amenities such as basketball or tennis court, restroom, parking, tot lot, irrigation, turf, open green
space, pedestrian paths, and picnic tables. Excludes special use facilities such as recreation centers and pools
' Land value of $1 63 million per acre is based on a recent appraisal of parcels within the City
Sources Tables 6.2 and 6.3, City of El Segundo, Willdan Financial Services.
WWILLDAN
Financ.al Swvices 33
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _ ._ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Total Needs and Costs
The total investment in park facilities needed to serve growth is calculated by multiplying the
facility standards developed in Table 6.5 by growth in residents. The total value of the needs for
park facilities is based on the average unit costs for land acquisition and improvements shown in
Table 6.5. To accommodate the increase in service population through 2030 at the existing
standard, new development would need to fund facilities estimated to cost approximately $14.1
million as shown in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development
mitigation
Fee Act
Parkland
Facility Standard (acres /1,000 service population) 2.99
Service Population Growth (2009 -2030) 2,340
Facility Needs (acres) 7.00
Average Unit Cost (per acre) $ 1,630,000
Total Cost of Facilities
02M
Improvements
Facility Standard (acres /1,000 service population) 2.99
Service Population Growth (2009 -2030) 2,340
Facility Needs (acres) 7.00
Average Unit Cost (per acre) $ 391,600
Subtotal - Improvements
Total Facilities
Note: Total facility cost estimates rounded to thousands.
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.4, and 6.5; Willdan Financial Services.
$ 11,410,000
$ 2,741,000
$ 14,151,000
The $14.1 million in facility improvements must be used to enhance, upgrade, or expand new
park facilities. Intensifying development of existing parks is another reasonable method for
accommodating growth that could be used in conjunction with the expansion of improved park
acreage. The use of fee revenues would be identified through planned parkland acquisition and
improvement projects described in the most recently adopted version of annual capital
improvement budget.
The City anticipates that the park fees would be the primary revenue source to fund new
development's investment in park facilities. Expected parks capital infrastructure projects include
the development of new and improved parkland facilities and the construction of a new aquatics
center. Table 6.7 shows the share of costs that could be allocated on a per capita basis for both
WILLDAN
Financial SerYKes I 34
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
land acquisition and improvement.
Table 6.7: Park Facilities Investment Per Capita
Parkland
Parkland Investment (per acre) $ 1,630,000
Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 service population) 2.99
Total Investment Per 1,000 capita $ 4,874,000
1,000
Investment Per Resident $ 4,874
Investment Per Worker 829
Improvements
Parkland Improvements (per acre) 391,600
Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 service population) 2.99
Total Investment Per 1,000 capita $ 1,171,000
1,000
Investment Per Resident $ 1,171
Investment Per Worker 199
Note: Total investment estimates rouned to nearest thousand. Investment per capita
rounded to nearest whole dollar.
Sources: Tables 6.5, and 6.6; Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
In order to calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per
resident basis for both land acquisition and improvement. These investment factors (shown in
Table 6.7) are based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards.
Table 6.8 shows the park facilities fee based on the existing standard. The fee includes a
component for park improvements based on the City's existing standard. The investment per
capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit. The total fee includes an administrative charge of
two percent (2 %) to fund costs that include revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting,
mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
V/W I LLDAN
F nano al Services 35
City of Et Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 6.8: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C =AxB D I E =C +D F =E /1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per Sq.
Land Use Capita Density I Base Fee' Charge', 1 Total Fee' Ft.
Residential
$
Single Family, Two - Family
Parkland
$ 4,874
Improvements
1,171
Total
Multi - Family
Parkland
$ 4,874
Improvements
1,171
Total
$
Caretaker
$
Parkland
$ 4,874
Improvements
1,171
Nonresidential
Commercial
Parkland $ 829
Improvements 199
Office
Parkland $ 829
Improvements 199
Industrial
Parkland $ 829
Improvements 199
2.78 $ 13,550 $ 271 1 $ 13,821
2.78 3,255 65 3.320
$ 17,141
1.85 $
1.85
1.20 $
1.20
9,017 $ 180 $ 9,197
2,166 43 2.209
$ 11,406
5,849 $
1,405
2.02 I $ 1,675 $
2.02 402
2.37 I $ 1,965 $
2.37 472
1.12 I $ 928 $
1.12 223
117 1 $ 5,966
28 1,433
$ 7,399
34
$
1,709
$
1.71
8
410
0.41
$
2,119
$
2.12
39
$
2,004
$
2.00
9
481
0.48
$
2,485
$
2.49
19
$
947
$
0.95
4
227
0.23
$
1,174
$
1.17
Note: Fees rounded to nearest whole dollar.
' Fee per dwelling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space.
2 Administration fee equal to 2.0 percent of base fee to fund impact fee program administrative costs including revenue
collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 6.7; Willdan Financial Services.
*/W I LLDAN
F „B+cw sa_�" 1 36
7. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the Califomia Government Code section
66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures
including holding a public meeting. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at
least 10 days prior to the public meeting. The City's legal counsel should be consulted for any
other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance
and /or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60 -day waiting period before the fees go
into effect.
Inflation Adjustment
The City has kept its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.
Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund
its share of needed facilities. To maintain consistency with other City documents, we recommend
that the fees be adjusted for inflation annually, concurrent with the time frame when City staff
presents the preliminary CIP to the City Council.
There are no inflation indices that are specific to City of El Segundo. We recommend that the
following indices be used for adjusting fees for inflation:
• Buildings, Improvements — Engineering News Record's Building Cost Index (BCI) —
Los Angeles, CA
• Equipment — Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982 -84 =100 for All Urban
Consumers (CPI -U) — for the West Urban Region, Size B/C
Due to the highly variable nature of land costs, there is no particular index that captures
fluctuations in land values. We recommend that the City adjust land values based on a periodic
appraisal of the type of land comparable to the City's existing inventory.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee
revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct
more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when
significant new data on growth forecasts and /or facility plans become available. Note that
decreases in index value will result in decreases to fee amounts.
The steps necessary to update fees for inflation are explained below:
For all of the fee categories except the park facilities fees, the steps are as follows:
1. For each facility type (land, buildings, equipment), identify the percent change in
facility value since the last update, based on changes in each inflation index or for
each type of land.
2. Modify the value of each facility, existing and planned (if applicable) by the percent
change identified in Step 1.
3. Depending on fee methodology for each particular fee category calculate the total
value of existing facilities (existing inventory method), the value of existing facilities
LLDAN
cw S�.Ceq 37
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
plus planned facilities (system plan method), or the value of planned facilities
(planned facilities method) using the updated figures from Step 2.
4. Recalculate the cost per capita for each fee category by dividing the results of Step 3
by either the existing service population if the fee is calculated using the existing
inventory method, by the future service population if the fee is calculated using the
system plan method, or by the growth in service population if the fee is calculated
using the planned facilities method. Both the existing and future service populations
are identified in the first table of every chapter in this report.
5. Calculate the cost per worker (if applicable) for fee categories that are charged to
nonresidential development. The cost per worker is equal to the cost per capita
calculated in Step 4 multiplied by 0.31 for police, by 0.69 for fire and by 0.17 for
parks.
6. Update the fee schedule by multiplying the cost per capita and the cost per worker
calculated in Step 5 by the density factors listed in Table 2.1 to determine the base
fee for each land use.
To update the park facility fees for inflation, the steps are as follows:
1. For each facility type (land, improvements), identify the percent change in facility
value since the last update, based on changes in each inflation index or for each type
of land.
2. Modify the value of land acquisition and improvements shown in Table 6.6 by the
percent change identified in Step 1.
3. Using Table 6.6 as a guide, recalculate the cost per resident and cost per worker
using the adjusted values for land acquisition and improvements calculated in Step 2.
4. Update the fee schedule by multiplying the costs per capita calculated in Step 3 by
the density factors listed in Table 2.1 to determine the base fee for each land use.
The total fee for a given land use is equal to the cost per capita for land (from step
three) multiplied by the occupant density, added to the cost per capita for
improvements (also from step three) multiplied by the occupant density. See Table
6.8 for reference.
Once all of the fees have been inflated, multiply the sum of all the fees, per land use, by two
percent (2 %) to determine the administrative charge. Future updates to the fee program should
review the administrative fee to ensure that it fully covers the cost of administering the fee
program.
Reporting Requirements
The City complies with the annual and five -year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act
found in Government Code Sections 66001 and 66006. For facilities to be funded by a
combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these
non -fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the
facilities is also important.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a ten -year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to plan for future
infrastructure needs. The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of
the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the
use of those revenues.
WILLDAN I 3s
F-e cm) Se ,cft
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as
long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City's facilities. If the total
cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider
revising the fees accordingly.
WILLDAN I 39
Fnancial Se ,Ces
8. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one -time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and
imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities
and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature
adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent
amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025,
establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.
The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities fees
documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the report that
follows. All statutory references are to the Act.
Purpose of Fee
• Identify the purpose of the fee ( §66001(a)(1) of the Act).
Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the
existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth per Policy
LU7 -1.2 of the 1992 General Plan. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to
implement this policy by providing a funding source from new development for capital
improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling
the City to provide services to new development.
Use of Fee Revenues
• Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities
shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital
improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or
specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the
facilities for which the fees are charged ( §66001(a)(2) of the Act).
Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to
serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the
City. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the
following facility categories: police, library, fire, and parks and recreation.
Benefit Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of
development project on which the fees are imposed ( §66001(a)(3) of the Act).
We expect that the City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities
and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, and vehicles used to serve new
development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities
accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the
Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus,
*"WILLDAN
F nwc.al Servro 40
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new
development residential and non - residential use classifications that will pay the fees.
Burden Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and
the types of development on which the fees are imposed ( §66001(a)(4) of the Act).
Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new
development for those facilities. Facilities demand is determined as follows:
• The service population is established based upon the number of residents and
workers, which correlates to the demand for police facilities, fire protection facilities,
and parks and recreation facilities; and,
• The service population for library facilities is established solely on the number of
residents, as worker demand on these facilities is nominal.
For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied
across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For most
facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of
residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with
non - residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted
less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and
non - residential development.
The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will
partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach
ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and
that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with
serving the existing service population.
Chapter 2, Demographic Assumptions provides a description of how service population and
growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards
sections of each facility category chapter.
Proportionality
• Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the
cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which
the fee is imposed ( §66001(b) of the Act).
The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project
and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new
development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the
project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting
in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees
ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the
facilities attributable to that project.
"WILLDAN
F nanaal Swvces 41
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
See Chapter 2, Demographic Assumptions, or the Service Population section in each facility
category chapter for a description of how service populations is determined for different types of
land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of
the proposed facilities fees.
WILLDAN I a2
F- ,&nual Se—ces
Appendix A: Vehicle and Equipment
Inventories
All vehicle and equipment inventories in this appendix document replacement cost, as provided
by City of El Segundo in 2009.
Table A.1: Police Vehicle Inventory
Year Replacement
Description Unit Acquired Cost
Sedan Patrol, Crown Victoria
4
04/05
$ 132,800
Speed Monitoring & Traffic Safety Equip.
1
05/06
45,000
2001 Ford Truck (Animal Control)
1
00/01
64,000
Sport Utility, Chevrolet Suburban (donated)
1
05/06
102,000
Mutual Aid Emergency Resp Veh.
1
06/07
320,000
Sedan, Grand Marquis
1
06/07
29,000
Dodge Caravan
1
06/07
20,000
Jeep Wrangler Sport RH -Drive
1
06/07
24,000
Ford 500 SEL, Blue Metalic
1
06/07
25,000
Ford 500 SEL, Black w /Shale cloth
2
06/07
50,000
Sedan , Impala 9C3 Blue /Ntrl
1
06/07
23,000
Sedan, Impala 9C3 Black /Ebony
1
06/07
23,000
Sedan , Impala 9C3 Silverton /Ebony
1
06/07
23,000
Sport Utility, Dodge Durango
2
06/07
52,000
2009 Ford F -150
1
08/09
32,500
Sedan, Chevy Impala
2
04/05
60,000
2009 Ford Explorer
3
08/09
84,000
2009 Nissan Altima Hybrid
2
08/09
60,000
Sport Utility, Ford Explorer
1
02/03
29,000
Motorcycle, BMW R1200
5
06/07
126,000
2008 Sedan, Crown Victoria
9
08/09
270,000
Utility Parking Enforcement
1
02/03
5,000
Sedan, RSVP
2
02/03
12,000
Sedan Patrol K -9
1
00/01
6,500
Buick Regal LS
2
02/03
45,100
Sedan, Ford Escort
1
88/89
24,000
Sedan, Buick Regal
2
94/95
52,000
Crime Scene Van (Chevrolet)
1
95/96
29,000
Van -12 passenger, Ford
1
96/97
35,000
Swat Van (Grumman)
1
93/94
64,500
Police Vehicles Funding
1
05/06
100,000
Total
$ 1,967,400
Note: Figures have been rounded.
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10: City of El Segundo.
*WILLDAN
Fnanciel Services A-]
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.2: Police Computer Equipment Inventory
Description
Units
Year
Acquired
Unit Cost
Total Replacement
Cost
Multi- Function machine, HP Off iceJet 9130
1
05/06
$ 1,200
$ 1,200
Printer, HP Color LaserJet 380ON
1
06/07
1,800
1,800
Scanners, Dell FI -5220c Color Workgroup
1
07/08
1,500
1,500
Switch, Dell PowerConnect 5324
1
05/06
2,000
2,000
Printer, Epson Stylus Pro4800
1
05/06
2,000
2,000
Printer, HP420ON w /Duplexer
6
04/05
1,800
10,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 Ultra Small
36
07/08
1,800
64,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex 760
8
08/09
1,800
14,400
Dell Optiplex 755 /Evidence Mgmt
1
07/08
1,800
1,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 19 "flat
7
05/06
1,800
12,600
Dell, Latitude D820 w/1.0136
1
06/07
2,500
2,500
Dell, Latitude E5500
5
08/09
2,500
12,500
Server rack for above
1
01/02
6,000
6,000
Auto cite computer /software
3
08/09
6,667
20,000
Dell Precision M90
1
06/07
3,400
3,400
Computer, Laptop
1
07/08
4,000
4,000
Switch, Asante 99- 00748 -01
1
03/04
4,200
4,200
Mobile data -2 K -9 /Animal Control
1
00/01
14,000
14,000
Printer, Color, Xerox Phaser 6250DX
1
04/05
4,600
4,600
Tabletop Live -Scan System
1
06/07
11,000
11,000
Video System in PD vehicle
1
04/05
4,900
4,900
Server, Dell Power Edge 1850
1
05/06
6,000
6,000
Switch, PowerConnect 5324 (5ea)
1
06/07
6,500
6,500
Dell Optiplex GX270T, 20" Panel
7
04/05
4,400
30,800
Superloader Quantum
1
03/04
8,200
8,200
Dual Quad Core Xeon E5430 Server
1
08/09
10,000
10,000
Mobile Data Computer M5 (1)
1
05/06
12,000
12,000
Software, Accident Reconstruction
1
06/07
8,500
8,500
Server, Dell Power Edge 2650
2
04/05
10,000
20,000
Server Module, AVL Status Mapping
1
03/04
17,000
17,000
Mobile Data Computer (16)
1
08/09
100,000
100,000
Mobile Data Computer (15)
1
03/04
108,000
108,000
Printer, HP LaserJet 405ON
3
99/00
1,600
4,800
Image Master copying system
1
01/02
1,800
1,800
Printer, HP LaserJet 4000 TN
1
98/99
2,000
2,000
Fax machine
2
99/00
2,400
4,800
Switch, Dell 24 -Port
5
02/03
2,500
12,500
LCD 20" monitor (Doc. Imaging)
1
01/02
3,600
3,600
MDC, Sierra wireless (3)
1
01/02
4,400
4,400
Scanners, Tabletop Fujitsu (4)
1
01102
5,000
5,000
Server, Dell Power Edge 2500
1
01/02
8,000
8,000
Server, Dell Power Edge 2650 (2)
1
02/03
10,000
10,000
Mainframe -IBM AS /400
1
93/94
44,000
44,000
Total
$ 627,900
Note: Figures have been rounded
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10, City of El Segundo
�W I LLDAN I A z
F �anc�W Se .cn
City of El Segundo _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.3: Police Communications and Miscellaneous Equipment Inventory
Descrlptlon
Units
Year
Acquired Unit Cost
Total Replacement
Cost
Refrigerator - Whirlpool (22 cf)
1
03/04
1,100
Refrigerator - Amana
1
99/00
1.600
Range - Maytag
1
99/00
1,800
Freezer - True Food Reach In
1
08/09
3.500
Numb John Mobile Platform
1
07/08
4.000
Benelh LE M4 Shotgun (2)
1
06107
3.500
Refrigerator - True Food Refng.[Freezer
1
08/09
4,500
Remington 700 w/Rail & accessories
2
08/09
4,800
Toshiba 20" DVDNHS TV (7)
1
06/07
3,000
Duplex Card Printer /ID Card Maker
1
08109
4,900
Alcohol Analyzers w /memory & printer
1
05/06
4.000
E2 Rider K -9 Kennel
1
07/08
5.200
Animal Catch Kit
1
08/09
1.800
Helmet Radio Kit (5)
1
03104
9.000
Benchtop Downdraft Workstation
1
07/08
5.800
Nikon D300 2 Cameras / accessones
1
08/09
10.000
M -3 Tactical lights /pouches (75)
1
01/02
10.000
Shotguns (Border Patrol model)
1
01/02
8.000
Forensic Evidence Drying Cabinet
1
07/08
7.000
Personal Escape Masks (CBRN) (72)
1
04105
12.000
Digital Flash CAM -880
1
07 /08
7.700
Video Camera /Dispatch Ctr
1
99 1,00
20.000
Wheel Loader Weigher
1
07 /08
9.600
Gas Masks. Advantage (75)
1
01102
13,000
Reflectorless Total Station Sluetooth
1
06/07
10.000
Taser Gun X26E w /Audio -Video (6)
1
06 /07
12.000
Surveillance vnres & system
1
01102
14,000
Chair, Dispatch (8) Black Galaxy Style 5000
1
07/08
11.400
Bullet Trap
1
96197
65.000
Prolaser III (traffic - 4)
1
07 /08
18.000
Glock 21 guns/magazines (85)
1
01/02
47,000
Communications Generator
1
98/99
100.000
Cardiovascular Machines
1
05/06
40.000
Taser Gun X26E w /Audio -Video (20)
1
06 107
34.000
Mobile ALPR System
1
06/07
35.000
SWAT Bulletproof Vests (16)
1
06/07
40.000
Taser Gun X26E w /Audio -Video (40)
1
07 /08
65.800
Video /Digital Evidence Mgmt System
1
08 /09
180.000
Typewriter
3
90191
3.000
VCR - Encore "Go Video"
1
94/95
1,000
Multisort Satellite Station
1
99100
1.800
Cutting Torch - Steely
1
94/95
3.500
Sights /mounts -SWAT (8)
1
01102
3.500
Security Camera -East Lot
1
98/99
4.000
Chartpnnter
1
90/91
4,800
Shredder
1
92193
5,000
Walk- Through Metal Detector
1
94/95
5.000
Elliptical . PRECOR
1
02/03
5.000
Lab Vent - Labconco
1
95/96
6.000
Scott Air Packs (2)
1
96/97
7.000
Projector, Toshiba LCD
1
9657
8.500
Sony Color Monitors (11)
1
99 /00
9.000
Taserguns(22)
1
01/02
9.500
Video Camera System
1
9758
20.000
Mobile Radios- (1) Motorola XTL5000
1
05 /06
5.000
Mobile Radios (1), Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06107
6,000
Mobile Radios (3). Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06/07
14,000
Mobile Radios (3). Motorola XTS 5000 UHF
1
06/07
14,000
Motorcycle Radio (5). Motorola
1
03 /04
17.500
Mobile Radios (5). Motorola XTS 5000 UHF
1
06/07
26,000
Mobile Radios (5). Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06/07
28,000
Mobile Radios (9). Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06 /07
35.000
Mobile Radios- (9) Motorola
1
04105
40,600
Mobile Radios (12). Motorola XTS 5000
1
05/06
44,000
Ainink GSM Modems
1
08109
25.000
Mobile Radios (13), Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06 /07
50,000
Mobile Radios (15). Motorola XTS5000 UHF
1
06/07
64.000
Mobile Radios (18). Motorola XTS 5000
1
05/06
64,000
Mobile Radios (19), Motorola XTS 5000 UHF
1
06107
80.000
Motorola XTS3000 Portables (75)
1
00/01
225.000
Motorola Spectra A3
1
9859
2.500
Mobile
2
8950
6.500
Cordless XLT Headsets (10 sets)
1
01102
4,500
Radio Workstation
1
02 /03
35.000
Motorola Wireless Dispatch Sys
1
99 /W
2.500.000
Total Equimpent
$ 4211 200
Note Figures have been rounded to nearest hundred.
Sources Oty of El Segundo Egwpment Replacement Schedule. 09/10. Cdy of El Segundo
*WILLDAN I A -3
City of El Segundo_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table AA: Library Collections
Average Total Collection's
Item Price Collection Value
DVD
$ 30
7,000
$ 210,000
VHS
20
500
10,000
Music CD
17
2,600
44,200
Book on Tape
80
890
71,200
Book on CD
45
916
41,200
Magazine or Journal Print
5
5,880
29,400
Newspaper Print
1.00
1,800
1,800
Microfilm or Microfiche
7
80,822
565,800
Maps, Pamphlets, Photos
10
27,500
275,000
Reference Books
200
6,500
1,300,000
Fiction Books
30
27,000
810,000
Non - Fiction Books
88
23,000
2,024,000
Children's Books
26
56,325
1,464,500
Electronic Database Subscriptions
3,000
15
45,000
Total - Library Collections
240,748
$ 6,892,100
Note: Total values rounded to nearest hundred
Source: El Segundo Public Library.
WILLDAN
rmamw S.-Cm A-4
City of El Segundo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.S: Library Equipment and Furnishings
Description
Units
Year
Acquired
Unit Cost
i otai
Replacement
Cost
Projector, Epson
1
05/06
$ 2,600
$ 2,600
Projector, LCD Multimedia (Panasonic)
1
07/08
1,600
1,600
Media Return, M700 -R
1
03/04
2,169
2,200
Audio System /Matsui Room
1
03/04
8,000
8,000
Tables
1
06/07
8,000
8,000
Reading Chairs
15
06/07
733
11,000
3M Security System
1
02/03
14,000
14,000
Canon Microfilm Scanner
1
08/09
9,000
9,000
Audio Visual Material Return
1
93/94
1,650
1,700
Audio Visual System
1
91/92
23,595
23,600
Printer, Dell 310OCN Laser Color
1
06/07
1,600
1,600
Printer, HP LserJet 2055DN
1
08/09
1,600
1,600
Bar Code Scanner & Resensitier
1
03/04
1,600
1,600
Printer, Canon Fileprint
1
08/09
2,000
2,000
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 Ultra Small
40
07/08
1,818
72,700
Laptop, Dell Latitude D630
1
07/08
1,800
1,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 19 "flat
13
05/06
1,800
23,400
Bar Code Scanners (17)
1
07/08
2,500
2,500
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX280T, 17"
1
04/05
1,600
1,600
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 Mini Tower a
1
06/07
2,400
2,400
Computer, Gateway Profile 5MX -C
1
04/05
2,000
2,000
Switch, PowerConnect 5324 (3ea)
1
06/07
3,500
3,500
Millennium System Expansion Software
1
02/03
50,000
50,000
Battery backup RS232 - (2)
1
02/03
1,700
1,700
Cisco Firewall PIX
1
00/01
4,500
4,500
OCLC Interfaces (2)
1
92/93
9,000
9,000
OPAC Web Server
1
00/01
13,500
13,500
Total - Library Equipment
$ 277,100
Note: Total replacement cost figures rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
*WILLDAN
Foancm] semKes A-5
City of EI Segundo
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.6: Fire Department Vehicles
Year Replacement
Description Unit Acquired Cost
Vehicles
Sedan, Crown Victoria
1
06/07 $
28,000
Truck, crew cab
1
97/98
50,000
Generator, Tempest Honda 2000 Watt
2
07/08
3,600
Generator JR)
1
00/01
3,500
Hydraulic Rescue (Jaws of Life)
2
00/01
58,000
Aerial Ladder
1
94/95
921,400
Fire Engine (E33)
1
08/09
771,000
Ford Excursion /Command Center
1
02/03
105,000
Fire Engine (E34)
1
92/93
448,000
Truck, USAR
1
05/06
800,000
Fire Engine (E31)
1
99/00
575,000
Fire Engine (E32)
1
92/93
448,000
Truck, Communications
1
89/90
-
Power Blower (E33)
1
00/01
1,800
Generator
1
00/01
2,200
Power Blower (T32)
1
91/92
2,600
Generator, Honda
1
96/97
3,500
Sedan
2
98/99
31,500
Technical Rescue Truck
1
95/96
320,000
Rescue Ambulance (R31)
1
03/04
251,100
Rescue Ambulance
1
96/97
179,500
Truck, Ford Super Cab
2
00/01
59,000
2008 Ford Escape Hybrid
1
08/09
35,000
Sedan, Grand Marquis
1
00/01
26,300
Crew Cab Truck
1
99/00
52,000
Generator
1
99/00
1,800
Total - Equipment and Apparatus
$
5,177,800
Note: Equipment replacement costs rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10: City of El Segundo.
W I LLDAN
Finencol Services A -6
City of El Segundo
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.7: Fire Department Computer, Communications Equipment
Year Replacement
Description Unit Acquired Cost
Communications
Portable XTL5000 VHF Radios (2)
1
06/07 $
10,000
Portable XTS5000 UHF Radios (8)
1
06/07
40,000
Portable XTS5000 UHF Radios (12)
1
06/07
45,000
Portable XTL5000 VHF Radios (17)
1
06/07
60,000
Portable XTS5000 UHF Radios (18)
1
03/04
72,000
Portable XTS5000 UHF Radios (16)
1
03/04
118,000
Portable VHF (18)
1
varies
33,600
Motorola portable UHF radio (3)
1
02/03
11,000
Satellite Phone Portable Kits (7)
1
08/09
14,000
Emergency Advisory Radio
1
02/03
17,000
UHF Repeater System
1
98/99
2,500
Subtotal - Communications Equipment
1
98/99
423,100
Computer Equipment
Fax, Panafax OF -8000
1
07/08 $
1,500
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 19 "flat
8
05/06
14,400
Laptop, Dell Latitude C810
2
04/05
6,000
Printer, HP LJ 420ODTN
3
02/03
6,300
Computer, Dell File Server
1
02/03
6,000
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 Ultra Small
8
07/08
14,400
Switch, PowerConnect 5224
1
03/04
2,500
Laptop, Dell Precision M6300
1
07/08
3,100
Mobile Data Computer (1) M5
1
06/07
7,500
Mobile Data Computer (1) M15
1
05/06
11,000
Mobile Data Computer (13)
1
03/04
111,000
Pipeline 130 IDSNrrl
1
98/99
1,300
Scanner
1
93/94
1,600
Laptop, Dell Latitude D510 Celeron M
16
05/06
24,000
Printer, Xerox Phaser 6259/DP color
1
04/05
2,600
Computer, Gateway 5MX -C Delux (EOC)
2
04/05
4,800
Server, Dell PowerEdge 1800 esweb03
1
05/06
4,500
Laptop, Dell Latitude C810 w /docking st
1
04/05
3,000
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 "EMWIN"
1
07/08
4,000
Printer, HY LJ 220ODN (EOC)
2
01/02
2,800
Panafax 990 Fax Machine (EOC)
2
01/02
5,600
Subtotal - Computer Equipment
$
237,900
Note: Equipment replacement costs rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
WILLDAN
Finamml Services A-7
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.8: Fire Department Other Misc. Equipment
WWILLDAN
Fwmm.al Services A -8
Year
Replacement
Description
Unit
Acquired
Cost
Other Eouioment
Automate Defibrillator S2- 0epak (2)
1
04105
E 5.6()D
Automatic Defibrillator (4)
1
04/05
10.700
Typewriter
2
92/93
2.000
Porte Count System Model #8028
1
08/09
1,200
Ventilation Chain Saw (E33)
1
99/00
1.300
Turbo Water Vac 17 gallon
1
03/04
2.700
Sharp 2000 Zoom Projector
1
03/04
2,100
ESFD Station #1 Console
1
05106
5.500
ESFD Station #2 Console
1
05/06
5.500
Pro Tread Treadmill (St 1)
1
08/09
5.400
Asset Management System
1
05/06
3.000
Washer Extractor
1
93/94
10.800
Personal Protective Equipment
2
04/05
7,500
Recliner. Lander (10)
1
08/09
8.000
Helmets w /eye protection (60)
1
04/05
13.600
Ballistic Body Armor (19 sets)
1
07/08
10.000
SCBA Bottles (22)
1
06/07
20.000
Headsets (33)
1
03/04
8,500
Emergency Vehicle Intercom Sys. (t0ea)
1
03/04
11,000
Communications Generator (1 /4)
1
98/99
50.000
Personal Escape Mask (CBRN) (75)
1
04105
13.000
Heavy USAR Equipment
1
07/08
40.000
SCBA CBRN Mask
1
04/05
18.000
Hose (300 sections)
1
vanes
-
SCBA Bottles (40)
1
04/05
36.000
Protective Clothing (60)
1
varies
-
SCBA Units (26)
1
04/05
145.200
SCBA Voce Amplifiers (55)
1
02/03
13.300
Typewriter
1
90/91
1,000
Ab Bench - Icarian (ST2)
1
02/03
1,000
Submersible Pump (TR)
1
94/95
1,300
Pump
1
98199
1,400
Pump JR)
1
98/99
1,400
Submersible Pump (ST2)
2
98/99
2.800
Rotary saw (2) (TR)
1
98/99
1.400
3 -way Suction Siamese (T32)
1
97/98
1,500
Rotary hammer JR)
1
98/99
1,500
Ventilation Chain Saw (T32)
1
92/93
1.800
Culquck Power Saw
1
93/94
2.100
Water Vacuum
1
94195
2200 ,
Gas Detector JR)
1
96/97
2.500
Gas Detector JR)
1
96/97
2.500
MSA Alarm (2) (TR)
1
96197
3.000
Leg Extensions (ST2)
1
99/00
3.000
Leg Cuds (ST2)
1
99100
3.000
Automated Defibnllator (E31)
1
00101
4.000
Automated Defibrillator (E33)
1
00/01
4.000
Automated Defibnllator (E32)
1
00/01
4.000
Step Mill 7000 (ST2)
1
98/99
4.000
Precor EFX 5 23 Crosstrainer (ST2)
1
02103
4.000
Precor Fitness Crosstrainer (ST1)
1
98/99
4 500
Thermal imaging camera (E31)
1
02/03
25,000
Thermal imaging camera (E33)
1
02/03
25.000
Thermal imaging camera (E32)
1
02/03
25.000
SCBA Bottles (77)
1
vanes
57.200
SCBA (26)
1
vanes
61,300
Victory trailer
4
08/09
22.100
Defibrillator. E Series ACLS Manual
1
07/08
19.500
Monitor/Defibrillator Life Pak 12 (2)
1
04105
36.700
Defibnllator. 3 -E Senes2 -M Series Manual
1
06/07
59.000
Monitor/Defibrillator
1
97/98
13.000
Mobile radio ( #3361)
1
00/01
2.100
Mobile radio ( #3360)
1
00101
2.100
HNU Toxic Detector
1
03104
3.700
Combo Gas /Oxygen Indicator
1
03/04
3.900
CBRN Detection Equipment
2
04/05
15.000
Five Step Analysis Kit ( #3348)
1
99/00
2.200
Combustible Gas Indicator
1
91192
5.400
Mobile Mini Storage 10'
2
97/98
6,500
Mobile Mini Storage 20'
1
95/96
4.400
Projector, LCD "2" (EOC)
1
06/07
5.200
Biological /Chemical Detection Kit
1
04/05
5.300
Upholstered Chairs (35)
1
08/09
25.000
SE Inspector Survey Meter
1
03/04
25.000
Chemical 8 Biological Agent Detection Kit
1
04/05
15.000
Emerg food (mutual aid/City empl
1
07/08
20.000
Emergency food
1
07/08
25.000
Subtotal - Other Equipment
E 1.017.400
Note Egu.pmen! ,eviammem costs rounded !o nearest -red
Sources C ty of El Segundo Equipment Replacemer! S&eduie.
09110 City
of El Segundo
WWILLDAN
Fwmm.al Services A -8
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.9: Parks Equipment and Vehicles
Total
Year Replacement
Description Units Acquired Unit Cost Cost
Printer, Zebra P330i & Cards
Program registration Printer & Cards
System 5 Timer (Saari Pool)
Vacuum Sweeper
Board, Maxiflex 16'- Stand
Pool automatic chlorinator
Portable Radio (8), Motorola
Rototiller
16" Sod Cutter
Tractor, Garden
Genie Aerial Lift
Delta 5 HP Unisaw
Sedan, Crown Victoria
Showmobile trailer
Lawnair Aerator
Cushman
GEM, Utility Cart
Mower/Trimmer
Truck, Chevy
John Deer 220B Greens mower
Planer, Powermatic
Roller Turf
Stump Cutter
Truck, Ford
Truck, GMC TC7500 w /Arbortech 12" Chipper
Aerial Tower Truck
Utility Vehicle, John Deere HPX Gator
Truck
Utility Trailer
Wood Chipper
Generator
Line Striper, Jiffy 7500
Lawn Comber
Mower
Computer, Optiplex GX280, 17" panel
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 Ultra Small
Computer, Dell; printer; firewall
Computer, GX520 Minitowers
Printer, HP220ODN
Printer, HP LaserJet 4000TN
Fax, Panafax DX2000
HP 220ODTN Printer
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 19 "flat
Total Equipment and Vehicles
Note: Totals replacement costs rounded to nearest hundred.
1
FY05 -06
$ 6,600 $
6,600
1
FY04 -05
6,600
6,600
1
FY00 -01
35,000
35,000
1
FY02 -03
3,500
3,500
1
FY01 -02
7,500
7,500
1
FY98 -99
2,500
2,500
8
FY03 -04
438
3,500
1
FY98 -99
1,300
1,300
1
FY98 -99
3,600
3,600
1
FY98 -99
8,500
8,500
1
FY00 -01
8,100
8,100
1
FY07 -08
5,000
5,000
1
FY06 -07
8,000
8,000
1
FY01 -02
130,000
130,000
1
FY86 -87
1,700
1,700
1
FY99 -00
21,000
21,000
1
FY02 -03
6,000
6,000
2
FY02 -03
1,700
3,400
6
FY02 -03
29,133
174,800
1
FY03 -04
5,000
5,000
1
FY99 -00
2,000
2,000
1
FY91 -92
4,000
4,000
1
FY99 -00
36,000
36,000
2
FY91 -92
17,350
34,700
1
FY08 -09
98,000
98,000
1
FY97 -98
130,000
130,000
1
FY04 -05
10,200
10,200
1
FY92 -93
28,000
28,000
3
FY02 -03
5,433
16,300
1
FY01 -02
33,000
33,000
1
FY92 -93
2,000
2,000
1
FY03 -04
1,800
1,800
1
FY97 -98
1,500
1,500
1
FY98 -99
4,200
4,200
1
FY04 -05
1,800
1,800
14
FY07 -08
1,800
25,200
1
FY07 -08
3,600
3,600
2
FY05 -06
2,300
4,600
1
FY02 -03
1,200
1,200
1
FY98 -99
1,800
1,800
1
FY03 -04
2,600
2,600
1
FY02 -03
1,700
1,700
1
FY05 -06
1,800
1,800
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 08/09; City of El Segundo.
$ 887,600
*O'WILLDAN
Fnancial Services A-9
Appendix B: Worker Demand Survey for
Parks
The worker demand weighting for parks and recreation facilities were developed during various
user intercept surveys carried out by staff at the City of El Segundo in March 2010. The following
appendix describes the methodology used to arrive at the worker demand weighting factors.
Park Survey
The parks intercept survey was administered to all willing park -goers at Campus El Segundo
Fields and Recreation Park on Tuesday, March 16th, Wednesday, March 17th, and Sunday,
March 21 st. On the two weekdays, the survey was administered during the interval from 11:45AM
to 1:15PM and then the interval from 6:OOPM to 7:OOPM. On Sunday, the survey was
administered from 9:15AM- 10:15AM, from 12:15PM- 1:15PM and from 6:30PM to 7:30PM. The
parks surveyed are listed in the table below. Park users were asked if they came to the park that
day because of proximity to work, home, both or neither.
The staff at the City of El Segundo initially tabulated the results of the survey. The results of the
weekday surveys (Tuesday, March 16th and Wednesday, March 17th) need to be multiplied by
five to weight the results to represent the five weekdays. Results from the weekend survey
(Sunday, March 21st) need to be multiplied by two in order to represent total visits for both
weekend days.
Willdan Financial Services constructed weights by considering worker and resident responses
alone. Respondents suggesting that they were at the parks for both or neither reasons were not
included in the total. The resulting estimate of total proximity to work responses were then divided
by the current estimate of employees working within the City of El Segundo to derive park visits
per employee. Park visits per resident were estimated by dividing the responses by the current
resident population. The resulting weighting factor for worker park use based on survey results is
estimated at 0.17.
The tabulation of survey results appears in Table B.1 below
WWILLDAN
FNaricial Services B- j
City of El Segundo
Table BA: City Of El Segundo Park Users Survey
Number of patrons at
Park because of:
Work Residence Both Neither
Survey Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010,11:45 am to 1:15 pm
Recreation Park 37 30 13 19
Campus El Segundo Fields 6 1 _ 10
Total 43 31 13 29
Survey Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm
Recreation Park 5 15 12 6
Campus El Segundo Fields 3 52 10 28
Total 8 67 22 34
Survey Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 11:45 am to 1:15 pm
Recreation Park 28 12 6 15
Campus El Segundo Fields 7 2 1 23
Total 35 14 7 38
Survey Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm
Recreation Park
12
41
11
37
Campus El Segundo Fields
8
83
3
42
Total
20
124
14
79
Adjustment Factor
5
5
5
5
Weighted Weekday Visits
133
295
70
225
Survey Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010,
9:15 am to 10:15 am
5
209
Total
Recreation Park
-
25
7
14
Campus El Segundo Fields
8
7
2
37
Total
8
32
9
51
Survey Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010,12:15 pm to 1:15 pm
Recreation Park
5
38
12
36
Campus El Segundo Fields
6
26
8
129
Total
11
64
20
165
Survey Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010, 6:30 pm to 7:30
pm
Recreation Park
2
34
6
32
Campus El Segundo Fields
10
6
5
209
Total
12
40
11
241
Adjustment Factor
2
2
2
2
Weighted Weekend Visits
21
91
27
305
Weekend and Weekday Weighted Visits
153
386
97
Allocation of "Both" Response
48
48
202
434
Employees or Residents
47200
17.000
1,000 Visits per worker or resident
4.27
25.53
1,000 Visits
Per Capita
Workers 4.27
Residents 2553
Worker Weighting Factor 0.17
Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Note. These parks were selected based on their similarity to future parks to be built
Sources City of El Segundo. Willdan Financial Services.
�WILLDAN
Financiel services B -2