2004/05/25 City Council Agenda PacketCity of Rohnert Park*6750 Commerce Boulevard*Rohnert Park, California 94928
Phone: (707)588-2227*FAX: (707)588-2274*WEB: www.rpdty.orr
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL
Community Development Commission
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
Rohnert Park District
CONCURRENT MEETINGS
AGENDA
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Judy Hauff
City Clerk
City Hall
REVISED
MEETING LOCATION: CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6750 Commerce Boulevard. Rohnert Park. California
The Rohnert Park City Council welcomes your attendance, interest and participation at its regular meetings
scheduled on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
City Council Agendas & Minutes maybe viewed at the City's website: www.rpcity.or,-
Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda.
Waiver Warning: If you challenge decisions of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at public hearing(s) described in this Agenda, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Citv of Rohnert Park at. or prior to the public hearine(s).
DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability which requires an interpreter
or other person to assist you while attending this City Council meeting, please contact the
City Offices at (707) 588-2227 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements
for accommodation by the City. Please make sure the City Manager's office is notified as
soon as possible if you have a visual impairment requiring meeting materials to be produced
in another format (Braille, audio -tape, etc.)
6:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Call to Order
Roll Call (Flores Mackenzie Spradlin Vidak-Martinez Nordin_)
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER:
• Personnel matters (G.C. 54957)
- MOA negotiations with Rohnert Park Employees Association (RPEA);
Rohnert Park Public Safety Officers Association (RPPSOA); and
Service Employees International Union (S.E.I.U.) Local 707
(Department of Public Works) with Carl Eric Leivo, City Manager
7:00 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION - Reconvene / Pledge of Allegiance
1. Mayor's Report on Closed Session (G.C. 54957.1)
2. SCHEDULED APPEARANCE/PRESENTATION:
• Sister Cities Relations Committee - Report by Student Junior Ambassador
to Japan, Jessika Frazer
For items to be listed on the agenda, written requests must be submitted to the
City Manager's Office prior to finalization of meeting agendas, i.e.
by noon on the Tuesdays preceding City Council meetings regularly scheduled
on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays ofeach month
City of Rohnert Park CONCURRENT MEETINGS Ap-enda (2) May 25, 2004
for City CounciUCommunity Development Commission/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Rohnert Park District
3. STUDENT REPORTS:
1. High School - Youth Leadership of Rohnert Park via SCAYD (Sonoma County Adult &
Youth Development) with Report by Environmental Prevention Coalition (EPC)
Representatives Michael Larvenz, Rosa Jiminez, Anel Guzman and Sandra R. Merino
2. SSU - Sonoma State University Associated Students, Inc.
Report by James J. Reilly III, Legislative Representative
4. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/COMMENTS:
For public comment on items not listed on the agenda,
or on agenda items if unable to speak at the scheduled time
(limited to 3-5 minutes per appearance & a 30 minute total time limit,
or allocation of time based on number of speaker cards submitted)
- PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO SPEAKING -
*SEE NOTE ON LAST PAGE OF THIS AGENDA
5. Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFD) Draft - To receive public comments
and consider adoption of the PFFP
1. Staff report
2. Public Comments
3. Resolution for adoption:
2004-119 Approving the Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP)
a. Council motion
b. Council discussion
c. Council vote
6. Weed Abatement - Consideration to abate weeds that are growing within the City
boundaries, which pose a fire hazard and health menace and are otherwise noxious
and dangerous and cause a public nuisance
1. Staff report
2. PUBLIC HEARING for property owners having objections to the proposed
destruction or removal of hazardous weeds
3. Resolution for adoption:
2004-120 Ordering the City Manager to Abate Nuisances Existing Within the City
a. Council motion
b. Council discussion
c. Council vote
7. Sonoma County Tourism Business Improvement Area (BIA) - Consideration of
consenting to inclusion within the Sonoma County BIA and authorizing collection '
and remittance of assessments from lodging establishments
1. Staff report
2. Economic Development Subcommittee report and recommendation (AF/VVM)
3. Public Comments
4. Resolution for adoption:
2004-121 Approving the City of Rohnert Park's Inclusion within the Sonoma
County Business Improvement Area and Authorizing Collection and
Remittance of Assessments from Lodging Establishments
a. Council motion
b: Council discussion
c. Council vote
City of Rohnert Park CONCURRENT MEETINGS Agenda (3) May 25, 2004
for City Council/Community Development Commission/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Rohnert Park District
8. Fire Services Division 2004 Fee Schedule - Consideration of adding a
fee for fireworks education and compliance to the 2004 fee schedule
1. Staff report
2. Public Comments
3. Resolution for adoption:
2004-122 Adopting the 2004 Department of Public Safety - Fire
Services Division Fee Schedule
a. Council motion
b. Council discussion
c. Council vote
9. Recreation Department Fees for Fiscal Year 2004-05 - Consideration of
proposed fee adjustments for Recreation facilities and programs
1. Staff report
2. Public Comments
3. Resolution for adoption:
2004-123 Authorizing and Approving Adjustments in Fees for Various
Recreation Facilities and Programs
a. Council motion
b. Council discussion
c. Council vote
10. Vacant Land purchase - Consideration of Vacant Land Purchase Agreement for
an 18 -acre parcel located immediately north of the City Limits, outside the Urban
Growth Boundary and in a community separator, APN 045-041-018
1. Staff report
2. Public Comments
3. Resolution for adoption:
2004-124 Authorizing and Approving a Vacant Land Purchase Agreement for an
18 -Acre Parcel Located Immediately North of the City Limits
a. Council motion
b. Council discussion
c. Council vote
11. Commission/Committee/Board matters:
1. Bicycle Advisory Committee - Consideration of appointment to fill
vacancy with a two (2) year term to expire December 31, 2004
• Council action to fill vacancy due to
acceptance of Gary Jelinek resignation (GN nomination)
2. Cultural Arts Commission - Consideration of appointment to fill
vacancy with a four (4) year term to expire December 31, 2006
• Council action to fill vacancy due to
acceptance of Crissey Cossey resignation (AS nomination)
3. Senior Citizens Advisory Committee - Consideration of proposal to disband
a. City Council Liaison Report (AF)
b. Council discussion/direction/action
City of Rohnert Park CONCURRENT MEETINGS Agenda - (4) May 25, 2004
for City CounciUCommunity Development Commission/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Rohnert Park District
12. Annual Status Report on the General Plan
1. Presentation by Ron Bendorff, Senior Planner
2. Council discussion/action: Motion to receive and file
13. Annual Policy Review of the Growth Management Program
1. Presentation by Ron Bendorff; Senior Planner
2. Council discussion/action: Motion to receive and file
14. Council Committee &/or Other Reports:
1. Sonoma County Remote Access Network (RAN), 5/12/04 mtg. (AS)
2. Mayors' & Councilmembers' Assn., 5/13/04 mtg. (GN)
3. League of Calif. Cities General Assembly, 5/13/04 mtg. (JN17
4. Garbage Subcommittee, 5/14/04 mtg. (AF/AS)
5. Economic Development Subcommittee, 5/14/04 mtg. (AF/WNI)
6. Other informational reports, if any
15. Communications
16. Matters from/for Council:
1. Schedule of Events and Meetings
2. City Council Agenda Forecast
3. Other informational items, if any
17. City Manager's Report:
1. FIGR Hotel/Resort/Casino Opinion from Professor Carole Goldberg,
UCLA School of Law
2. Human Rights Seminar at Doubletree Hotel on 5/15/04
3. Other informational items, if any
18. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the consent calendar will be considered together by one action
of the Council unless any Councilmember or anyone else interested in a consent
calendar item has a question about the item.
A. Approval of Concurrent Meeting Minutes for: May 11, 2004
B. Approval of Bills/Demands for Payment concurrently for:
• City of Rohnert Park/City Council
• Community Development Commission
C. Accepting Cash/Investments Report for Month End,
March 31, 2004 concurrently for:
• City of Rohnert Park/City Council
• Community Development Commission
• Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park CONCURRENT MEETINGS Agenda (5) May 25, 2004
for City Council/Community Development Commission/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Rohnert Park District
1). Resolutions for Adoption:
2004-125 Proclaiming Wednesday, June 2, 2004 as "Community Watershed
Clean -Up Day" (Formerly Clean Up Copeland Creek Day"
2004-126 Honoring June 14, 2004 as ".National Flag Day" and June 13-19,
2004 as "National Flag Week"
2004-127 Expressing Appreciation to Jennifer Wong, Sonoma State University
Associated Students, Inc.
2004-128 Authorizing and Approving Amendment Number One to the
Agreement with Hector Correa for Artistic Director Services
2004-129 Authorizing and Approving Adjustments to Miscellaneous
Recreation Part -Time Pay Rates and Ranges
2004-130 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Deed Granting Pacific Gas and
Electric Company Easement Rights on the Oak View Senior
Apartments (Kisco) Sites (APN 159-460-025, 026 & 027)
2004-131 Approval of Letter Proposal with Baechtel Hudis, Inc. for
Engineering Services and Authorizing Finance Director to Amend
FY 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program Budget to Include
Project Engineering Costs
2004-132 Approval of Task Order No. 2004-07 with Winzler & Kelly
Engineers for Construction Management Services of Citywide
Pavement Slurry Seals Project No. 2003-18
2004-133 Awarding the Contract to North Bay Construction for the
Commercial Water Meters Installation Project No. 2003-03
19. PUBLIC COMMENT:
For public comment on items not listed on the agenda,
or on agenda items if unable to speak at the scheduled time
(limited to 3-5 minutes per appearance & a 30 minute total time limit,
or allocation of time based on number of speaker cards submitted)
- PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO SPEAKING -
*SEE NOTE ON NEXT -PAGE
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Time shown for�any particular matter on the agenda is an estimate only. Matters may
be considered earlier or later than the time indicated depending on the pace at which the meeting
proceeds. If you wish to speak on an item under discussion by the Council which appears on this
agenda, after receiving recognition from the Mayor, please walk to the rostrum and state your
name and address for the record.
- PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO .SPEAKING -
Any item raised by a member of the public which is not agendized and may require Council
action shall be automatically referred to staff for investigation and disposition which may include
placing on a future agenda. If the item is deemed to be an emergency or the need to take action
arose after posting of the agenda within the meaning of Government Code Section 54954.2(b),
Council is entitled to discuss the matter to determine if it is an emergency item under said
Government Code and may take action thereon. JH -h:/052504 AGENDA-RPCity Council
City of Rohnert Park*6750 Commerce Boulevard*Rohnert Park, California 94928
Phone: (707)588-2227+FAX: (707)588-2274+UVEB: www.Mcity.org
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL
Community Development Commission
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
Rohnert Park District
CONCURRENT MEETINGS
AGENDA
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
This revision included
removing the Storm Water
Ordinance due to needing time
for summary publication prior
to adoption, and adding an
item for a Vacant Land
Purchase Agreement.
REVISED
MEETING LOCATION: CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, California
The Rohnert Park City Council welcomes your attendance, interest and participation at its regular meetings
scheduled on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
City Council Agendas & Minutes maybe viewed at the City's website: www rpcity.org
Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda.
Waiver Warning: If you challenge decisions of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at public hearing(s) described in this Agenda, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Rohnert Park at, or prior to the public hearing(s).
DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability which requires an interpreter
or other person to assist you while attending this City Council meeting, please contact the
City Offices at (707) 588-2227 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements
for accommodation by the City. Please make sure the City Manager's office is notified as
soon as possible if you have a visual impairment requiring meeting materials to be produced
in another format (Braille, audio -tape, etc.)
6:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Call to Order
Roll Call (Flores Mackenzie Spradlin Vidak-Martinez Nordin___)
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER:
• Personnel matters (G.C. 54957)
MOA negotiations with Rohnert Park Employees Association (RPEA);
Rohnert Park Public Safety Officers Association (RPPSOA); and
Service Employees International Union (S.E.I.U.) Local 707
(Department of Public Works) with Carl Eric Leivo, City Manager
7:00 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION - Reconvene / Pledge of Allegiance
1. Mayor's Report on Closed Session (G.C. 54957.1)
2. SCHEDULED APPEARANCE/PRESENTATION:
Sister Cities Relations Committee - Report by Student Junior Ambassador
to Japan, Jessika Frazer
For items to be listed on the agenda, written requests must be submitted to the
City Manager's Office prior to finalization of meeting agendas, i.e.
by noon on the Tuesdays preceding City Council meetings regularly scheduled
on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month
City of Rohnert Park CONCURRENT MEETINGS Aeenda (2) May 25, 2004
for City Council/Community Development Commission/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Rohnert Park District
3. STUDENT REPORTS:
1. High School - Youth Leadership of Rohnert Park via SCAYD (Sonoma County Adult &
Youth Development) with Report by Environmental Prevention Coalition (EPC)
Representatives Michael Larvenz, Rosa Jiminez, Anel Guzman and Sandra R. Merino
2. SSU - Sonoma State University Associated Students, Inc.
Report by James J. Reilly III, Legislative Representative
4. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/COMMENTS:
For public comment on items not listed on the agenda,
or on agenda items if unable to speak at the scheduled time
(limited to 3-5 minutes per appearance & a 30 minute total time limit,
or allocation of time based on number of speaker cards submitted)
- PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO SPEAKING -
*SEE NOTE ON LAST PAGE OF THIS AGENDA
5. Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFD) Draft - To receive public comments
and consider adoption of the PFFP
1. Staff report
2. Public Comments
3. Resolution for adoption:
2004-119 Approving the Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP)
a. Council motion
b. Council discussion
c. Council vote
6. Weed Abatement - Consideration to abate weeds that are growing within the City
boundaries, which pose a fire hazard and health menace and are otherwise noxious
and dangerous and cause a public nuisance
1. Staff report
2. PUBLIC HEARING for property owners having objections to the proposed
destruction or removal of hazardous weeds
3. Resolution for adoption:
2004-120 Ordering the City Manager to Abate Nuisances Existing Within the City
a. Council motion
b. Council discussion
c. Council vote
7. Sonoma County Tourism Business Improvement Area (BIA) - Consideration of
consenting to inclusion within the Sonoma County BIA and authorizing collection
and remittance of assessments from lodging establishments
1. Staff report
2. Economic Development Subcommittee report and recommendation (AF/WM)
3. Public Comments
4. Resolution for adoption:
2004-121 Approving the City of Rohnert Park's Inclusion within the Sonoma
County Business Improvement Area and Authorizing Collection and
Remittance of Assessments from Lodging Establishments
a. Council motion
b. Council discussion
c. Council vote
t
City of Rohnert Park CONCURRENT MEETINGS Agenda (3) May 25, 2004
for City CouncillCommunity Development Commission/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Rohnert Park District
8. Fire Services Division 2004 Fee Schedule - Consideration of adding a
fee for fireworks education and compliance to the 2004 fee schedule
1. Staff report
2. Public Comments
3. Resolution for adoption:
2004-122 Adopting the 2004 Department of Public Safety - Fire
Services Division Fee Schedule
a. Council motion
b. Council discussion
c. Council vote
9. Recreation Department Fees for Fiscal Year 2004-05 - Consideration of
proposed fee adjustments for Recreation facilities and programs
1. Staff report
2. Public Comments
3. Resolution for adoption:
2004-123 Authorizing and Approving Adjustments in Fees for Various
Recreation Facilities and Programs
a. Council motion
b. Council discussion
c. Council vote
10. Vacant Land purchase - Consideration of Vacant Land Purchase Agreement for
an 18 -acre parcel located immediately north of the City Limits, outside the Urban
Growth Boundary and in a community separator, APN 045-041-018
1. Staff report
2. Public Comments
3. Resolution for adoption:
2004-124 Authorizing and Approving a Vacant Land Purchase Agreement for an
18 -Acre Parcel Located Immediately North of the City Limits
a. Council motion
b. Council discussion
c. Council vote
11. Commission/Committee/Board matters:
1. Bicycle Advisory Committee - Consideration of appointment to fill
vacancy with a two (2) year term to expire December 31, 2004
• Council action to fill vacancy due to
acceptance of Gary Jelinek resignation (GN nomination)
2. Cultural Arts Commission - Consideration of appointment to fill
vacancy with a four (4) year term to expire December 31, 2006
• Council action to fill vacancy due to
acceptance of Crissey Cossey resignation (AS nomination)
3. Senior Citizens Advisory Committee - Consideration of proposal to disband
a. City Council Liaison Report (AF)
b. Council discussion/direction/action
City of Rohnert Park CONCURRENT MEETINGS Agenda - (4) May 25, 2004
for City CounciUCommunity Development Commission/Rohnert Park Financing Authorhy/Rohnert Park District
12. Annual Status Report on the General Plan
1. Presentation by Ron Bendorff=, Senior Planner
2. Council discussion/action: Motion to receive and file
13. Annual Policy Review of the Growth Management Program
1. Presentation by Ron Bendorff, Senior Planner
2. Council discussion/action: Motion to receive and file
14. Council Committee &/or Other Reports:
1. Sonoma County Remote Access Network (RAN), 5/12/04 mtg. (AS)
2. Mayors' & Councilmembers' Assn., 5/13/04 mtg. (GN)
3. League of Calif. Cities General Assembly, 5/13/04 mtg. (JM)
4. Garbage Subcommittee, 5/14/04 mtg. (AF/AS)
5. Economic Development Subcommittee, 5/14/04 mtg. (AF/VVM)
6. Other informational reports, if any
15. Communications
16. Matters from/for Council:
1. Schedule of Events and Meetings
2. City Council Agenda Forecast
3. Other informational items, if any
17. City Manager's Report:
1. FIGR Hotel/Resort/Casino Opinion from Professor Carole Goldberg,
UCLA School of Law
2. Human Rights Seminar at Doubletree Hotel on 5/15/04
3. Other informational items, if any
18. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the consent calendar will be considered together by one action
of the Council unless any Councilmember or anyone else interested in a consent
calendar item has a question about the item. '
A. Approval of Concurrent Meeting Minutes for: May 11, 2004
B. Approval of Bills/Demands for Payment concurrently for:
• City of Rohnert Park/City Council
• Community Development Commission
C. Accepting Cash/Investments Report for Month End,
March 31, 2004 concurrently for:
• City of Rohnert Park/City Council
• Community Development Commission
• Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park CONCURRENT MEETINGS Agenda (5) May 25.2004
for City CounciUCommunity Development Commission/Rohnert Park Financing Author4lRohnert Park District
D. Resolutions for Adoption:
2004-125 Proclaiming Wednesday, June 2, 2004 as "Community Watershed
Clean -Up Day" (Formerly Clean Up Copeland Creek Day"
2004-126 Honoring June 14, 2004 as ".National Flag Day" and June 13-19,
2004 as "National Flag Week"
2004-127 Expressing Appreciation to Jennifer Wong, Sonoma State University
Associated Students, Inc.
2004-128 Authorizing and Approving Amendment Number One to the
Agreement with Hector Correa for Artistic Director Services
2004-129 Authorizing and Approving Adjustments to Miscellaneous
Recreation Part -Time Pay Rates and Ranges
2004-130 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Deed Granting Pacific Gas and
Electric Company Easement Rights on the Oak View Senior
Apartments (Kisco) Sites (APN 159-460-025, 026 & 027)
2004-131 Approval of Letter Proposal with Baechtel Hudis, Inc. for
Engineering Services and Authorizing Finance Director to Amend
FY 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program Budget to Include
Project Engineering Costs
2004-132 Approval of Task Order No. 2004-07 with Winzler & Kelly
Engineers for Construction Management Services of Citywide
Pavement Slurry Seals Project No. 2003-18
2004-133 Awarding the Contract to North Bay Construction for the
Commercial Water Meters Installation Project No. 2003-03
19. PUBLIC COMMENT:
For public comment on items not listed on the agenda,
or on agenda items if unable to speak at the scheduled time
(limited to 3-5 minutes per appearance & a 30 minute total time limit,
or allocation of time based on number of speaker cards submitted)
- PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO SPEAKING -
*SEE NOTE ON NEXTPAGE
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Time shown for any particular matter on the agenda is an estimate only. Matters may
be considered earlier or later than the time indicated depending on the pace at which the meeting
proceeds. If you wish to speak on an item under discussion by the Council which appears on this
agenda, after receiving recognition from the Mayor, please walk to the rostrum and state your
name and address for the record.
- PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO SPEAKING -
Any item raised by a member of the public which is not agendized and may require Council
action shall be automatically referred to staff for investigation and disposition which may include
placing on a future agenda. If the item is deemed to be an emergency or the need to take action
arose after posting of the agenda within the meaning of Government Code Section 54954.2(b),
Council is entitled to discuss the matter to determine if it is an emergency item under said
Government Code and may take action thereon. JH -b:/052504 AGENDA-itrcny cow,cH
COURTESY AGENDA LIST
5/25/04
Mike Grubler
874 Hudis Street
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Jessika Frazer
1141 San Antonio Drive
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Kecia Kaiser
SCAYD
P.O. Box 7078
Cotati, CA 94931
Associated Students, Inc.
ATTN: Jennifer Wong
1801 E. Cotati Ave.
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Donald P. Petro, President
An American Tradition LLC
P.O. Box 751044 c
Petaluma, CA 94975-1044
COUNCIL MEETING MEMO
To: The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
From: Carl Leivo
City Manager
cc: Gabrielle Whelan, Interim City Attorney
Administrative Staff
Press Correspondents Date: May 25, 2004 Meeting
City Council Meeting - The following matters are scheduled for consideration or discussion at the City of
Rohnert Park concurrent meetings of the City Council, the Community Development Commission, and the
Rohnert Park Financing Authority to convene at 6:00 p.m. on May 25, 2004. Council will adjourn for Closed
Session and the Regular Session is scheduled to commence at 7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Adjourn to Closed Session
1. Mayor's Report on Closed Session
2. Scheduled Appearances/Presentations — See City Council Agenda for Details
■ Sister Cities Relations Committee Report by Jessica Fraser, Student Junior
Ambassador to Japan
3. Student Reports:
Michael Larvenz, Rosa Jiminez, Anel Guzman, and Sandra Miring: High School Youth
Leadership Representatives for the Environmental Prevention Coalition
James J. Reilly III, Legislative Representative Sonoma State University Associated Students,
Inc.
4. Unscheduled Public Appearances
Time has been allotted on the Council agenda for public comments on agenda items or other matters
not on the agenda. There is a 30 -minute time limit for unscheduled appearances and, depending on
the number of speakers, each speaker may be limited to 3-5 minutes. Any speakers not having time
to speak during the unscheduled public appearances will be deferred to a time allotment at the end of
the agenda for additional public comments.
5. Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) Draft
Requested Council Action: Motion to Approve Resolution 2004-119 Approving the Public
Facilities Financing Plan. If approved authorize Ci1y Manager to direct preparation of final
PFFP
The Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan was prepared based on Council comments at the
4/27/04 and 5/11/04 meetings and comments from the public. The main change from the
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK (2) Council Meeting Memo - May 25, 2004
Preliminary Draft is costs for right-of-way acquisition for "off-site" roadways (roads not
adjacent to or part of a Specific Plan area). Right -of -Way acquisition has been included for
the sewer main easement west of the golf course and east of Highway 101. This change
added approximately $10 million to the PFFP.
6. Weed Abatement
Requested Council Action: Public Hearing for those objecting to proposed destruction or
removal of hazardous weeds, adoption of Resolution 2004-120 ordering the City Manager to
Abate Nuisances existing within the City of Rohnert Park and direction to staff to advertise
and hire a contractor to conduct abatement.
On 4/13/04, Council declared weeds to be a seasonal / recurrent nuisance and directed weeds
to be abated from certain properties or the City would use a contractor to effect abatement.
Citywide inspection for lots and properties in violation of weed abatement standards was
completed 4/18/04 and written notices were mailed to listed property owners 5/19/04.
Inspections for compliance are scheduled to begin 6/2/04 with abatements to begin 6/16/04.
7. Sonoma County Tourism Business Improvement Area (BIA)
Requested Council Action: Adoption of Resolution No 2004-121 approving Rohnert Park's
inclusion within the Sonoma County Business Improvement area and authorizing collection
and remittance of assessments from Lodging establishments.
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors has asked that Sonoma County cities be included
in the Sonoma County Business Improvement Area (BIA) and that each city (excluding non -
consenting cities) authorize quarterly collection and remittance to the County of 2%
assessments (less administrative fee) from lodging establishments generating $350,000 the
preceding calendar year. These assessments will be used for tourism promotion. The
Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 requires consent from the City Council
before the BIA may be extended to include the territorial limits of Rohnert Park.
8. Fire Services Division 2004 Fee Schedule
Requested Council Action: Adoption of 2004 Department of Public Safety — Fire Services
Division Fee Schedule Resolution 2004-121.
The Fire Services Division of the City of Rohnert Park updates Fees for Service annually.
Staff recommends that a fee for fireworks education and compliance be added to the 2004 fee
schedule. This allows a fee to be assessed by the City to sellers of safe and sane fireworks to
Rind education and compliance efforts by the Department of Public Safety.
9. Recreation Department Fees for Fiscal Year 2004-05
Requested Council Action: Approval of Parks & Recreation Commission Recommendations
for facility and program fees adjustments.
Staff proposed fee adjustments to the Parks and Recreation Commission at their 4/19/04
meeting. The Commission voted to recommend approval of fee adjustments to Council. The
City budget requires additional revenues to offset increased costs and loss of revenue, which
necessitates fee adjustments. The total increase in revenue resulting from these adjustments
is estimated to be $22,000/year.
10. Vacant Land Purchase Agreement for Assessor's Parcel 045-041-018.
Requested Council Action: Consideration and Approval of Resolution 2004-124 for the
urchase.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK (3) Council Meeting Memo - May 25, 2004
The City has an opportunity to purchase the above 18 -acre parcel located immediately north
of the City Limits, outside the Urban Growth Boundary and in a community separator. The
purpose for acquiring this parcel is to preserve open space. There is a possibility that roughly
40% could be converted into a wetland mitigation bank. The City then could sell mitigation
bank credits to builders and recoup more than its purchase and mitigation bank application
costs. Recent mitigation bank credits have sold for $400,000 per acre.
The purchase price is $475,000 which, according to appraisal from Anthony Mills, is a fair
market value. The City would need to use funds from the sale of surplus City property to
purchase this parcel. The Interim City Attorney identified no legal issues with the standard
form agreement.
11. Commission/Committee/Board Matters
■ Bicycle Advisory Committee -Consideration of Appointment to fill Gary Jelinek
resignation [GN nomination]
■ Cultural Arts Commission — Consideration of Appointment to replace Crissey Cossey
[AS nomination]
■ Senior Citizens Advisory Committee — Consideration of proposal to disband [AF]
12. Annual Status Report on the General Plan
Government Code Section 65400(b)(1) mandates that all cities submit an annual report on the
status of the general plan and its implementation to their legislative bodies. Senior Planner
Ron Bendorff has prepared a summary of each of the General Plan's nine elements with a
brief description of the activities taken to date to implement specific policies of that particular
element. Since the elements are interrelated, many of the activities apply to more than one
policy.
13. Annual Policy Review of the Growth Management Program
RP Municipal Code Section 17.19.030, Growth Management Program -Annual Policy
Review, requires the City Council to conduct an annual review of the City's Growth
Management Program not later than May 31 of each year. The purpose of the review is to:
a) Determine consistency of Growth Management Program with the goal of 1 % average
annual population growth rate, balanced land -use program, accommodation of City's fair -
share housing allocations, development patterns and growth area priorities, infrastructure
availability and land use programs as well as with goals, plans, and policies of the
General Plan and State housing, planning, and zoning law.
b) Review phasing and pace of residential development.
c) Ensure development in each specific plan area is coordinated with the Growth
Management Program.
14. Council Committee and/or other Reports
1) Sonoma County Remote Access Network (RAN), 5/12/04 meeting (AS)
2) Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association, 5/13/04 meeting (GN)
3) League of California Cities General Assembly, 5/13/04 meeting (JM)
4) Garbage Subcommittee, 5/14/04 meeting (ARAS)
5) Economic Development Subcommittee, 5/14/04 meeting (AF/WM)
6) Other informational reports, if any
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK (4) Council Meeting Memo - May 25.2004
15. Communications
Copies of meaningful communications have been provided to Council for review prior to this
meeting. A Communications outline listing all communications being brought to Council's
attention will be provided. If there is any communication that a Council member desires to
read or discuss, he/she will indicate during this time.
16. Matters from/for Council
a) Schedule of upcoming Events and Meetings
b) City Council Agenda Forecast
c) Other matters, if any
17. City Manager's Report, self-explanatory
"a) FIGR Hotel/Resort/Casino Opinion from Professor Carole Goldberg, UCLA School of
Law
b) Human Rights Seminar 5/15/04
c) Other information items, if any
18. CONSENT CALENDAR -
For this meeting, the Consent Calendar consists of acknowledgment of the City
Manager/Clerk's report on the posting of the meeting's agenda and the adoption of
Resolution Nos. 2004-125 through 2004-133. Copies of all resolutions, staff reports, and
additional backup materials for these items have been provided to Council for review.
A. Approval of Concurrent Regular Meeting Minutes for May 11, 2004
B. Approval of Bills/Demands for Payment
C. Accepting Cash/Investments Report for March 31, 2004 for City of Rohnert
Park/City Council, Community Development Commission, Rohnert Park Financing
Authority
D. Resolutions for Adoption
2004-125 Proclaiming Wednesday, June 2, 2004, as Community Watershed
Clean-up Day. Encourages environmentally conscious residents and groups
to help the City keep our creeks clean.
2004-126 Honoring June 14, 2004 as National Flag Day and June 13-19 as
National Flag Week
Marks the 227' birthday of the U.S. Flag and encourages residents to
display the flag outside of their homes and businesses.
2004-127 Expressing Appreciation to Jennifer Wong, Sonoma State University
Associated Students, Inc. for her diligence in keeping Council abreast of
SSU Issues and Events.
2.004-128 Authorizing and Approving Amendment Number One to the
Agreement with Hector Correa for Artistic Director Services
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK (5) Council Meeting Memo May 25 2004
This Amendment extends the original agreement with Hector Correa for
Artistic Director Services from 6/1/04-5/31/05.
2004-129 Authorizing and Approving Adjustments to Miscellaneous Recreation
Part-time Pay Rates and Ranges
Periodically the Recreation Department makes cost -of -living adjustments to
various part-time positions including: lifeguards, swim instructors, camp
counselors, Recreation leaders, facility attendants, and clerical staff. The
last adjustments were made in 2002. The proposed increases represent a 3%
increase for a total cost of $14,000, which has been incorporated into the
2004-05 budget. Increased participant fees will offset this increase.
2004-130 Authorizing the Mayor to execute Deed granting Pacific Gas & Electric
Company Easement Rights on the Oak View Senior Apartments (Kisco)
Sites. .
PG&E is requesting the City to grant the above Easement for utility
purposes on the Oak View Senior Apartments Sites. The easement is
critical in order for PG&E to provide energy to the development. Staff and
Kisco (lessee) have reviewed the Easement Deed and recommend approval.
2004-131 Approval of Letter Proposal with Baechtel Hudis, Inc. for Engineering
Services and Authorizing Finance Director to Amend FY 2003-04
Capital Improvement Program Budget to Include Engineering Costs.
The scope of work under this proposal is for Baechtel Hudis to provide
engineering services for the preparation of plans and specifications for the
Street Overlays Project and office engineering support during construction
for an amount not -to -exceed $27,000. The target is to overlay as many
streets as possible (up to $500,000). It is recommended that the FY 2003-04
CIP budget be amended to include $30,000 for engineering. Although it is
included in draft FY2004-05 CIP budget, staff recommends engineering be
completed this fiscal year during this year's construction season. If Council
waits until the new CIP budget is approved (July 2004), it would be too late
to meet that schedule. Funds for this work will come from Gas Tax monies.
The City Manager would be authorized to execute agreement (upon City
Attorney's approval as to format) and the Finance Director would be
authorized to include design costs for this project is Fiscal year 2003-04 CIP
Budget.
2004-132 Approval of Task Order No. 2004-07 with Winzler & Kelly Engineers
for Construction Management Services of Citywide Pavement Slurry
Seals Project No. 2003-18
The City awarded Citywide Slurry Seal Project #2003-18 to Valley Slurry
Seal Company 5/11/04. The proposed task order is to provide construction
management support services for the project with Winzler & Kelly Engineers
for an amount not -to -exceed $3,500. Services do not include project
inspection, which will be conducted by City staff. This work will be funded
with Gas Tax monies.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK (6) Council Meeting Memo - May 25 2004
2004-133 Awarding the Contract to North Bay Construction for Commercial
Water Meters Installation Project No. 2003-03.
Authorization for sealed bids for this project was approved by Council
3/23/04. A summary of bids is as follows:
North Bay Construction $ 387,295.00
Vulcan Construction & Maintenance 493,164.00
Arnold Construction Company 738,860.00
This project involves replacement of existing commercial water meters
throughout the City as well as installation of new meters in a few areas that
are currently unmetered (particularly mobile home parks). Funding is from
California CDA Water & Wastewater Revenue Bond and Water Enterprise
Fund.
19. Public Comment - Time has been allotted on the Council agenda for public comments on
items not listed on the agenda, or on agenda items if unable to speak at the scheduled time
(limited to 3-5 minutes per appearance and a 30 minute total time limit, or allocation of time
based on number of speaker cards submitted).
ADJOURNMENT
CEL-blAH: Memos 052504 Council Meeting Memo
RECEIVED
APR 0 4 2004
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL
SCHEDULED SPEAKER
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
Today's Date: April 4, 2004
Council: X
Miscellaneous
Communications
A enaaSo2
Co"to:
copy to: 1)
Date of meeting for which you prefer to be'scheduled to speak: May. 25, 2004
Name: Mike Grubler, Co—Chair., Sister Cities Relations Committee
Address: 874 Hudis Street
Phone: 585-3468
r
TOPIC: REPORT by Jessida Frazer, Student Junior Ambassador to Japan
Brief Summary of Comments:
In order for scheduled speakers to be listed on the agenda, written requests
must be submitted to the City Manager's Office prior to finalization of meeting
agendas, i.e. by noon on the Tuesdays preceding City Council meetings
regularly scheduled on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month.
Return to: .
City.of Rohnert Park .
City Hall Administrative Offices
6750 Commerce Blvd.
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Phone: (707) 588-2227Fax: (707) 588-2263
c =officehtltUo=\schedspadoc
RECEIVED .
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL Council: F(
MiactllnnMne
MAY 0 6 2004
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
DATE: 5/6/04
SCHEDULED SPEAKER
Communications'
A ends , 5 0
Copy to:
Co y to:
DATE OFMEETING WHEN YOUARE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK: May 25, 2004
NAME: EPC Rids (Environmental Prevention Coalition (Mirhael 7.a,-oP.,7, Rosa Jiminez,
Anel Guzman., & Sandra R. Merino)
ADDRESS: SCAYD (ATTN: Recia Raiser), P.O. Bog 7078, Cotati, CA 94931
PHONE: 793-9030 g3
TOPIC:
1 Recap of the past years activities;
2 Address teen issues on campus; &
3 Introduce planned activities for the upcoming year.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD CI
Date:__5__Z,'91
Name:
Address:
Phone J&F-Y -cVS'2i
TOPIC. r Ca- SSG c i.G�l c7��►,�
Brief Summary of Comments:
See Reverse
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
Date: � _ dl
Name: .
tea..
Address: 7�3 3 It
Phone:- I -el a3 °'
TOPIC;_-�f���.j t�?�,�
Brief Summary of Comments:
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
Date: -2 -5--0 y
Name-_Se/knxos Skn ti -4,4 4 %'
Address• A 0 7
Phone-_ 7 , 17 S'- ,-7 7 <Z 7
TOPIC: t= r..., d e w P.r , 6'a A",
c
CIL-
.01
Brief Summary of Comments: l2-eg u GS �_ _-o
Lo L o u Ito W s
+`p R Dar I ce- r+noti,f_ Ate 1A i t ,,( t ti
Name:
Address:
TOPIC:
See Reverse ->
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
Date -
//2
S a
Brief Summary of Comments:
See Reverse -� Yd� See Reverse -i,
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD ,5
Date:
Name:
Address•,/,, cL �. �✓ V
1,
Phone-_
TOPIC: CSL-�L 6cxj <0_1 ti L1J3= t�
Brief Summary of Comments:
See Reverse —>
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
Date• • �✓ `' Q
Name- (,v 4 .c..
Address: -J 1?6 be)C�`C2
Phone: fil./J
TOPIC:
s o
Brief Summary of Comments: /d.L
N
Ree Reverse
May 25, 2004
Carl Leivo
City Manager
Dear Carl:
�o Py a-WCLIc tit -170 C ,yi
Fd c-. C4---�iv� o
l=•i w. t�e�e ruidccm
I am formally requesting that you allow citizen's opinions in the weekly city newsletter
and on the city website as second point of view regarding city issues. In interest and
fairness, differing points of view should be expressed in all city publications. Only in an
open environment can there be a fair exchange of ideas. If only one point of view is
presented, it appears that the city is promoting the casino as a foregone conclusion.
It should also be expressed in city publications that the MOU is suspended. Per Deborah
Caplan, "As Your Honor knows; once — if a petition is'circulated and 10% of the
registered voters sign it, it suspends it immediately until there's an election, so the impact
of the referendum can be quite substantial and significant ori a local government."
(Transcript p. 12:24-28, speaking generally about matters subject to referendum as part of
argument why this MOU should not be subject to referendum.)
In my opinion, the city manager and city council are using city meetings and publications -
to be a bully pulpit promoting the casino and for political purposes regarding the recall. It
appears that the city manager has become a lobbyist for the casino and Indian gaming and
in my opinion it is a misuse of his position.
Sincerely yours,
ak;� �v'
Chip Worthington
May 25, 2004
City Council of Rohnert Park
Dear City Council:
I certify that the following letter was sent to me from a former official of the BIA after I
requested an analysis of Professor Goldberg's opinion. -
Chip, here is my quick analysis of her position:
1. While I do not disagree that the Secretary "shall" take the land into trust pursuant
to the language of the bill, as I have stated before, it does not say "when." While
the bill does state "after the property is conveyed or otherwise transferred to the
Secretary" as a definition of `when' there is nothing short of a Court Order
requiring that she make her decision within any specified time period. The BIA
process calls for the Regional Office to prepare the fee to trust package,'which
includes all the environmental analysis necessary for the title transfer, and then it
is reviewed by the Gaming Office in DC before it is transferred to the Secretary
for final decision. No Court in the Country would interfere with a Cabinet
Secretary's internal procedures unless those procedures "abused the discretion"
granted the Secretary to carry out her/his authority. It would be years before a
Court would make such a finding and then even more years if the Secretary chose
to fight that finding. No Court would find that the Secretary abused her discretion
by being very thorough and deliberative in her analysis.
2. While I generally agree with Ms. Goldberg's analysis on the first question, I think
her analysis of the second question misses the point. While the Governor is
certainly required to negotiate with any Tribe for a Compact, there is absolutely
nothing that requires him to reach an agreement. Furthermore, while Ms.
Goldberg is correct in asserting that the terms of the Compact are to be negotiated
between the Governor and the Tribe, would not the impact on the Community be
one of those considerations? No Court would compel a Governor to execute a
Compact if he did not believe that Community issues were resolved to his
satisfaction. (There is even a Constitutional argument that the State can not be
compelled by the federal government to execute a Compact — example — the
Seminole case in FL.) Simply stated, while the Governor is required to negotiate
in good faith there is nothing in IGRA that requires him to execute an agreement.
If the Governor believes the issues are pertinent to the operation of the casino he
most certainly has a right to have them addressed. It would be a very difficult
argument to make that the Governor can not consider Community impact.
Conclusion: Community opposition is a significant factor in a Compact with the State.
Chip Worthington
CHIP: HERE'S WHAT AG'S SAY ON SECTION 20: I MOVED THIS UP FROM BELOW
4. Change in use for gaming. purposes. Also discussed in both the November 12, 1999, and March
;y 7, 2001, letters, was the fact that the preamble to the proposed rule (April 1999) set forth the
Department's position that any land acquired in trust after October 17, 1988 (the effective date of
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act), could not be used for gambling without prior compliance
with Section 20 of the Act. That section generally prohibits gaming on any newly acquired lands
with certain exceptions, such as when certain secretarial findings are made and there is
gubernatorial concurrence with those findings. The preamble to the proposed rule stated:
If a tribe applies under these regulations to have title acquired in trust for a non -
gaming purpose, and then at a later .date decides that it would like to conduct
gaming on that parcel, it will be authorized to engage in such gaming only if it
complies with the requirements of Section 20 of IGRA. In other words, to game on a
parcel of trust land acquired after October 17. 1988. (i.e.. the date of nassaQe of
IGRA , the tribe must submit to the same Section 20 analysis and obtain the same
gubernatorial consent as would have been required if the parcel were originally
taken into trust for the purpose of gaming.
Again, we observe that the statement in the April 1999 preamble should be included in the text of
the rule itself. As we said in November 1999, it substance should be recited in the "regulations so
that it is part of the Federal Register, and ultimately, the Code of Federal Regulation, rather than
just a statement of intent...."' While the Department has promulgated a proposed rule governing
acquisition of land in trust for gaming purposes, 65 Fed. Reg. 55471 (Sept. 14, 2000), that rule has
not been finalized and, in any case, it serves to strengthen the Department's position to restate its
view in this published rule. Indeed, the Department should unequivocally articulate the
requirement, in the form of a final, binding rule relating to land in trust acquisitions generally,
that Section 20 of IGRA governs the use of lands acquired after October 17, 1988, for' gaming
purposes, including, where applicable, the requirement of secretarial findings and gubernatorial
concurrence. Therefore, we recommend an amendment to include the relevant language of the
preamble of the original proposed rule into the text of the current published rule
A Communication From the States
5/25/04
of
Alabama, .Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, .Florida,
Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi; Missouri,
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Washington
June 15, 2001
The Honorable Gale Norton
Secretary of the Interior
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street N.W., Rm. 6151
Washington, DC 20240
Re: Comments on published rule concerning Acquisition of Title to Land in Trust; Federal
Register Notice, 66 Fed. Reg. 19,403 (April 16, 2001)
Dear Secretary Norton:
This letter is in response to the April 16, 2001, Notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on the
final rule published January 16, 2001, 66 Fed. Reg. 3452 ("Notice"), regarding acquisition of title to
land in trust for Indian tribes. The Notice temporarily delays the effective date of the final rule and
seeks comments on whether the rule should be amended in whole or in part or withdrawn in whole or in
part. 66 Fed.Reg. 19,403 (April 16, 2001).
State Attorneys General welcome the opportunity to address this matter. Ultimately, if a rule is adopted,
we urge the Department to adopt one which encourages a positive and constructive dialogue between the
federal, state and tribal governments, based on consultation, cooperation and communication, one that
serves to accommodate the important interests of all the governments involved. States recognize the
need for tribes to acquire land within or near their reservations for certain key tribal governmental
purposes as set forth by the Congress and do not oppose that interest. However, any process designed to
acquire the land should be within the bounds of state and federal law and the Congressional enactments
authorizing rules in this area, as well as fair; thorough and fully cognizant of the interests of state and
local governments. To that end, we specifically recommend amending the rule in part and withdrawing
certain elements of it altogether, as discussed below.
Over twenty Attorneys General set out their detailed comments with regard to the final regulation in a.
letter dated March 7, 2001. Additionally, the National Association of Attorneys General forwarded
comments, dated November 12, 1999, on the rule when it was first proposed. The comments made in
those letters are still highly germane and express the serious concerns of the state Attorneys General
concerning this rule. For your convenience, we are attaching both sets of earlier comments to this
letter. This letter sets forth some general propositions and then suggests specific amendments, roughly
in order of their importance to the states.
A. Need for collaborative problem solving approach
5/25/04
We note at the outset that the rule fails to promote important values of consultation, cooperation and .
communication with the state and local governments on matters that deeply and significantly affect their
sovereignty, jurisdiction, environment and general welfare. These values were highlighted in the
November 12, 1999, letter, where the Attorneys General suggested a collaborative problem solving
approach, as well as a process for the Department to recognize and follow cooperative agreements
between states and tribes regarding acquisition of land in trust. The Attorneys General reaffirm the
approach suggested in the November 12, 1999, letter. There we urged a collaborative problem solving
approach whenever proposed acquisitions present serious jurisdiction and infrastructure issues or where
a State or local community has objected.
We also suggested in that letter that. all significant applications should mandate that the Secretary of
Interior, upon the request of a political subdivision of the State and early in the decision making process,
convene a meeting between tribal representatives and the commentators, cooperatively to address
potential adverse impacts. The parties should be required to come together to attempt to work out
solutions to identified jurisdictional and infrastructure problems and changes in administration arising
from the trust land acquisition. We noted that the United States has long experience with this kind of.
process in its other areas of negotiated rulemaking, and for the best and long term interests of all the
stakeholders, should include it in all trust acquisition applications, where requested by an interested
party.
Additionally, we suggested the rule provide for a fast-track approval process for tribes that work out
potential differences with potentially affected communities in advance of submission of an application
to take lands into trust, whether on or off reservation. Inclusion of such a provision would reduce Bureau
of Indian Affairs workload significantly, reduce conflict between tribes and their neighbors and provide
a positive incentive for tribes by sharply reducing the often -lengthy review processes which can occur in
even relatively simple applications. A simple approach would be to provide that if a tribe submits a
consent by the Governor of the state to a taking into trust, together with a copy of an agreement between
the tribe and the state addressing and resolving potential jurisdictional issues, the B.I.A. would review
the agreement for conformance to its fundamental legal requirements and approve the application within
a stated period of time, such as 60 days from the. application.
B. Need for a third party neutral hearing officer
Also, as a preliminary matter, the Attorneys General urge the secretary to consider integrating into the
rule a process whereby a neutral hearing examiner is used to resolve disputed requests, if a collaborative
or negotiated effort fails to resolve disputed issues. The Department should invoke such authority as it
may have under 25 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 9, and set out. a detailed, efficient means of handling such disputes,
employing a neutral hearing examiner. As we stated in the March 7, 2001, letter, the institutional
advocacy of Superintendents, Regional Directors and the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs naturally
makes it difficult for those officers to render decisions that will be perceived as neutral and objective.
Neutral hearing officers would help to re-establish and preserve public confidence in the process. A
neutral hearing examiner would have the duty of setting up a hearing to allow the applicant, and the
objectors, to set forth evidence on any contested facts. Allowing the testing of all the facts is an
indispensable part of this process.
Additionally, in such situations, a hearing officer should be able to evaluate taking a parcel of land into
trust on or off reservation. As we noted in our March 7, 2001, letter, the burden of proof and of
persuasion should be on the applicant. The applicant should be required to demonstrate that the
acquisition is consistent with the purposes of 25 U.S.C. 465, as discussed in our March 7, 2001, letter,
and to demonstrate how the acquisition of land in trust will benefit the applicant. The application
5/25/04
nonetheless should not be approved if the approval would result in significant (not severe) negative
harm to the local government or to the environment. In making this determination, the hearing examiner
should be charged with making a comprehensive examination of the ability of the existing units of local
government to fulfill their responsibilities on any reduced or remaining tax base. A neutral hearing
officer should be aware that the losses from otherwise minor acquisitions of land in trust may create
insurmountable burdens for the local unit of government. Similarly, with regard to disputed off -
reservation acquisitions, the hearing officer should operate from a rule that provides a rebuttable
presumption against acquisition and provides that this presumption may be overcome in very limited
circumstances. The Attorneys General believe that, failing a negotiated agreement, a neutral hearing
officer will guarantee that state and local interests will be fully and fairly considered:
C. Amend standards for evaluating an acquisition
As discussed in the March 7, 2001, letter, the standard for determining whether land should be taken
into trust should be revised. Significantly for the states and local governments, the published rule
provides in section 15 1. 10 that the Secretary will not accept transfer of title into trust for land inside a
reservation or inside an approved TLAA if the approval of the acquisition will result in "severe"
negative impact to the environment or "severe" harm to the local government. Evidence of such harm
must be clear and demonstrable and supported in the record. § 151.10. For acquisitions off -reservation
(or outside a TLAA), the standard is reduced to "significant" harm to the local government, where the
harm is supported by the "application record." § 151.14(b).
On the other hand, approval is the course of action for an on -reservation (or inside- a TLAA) acquisition
if the acquisition "facilitates" any of several open-ended tribal purposes, or, for an off -reservation (or
outside a TLAA) acquisition, if it is "necessary" for those purposes and provides "meaningful" benefits
that outweigh demonstrable harm to the community. § 151.14(a). Again, we note an imbalance in the
standards set forth in the rule. These standards favor acquisition and discount the interests of state and
local government. Further, these standards are to be employed by Superintendents, Regional Directors
and the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, all of whom have -an institutional loyalty and obligation to
the tribes under the federal government's trust obligation. This point further emphasizes the need to
have a consultative and collaborative process, or one which employs a neutral hearing officer to evaluate
the facts.
The Attorneys General recommend amending these sections to provide more equitable standards for
evaluating acquisitions both on and off reservation. Any land removed from a state or local
government's jurisdiction, environmental and zoning controls and taxing authority should at a minimum
be "necessary" to specific tribal purposes, on or off reservation. Off -reservation acquisitions should
require a higher standard, such as "compelling." This preserves the two-tiered approach this rule
endeavors to establish - on -reservation acquisitions should be easier to accomplish than off -reservation
ones - but not by lowering the necessity standard to a mere" facilitating" of tribal. purposes.
Similarly, the standards for evaluating impact on local governments should be amended, as they are
onerous and unfair. The Secretary will only be able to hear such evidence from state and local
government comments in a 30 -day period (for on -reservation acquisitions) and a, 60 -day period (for off -
reservation acquisitions). Obviously, the tribal applicant is unlikely to provide such information. Aside
from the inadequate period of time to respond with comments, the standards require clear and
demonstrable evidence of a "severe" negative impact to the environment (again, state and local
government will be the only likely voice to address this area) and "severe" (on -reservation) or
"significant" (off -reservation) harm to the local community. The kind and degree of proof on the two
sides of the equation is not the same. In some cases, the tribe need only show a "meaningful benefit." A
5/25/04
local unit of government, however, is required to show a "demonstrable harm." This difference, in the
standard of proof is inequitable.
We recommend amending the rule to provide for different standards to be employed by the Department
in evaluating a request. If there is an objection from the state or local government, it should trigger a
consultation requirement for the Department to meet with those governments and seek to negotiate a
cooperative agreement. If the matter cannot be resolved through a cooperative agreement, the
Department or any neutral hearing officer should deny an application for an acquisition, on or off
reservation, whenever it finds any "significant" harm to the environment or to a state or local' .
community will occur.
D. .Withdraw the provision for Tribal Land Acquisition Areas (TLAA)
More concern has been aroused by the provision for a Tribal Land Acquisition Area (TLAA) than any
other feature of the rule. The notion that the federal Secretary can designate wide swaths of land as a
TLAA with little or no guidance and then use a lower standard to acquire land in trust within the
designated area is understandably intimidating to state and local governments. As discussed in the
March 7, 2001, letter, the provisions in the rule allowing for a TLAA are not legally authorized. There
is no authority in the text of 25 U.S.C. § 465, or elsewhere, for such an entity. We also noted in the
March 7 letter that the statutory authorities for land consolidation on reservations do not support the
TLAA concept.
Moreover, as we noted in the March 7 letter; the TLAA provision provides vague and limitless standards
for the Secretary in agreeing to designate a TLAA, and in doing so, it presents a most serious flaw - - it
allows for lower standards ,of approval comparable to on -reservation acquisitions. It bears repeating
here what we said in March:
Under the provisions of the final rule, a tribe with a TLAA will never need to meet the
heightened standard for off -reservation acquisitions. Instead, a tribe may simply `
designate large TLAAs and enjoy the benefits of the relaxed TLAA acquisition standard
when it chooses to acquire off -reservation lands. We respectfully submit that, if legal
authority can be discovered to support the TLAA idea, trust land acquisitions within such
areas be required to proceed as off -reservation acquisitions (which they most certainly
would be).
Further, the rule, as originally proposed, 64 Fed. Reg. 17574 (April 12, 1999), provided for a TLAA
only for a tribe that was "reservationless" or was, in the words of the legislative history of the 1934
Indian Reorganization Act, "landless." See March 7, 2001 letter. The now -published rule removes even
that purpose and substitutes a standard whereby a TLAA may be created for a tribe which does not have
a reservation, does not have trust land, or "has a trust land base which is incapable of being.developed in
a mariner that promotes tribal self-determination, economic development, and/or Indian housing." That
change certainly dooms the provision, in our view.
Furthermore, the expansion of the TLAA concept for any tribe which may indeed have a reservation or
trust land, but which then asserts that it is inadequate for self-defdrmination or economic development,
goes far beyond the original concept of a TLAA. Instead, it sets up a process for an "on -reservation"
acquisition for what is really an "off -reservation" acquisition, with especially significant implications for
the state's environmental controls, land use laws, jurisdiction, tax revenues, gaming policies and- general
welfare.
5/25/04
In our November 12, 1999, letter, we also strongly objected to the loose and vague standards to be
employed in creating a TLAA. A TLAA, once created, would have the effect of makingany acquisition
within its borders much easier to accomplish, as if it were an on -reservation acquisition. We also
objected to the inadequate and significantly flawed provisions for notice to the state and local
governments and the lack of full consideration of those comments by the- Secretary. Importantly, we
noted that the creation of a TLAA is potentially disruptive of state gaming policies because, under the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA" ), the- acquisition of land for gaming purposes for an initial or
restored reservation is one of the exceptions from the general prohibition on gaming on off -reservation
lands acquired after the enactment of IGRA in 1988. In'such situations, the TLAA concept allows a
side-stepping of any significant scrutiny of potential gaming activities in the designation of a TLAA.
When the time comes for the Secretary to "pick" out a location within the TLAA, the state may find a
subsequent acquisition of land in trust will involve gaming activities, when no meaningful review of the
matter by the state and local governments can occur.
As the TLAA concept is not supported by any statute and the TLAA provisions in the published rule are
highly flawed, the Attorneys General urge the Secretary to withdraw the entire provision and reference
to it throughout the rule.
E. Amend the Notice and Comment Requirements
As discussed in both the November 12, 1999, and March 7, 2001, letters, the provisions providing for
notice and opportunity to comment by the state and local governments are inadequate. For on -
reservation lands, the notice will provide scant information from the application and invite comments
within 30,days from the date of receipt; for off -reservation lands, the comment period is 60 days. We
addressed this matter in detail in the November 12, 1999, letter, suggesting in good faith various
alternative methods of notifying state and local governments, recognizing the need to redact religious
and sacred site information, and similar matters, none of which were taken into account in the published
rule. (Indeed, the prologue summary to the published rule does not even account for the states having
submitted views on this issue.)
The rule should be amended to require all information submitted by applicants be sent to the state and
local political subdivisions for all discretionary as well as "mandatory" acquisitions. Religious and
sacred site information should be redacted, of course, to protect the religious rights of tribes and their
members. All other information should be provided, notwithstanding the FOIA, the Privacy Act, and
the Trade Secret Acts, given the recent decision in Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs
vs. Klamath Water Users Protective Association, No. 99-1871 (March 5, 2001). Although section 151.5
provides that the request will be available for review in local BIA offices, this is insufficient to provide
the interested parties with meaningful notice. On -reservation acquisitions can present equally difficult
transition problems for highly checkerboarded reservations, and thus may require additional time to
evaluate. The matter is discussed more fully in the November 12,1999; letter.
Additionally, 30 days is simply an inadequate time for states and local governments to respond to a brief
notice of the application for an on -reservation acquisition. We believe section 151.5 should be
amended to allow state and local governments in which the land is located at least 60 days to comment
for on -reservation acquisitions. If these interested parties are required to request the full application and
supporting information from the local BIA office, this period should run from the time the entire
application is received.
5/25/04
F. Additional suggested amendments
As more fully set forth in the November 12, 1999, letter, the following areas in the published rule
deserve amendment. While that letter responded to the proposed rule, the publishedrule,did not make.
the changes urged by the Attorneys General.
1. On -reservation applications under section 151'.9 should include the same- information as off- -
reservation applications in section 151.12, particularly as it relates to descriptions of impact on public
safety, land use, fire protection, law enforcement (which may differ between P.L. 280 and non-P.L. 280
reservations), emergency medical services, flood protection, traffic, sanitation, water supplies
(including
impact on the remaining non -Indian community of the tribal taking of water), utilities and tax
collection. If the tribal and local governments develop a cooperative agreement and resolve these
matters before the application, the rule should allow for'an abbreviated on=reservation'application. The
Department cannot make the presumption that the -tribe exerts. jurisdiction over all on -;reservation lands,
as its jurisdiction may be quite limited on non -Indian lands on the reservation. Strate`v. A-1
Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997); Atkinson trading Co. v. Shirley , U.S._ (May 29; 2001). Thus,
many of the same issues facing an off -reservation acquisition pertain to non=Indian_ on -reservation lands
that may be acquired in trust.
2. Definition of "reservation"in section 151.2. In both the November 12, 1999, and March 7, 2001,
letters, the Attorneys General recommended amending the definition of. "reservation." • While the
published rule did make changes to the definition, as it relates to Pueblos in New Mexico, it did not
observe the comment made by our letters. The -Attorneys Generatagain suggest a definition which
states:
Reservation means that area of land which has been, set. aside or which has been.
acknowledged as having been set aside by the United States for the use ofthe Tribe as
described in a final treaty, Executive order or proclamation, Federal statute, or final - -
judicial determination, except as such lands may havebeen diminished or Indian•title
extinguished by agreements, treaties, executive orders or congressional actions or by a
decree or ruling of a court.
The published rule uses a definition which refers to the "exterior boundaries of lands, as "more
particularly defined ..." in the statutes, etc. However, while ceded lands are no longer part of the
"reservation," under the definition in the published rule, ceded lands may arguably be included within'
the "exterior boundaries" of the reservation. Notably, the term "exterior boundaries" has been deleted
from our proposal to reflect the reality that the land ownership on many reservations is checkerboarded
and the jurisdiction over those lands is checkerboarded as well. Additionally, the states oppose any
definition of "reservation" that fails to acknowledge that tribes have ceded certain lands back'to the
United States and that these ceded lands are no longer part of the reservation unless subsequently
restored to reservation status. A clear definition of the term "reservation" is extremely important to the
states.
3. Federal agency transfers of title. As discussed in the March 7, 2001, letter, the now -published rule
excludes from its provisions "federal agency transfers of title." §I 151.3(b)(5). The rationale given is that
such exchanges "do not have an impact on the local governments -because these lands are not already
under their jurisdiction." This is an overly -broad and inaccurate statement concerning federal lands '
within the states. While there may be federal preemption of certain areas of jurisdiction, unless the
parcel is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, states exercise certain limited police powers
in federal lands within their boundaries. The State of South Dakota, for example, has hunting and -
fishing jurisdiction over non -Indians on Corps of Engineers' lands on reservations. South Dakota v.
5/25/04
Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993). Any proposal to transfer Corps of Engineers; Buren d
BLM, U.S. Forest, U.S. Wilderness, U.S. Monuments, or other federal lands into taruStis a., ate was
substantial concern to the states, affecting their jurisdiction and potentially impacting land 19e,
environmental quality, water rights, public safety, gaming policies, and general we of the sta
local communities. Existing federal agency transfer rules do not contemplate the new useof such 1,.
for activities such as Indian gaming. The rule should be amended to require considemtiori.of all such
impacts under: section 151 and to include such transfers within the ambit of a. fedeial-stater. bal
cooperative dialogue discussed herein. e.
4. Change in use for gaming purposes. Also discussed in both the November 12, 1999, and March 7,
2.001,.letters,.was the fact that the preamble to the. proposednde.(April 1999).setforth.the Department's
position that any land acquired in trust after October 17, 1988 (the effective date of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act), couldn,otbe usedfor .gambling. without -prior compliance with -Section -20 of the Act.
That section generally prohibits gaming on any newly acquired lands with certain exceptions, such as
w.heu certaiv..serretarialfines are made and there is wi& tho,e finding
The preamble to the proposedrule stated -
If a tribe applies under these regulations to have title acquired in trust for a non -gaming
purpose,ond f1matalater date decides, thatit wouldlike to conduct gaming on.that_
parcel, it will be authorized to engage in such gaming only if it complies with the
requ rements of Section20 of 1GRA_ In. other words, to game ona parcel of trust land
acquired after October 17, 1988, (i.e.the date of passage of IGRA), the tribe must submit
to the same Section.20 analysisnnd.obtaiathesame gubernatorial consentas. wouldhave.
beenrequired.ifthe .parcel were originally taken int trustfor the purpose of gaming
Again, we observe that the statement in the Aprif 1999 preamble should be included in the text of the
Xuleitself As we.saidin.November1999,.it ubstanrPshouldberecited.in.the".mgulations-sothatitis.
part of the Federal Register, and ultimately, the Code of Federal Regulation, rather than just a statement
of intent___" While the Departmenthas. mulgatedaproposednategoveming.acquisWon,oflandin-
trust for gaming purposes, 65 Fed. Reg. 55471 (Sept. 14, 2000), that rule has not been finalized and, in
.any case, it.setves to strungtheathe Department's position to restate its view in this published male..
Indeed, the Department should unequivocally articulate the requirement, in the,form of a final, binding
>nulerelatingto-landintaastac_uisitons.generaRy,that Section.20 of1GRAgovems the use of lands
acquired after October 17, 1988, for gaming purposes, including, where applicable, the requirement of
secretarial fines .and gubematoria concurrence- Therefore, We recommenda .amendmebt to include
the relevant language of the preamble of the original proposed rule into the text of the current published
Wile.
CONCLUSION
The Attorneys General appreciate the opportunity to address again this critical question that relates to
core .sovereiga interests. of thestate and the local Communities The acquisition. of land im hustfor the
benefit of Indian tribes is generally a commendable and important federal governmental action, but it is
.�eimultaneously a t kap of land. out -of the traditional -scope of the states' jurisdiction.and that of their
political subdivisions. The federal government, then, should proceed quite carefully in matters such as
lhisandgive hall measure to .a cooperative and collaborative approach to the federal-state-
tribal
ederal-:state
tribal relations involved. The Attorneys General have addressed these issues in their previous letters and.
reiterate.them.here_ further, the States of Alamo Kansas Mich�South Dakota, Rhode Island and
Connecticut have submitted separate comments over the past two years; those comments should be
revisited' in-thi&review.
5/25/04
We urge you to adopt the recommended amendments and other changes that we have suggested and
circulate anew draftfor the.states and other intesested.partie . to review As. part of thisreview process,
we also suggest a more intense consultation with the states' Attorneys General in meetings or sessions
where the issues can. be fully developed-
Sincerdly,r
Attorney Genera Rill Prvnr Attorney General Rn1ne Rntelhn
Attorney General of.Alabama Attorney General. of A l a cka
Attorney General Tanet Nanolitann Attorney General Ken Sala7.ar
Attorney General.ofAxiz Attorney. General. of Colorado.
Attorney General Richard Rhimenthal Attnmey General Rnhert A Rnttenunrth
Attorney. General. of Connecticut. Attorney. General of Florida.
Attorney General Alan T.anCe Attorney General Steve Carter -
Attomey General of Idaho Attorney. General, of Indiana
Attorney General Carla T 9tnvall Attorney General Rinhard P TevQnh
.Attorney. General of Kansas. Attorney. General. of Louisiana
Attorney Genera] Tennifer Crranhnlm Attorney General Mike Moore
Attorney. General of Michigan, Attorney General of Mississippi.
5/25/04-
Attorney General Jeremiah W Nixnn Attorney General Frankie Sues 11.1 Papa
Atta=y. General. of Missouri Attorney. General of Nevada
Attorney General Tnhn Farmers Tr Attorney General Patriria Maririd
:Attorney General of New.Jersey. Attorney General of New Mexico.
Attorney General Wavne Stenehiem Attorney General Rettv n Mnntanmery
Attorney General of North Dakota Attorney General of Ohio.
Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse Attorney General Mark Barnett
Attorney General..ofRhode Island Attorney General .of South Dakota
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff Attorney General William N Sorrell
Attorney. General of Utah_ Attorney. General of VermO 3t
Attorney General Christine 0 Gregoire
Attorney General of Washington_
s/asioQ-
i
Subject: Re: Rohnert Park referendum
Deborah Caplan, attorney. for the city of Rohnert Park, told Judge Sawyer, "As Your Honor knows, once —if a petition is circulated and
10% of the registered voters sign it, it suspends it immediately until there's an election, so the impact of the referendum can be quite
substantial and significant on a local government." (Transcript p. 12:24-28, speaking generally about matters subjecf to referendum as part
of argument why this MOU should not be subject to referendum.) John
Subject: Re: Urgent
The way it's been explained to me by the attorney at the Secretary of State's office, the.very fact that a referendum is certified
automatically suspends the "object of the referendum". In fact, its suspended the moment it's turned in to the Registrar of
Voters for certification of the signatures. (Of course, if a referendum doesn't get enough valid signatures, it has failed, and at
that point, the "object of the referendum" would no longer be suspended.)
The issue of whether or not the MOU is subject to the referendum process is a sepearate issue to be decided in court. This
MOU is suspended until the higher courts decide - and that could mean all the way to the State Supreme Court.
The reason the law is written this way is to prevent governments from ignoring a successful referendum. The.referendum
insures that the government does not proceed with the contested action or activity; it stops everything and everyone in their
tracks. Everything grinds to a halt until the "object of the referendum" is either (1) nullifed, (2) put to the vote or
(3) decided in court.
T*
F
If
r
FOR RESO. NO. .Zoo - q
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL REPORT
Meeting Date: May 25, 2004
Department: Engineering
Submitted By: Toni Bertolero, City Engineer
(Name & Title)
Submittal Date: May 17, 2004
Agenda Title: Public Facilities Finance Plan C PFFP")
Approval of Draft PFFP
Requested Council Action: Open the meeting to receive comments from the public regarding
the Draft PFFP and authorize the City Manager to direct the preparation of the final PFFP.
Summary: The Draft Public Facilities Finance Plan has been prepared based on the comments
received from Council at the April 27, 2004 and May 11 meetings as well as comments received
from the Specific Plan Area developers. The purpose of the public meeting for this item is to
receive comments from the public and to make modifications, as directed by Council
A copy of the Draft PFFP was provided to Council at the May 11, 2004 meeting and is also
available at the Office of the City Clerk for viewing.
CITY
YIANAGER`S RECOMMENDATION: )Consent Item (.�-�egular Time
( Approval () Public Hearing Required
( ) Not Recommended O Submitted with Comment
( ) Policy Determination by Council
( ) City Comments:
7.4
City Manager's Signature: Date: �f O
ti
RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 119
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ROHNERT PARK
APPROVING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
WHEREAS, City has requested that Ham's and Associates prepare a Public
Facilities Finance Plan ("PFFP") to develop a comprehensive strategy for managing the
costs of capital facilities, maintenance and services that are impacted by new
development,
WHEREAS, a preliminary draft PFFP has been prepared and preliminary
comments received on April 27, 2004 at a public meeting;
WHEREAS; a draft PFFP has been prepared and comments received on May 11,
2004 at a public meeting; and
WHEREAS, approval of the draft PFFP was considered at a public meeting on
May 25; 2004 and comments received.
. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rohnett Park that the draft Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) is hereby approved and
authorizes the City Manager -to direct the preparation of the final PFFP, said document to
be made available to the public for reference at the City Library.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 25a' day of May, 2004.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
Mayor Gregory A Nordin
�, IL
t +� \
ir
Ci ty off
Rohnert P�.��I
o ��IXII I,..
9 l F
Juhlic Fa
6TiTit:A J F.
im
9
ISSr
is
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Page TOC - 9
Draft
Executive Summary
ES.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. ES -1
ES.2 Purpose......................................................................................................... ES -1
ES.3 Scope of Analysis......................................................................................... ES -1
ESA Capital Facilities included in the Public Finance Plan ................................. ES -2
ES.5 Summary of the Nexus Analysis for Capital Facilities ................................ ES -5
ES.6 Summary of Base Mitigation Fee Burdens ................................................... ES -7
ES.7 Approval Process and Annual Updates......................................................... ES -7
ES.8 Summary of the Maintenance Annuity Fund Analysis ................................. ES -8
ES.9 Bond Financing Districts.............................................................................. ES -8
May 11, 2004
Chapter 1— Land Use
1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................
1-1
1.2 Participating Land Owners..............................................................................
1-1
1.3 Existing and Proposed Land Uses ........................................ :...........................
1-1
1.3.1 Growth Management and Absorption Rates ...........................................
1-2
1.3.2 Growth Management Allocation System ................................................
1-3
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements & Costs
2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................
2-1
2.2 Nature of Improvements..................................................................................
2-1
2.3 Basis of Costs..................................................................................................
2-2
2.4 Land Acquisition and Rights-of-Way....................................................:........
2-2
2.5 Roadway Improvements..................................................................................
2-3
2.6 Public Safety Improvements...........................................................................
2-4
2.7 Public Facilities Improvements.......................................................................
2-5
2.8 Park & Recreation Improvements...................................................................
2-6
2.9 Utilities Improvements....................................................................................
2-7
2.10 Utility Modeling and System Planning Studies ............................................
2-8
2.11 Regional Transportation Improvements........................................................
2-8
2.11.1 Petaluma Hill Road and East Cotati Avenue ..........................................
2-8
2.11.2 Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange ..................................
2-9
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan
Table of Contents
Page TOC - 2
Draft
2.12 Summary .......................................................................................................
2-9
- Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities
3.1 Purpose of the Nexus Findings........................................................................
3-1
3.2 Authority.........................................................................................................
3-1
3.2.1 Findings at Adoption ....................................
3.2.2 Annual Reporting Requirements.............................................................
3-1
3.3 Roadway Improvements..................................................................................
3-2
3.3.1 Definition of Facilities Included..............................................................
3-2
3.3.2 Cost Allocation Factors...........................................................................
3-2
3.3.3 Impact Zone Allocation...........................................................................
3-2
3.3.4 Fee Calculation........................................................................................
3-3
3.3.5 Nexus Findings........................................................................................
3-5
3.4 Improvements Allocated on a Population Equivalency Basis .........................
3-5
3.4.1 Definition of Facilities Included..............................................................
3-5
3.4.2 Cost Allocation Factors...........................................................................
3-5
3.4.3 Impact Zone Allocations.........................................................................
3-7
3.4.4 Fee Calculation........................................................................................
3-7
3.4.5 Nexus Findings........................................................................................
3-8
3.5 Unfunded Improvements.................................................................................
3-11
3.5.1 Nexus Findings for Unfunded Improvements ..........................................
3-11
3.6 Summary .....................................................................:...................................
3-12
Chapter 4 — Funding and Financing Strategy for Capital Improvements
4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................
4-1
4.2 Land Secured Bond Financing for New Development ...................................
4-3
4.2.1 Benefit Assessments................................................................................
4-3
4.2.2 Mello -Roos Community Facilities Districts ............................................
4-3
4.3 "Pay -as -you -Go" Mitigation Fee Elements for New Development ................
4-4
4.4 Bond Financing Program for Mitigation Fee Offsets ...... :................................
4-5
4.4.1 Land Uses Supporting Bond Financing ...................................................
4-7
4.5 The Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange ......................................
4-8
4.6 Funding "Existing Users' Share"....................................................................
4-8
May 11, 2004
Plan City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Page TOC Table of Contents Dr -3
Draft
1
1
IMay 11, 2004
4.6.1 Certificates of Participation.....................................................................
4-8
4.6.2 State Revolving Fund Loans...................................................................
4-8
4.7 Summary .........................................................................................................
4-9
Chapter 5 — Funding Strategy for Maintenance and Services
5.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................
5-1
5.2 Funding Mechanisms for Maintenance & Services ........................................
5-1
5.2.1 Maintenance Annuity Funds...................................................................
5-1
5.2.2 Landscape and Lighting Districts............................................................
5-2
5.2.3 Mello -Roos Community Facilities Districts ............................................
5-2
5.3 Budgets for Maintenance & Services..............................................................
5-2
5.4 Summary of Maintenance Annuity Fund Modeling ........................................
5-3
5.4.1 Assumptions............................................................................................
5-3
5.4.2 Model Results for Infill Development.....................................................
5-3
5.4.3 Model Results for Specific Plan Areas ....................................................
5-4
5.5 Recommended Maintenance Annuity Deposit ................................................
5-5
Chapter 6 — Implementation
6.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................
6-1
6.2 Conceptual Framework for the Finance Plan ..................................................
6-1
6.3 Establishment and Review of Mitigation Fees ................................................
6-1
■
6.3.1 Fee Establishment...................................................................................
6-1
6.3.2 Fee Credits & Reimbursements...............................................................
6-2
'
6.3.3 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee Program ...........................................
6-2
6.4 Financing District Establishment....................................................................
6-2
■
6.5 Maintenance Annuities....................................................................................
6-3
1
1
IMay 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan
Table of Contents
Appendices
Appendix A-1
Land Use Breakdown by Traffic Area Zone
Appendix A-2
Cannon Manor Agreement
Appendix A-3
Resolution 2003-252 Growth Management Allocation System
Appendix B
Detailed Cost Estimates
Appendix C
Traffic Modeling Summary
Appendix D
Supplemental Maintenance Estimates
Page TOC - 4
Draft
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Page TOC - 5
Draft
Executive Summary
Table ES -1 (a) Roadways in the Public Finance Plan ..........................................
ES -4
Table ES -1 (b) Other Public Facilities in the Public Finance Plan .......................
ES -5
Table ES -2 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Fees .............................. (follows)
ES -7
Table ES -3 Potential Bond Financed Facilities....................................................
ES -9
Chapter 1— Land Use
Table 1-1 Summary Land Use Breakdowns.........................................................
1-2
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements & Costs
Table 2-1 Right of Way Acquisition Assumptions .....................................
2-3
Table 2-2 Roadway Improvements and Costs ......................................................
2-4
Table 2-3 Public Safety Improvements and Costs ................................................
2-5
Table 2-4 Public Facilities Improvements and Costs ...........................................
2-5
Table 2-5 Parks & Recreation Improvements and Costs ......................................
2-6
Table 2-6 Utilities Improvements and Costs ........................................................
2-7
Table 2-7 Regional Transportation Improvements and Costs ........................
2-8
Table 2-8 Summary Cost Estimate.......................................................
2-10
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities
Table 3-1 Trip Generation Rates (Weekday)........................................................
3-3
Table 3-2 Roadway Facilities & Components Development & Shared Costs .....
3-4
Table 3-3 Roadway Segment Cost Allocations ..................................... (follows)
3-5
Table 3-4 Roadway Improvements Mitigation Fee Calculations .......... (follows)
3-5
Table 3-5 (a) Population Factors for Residential Land Uses ................................
3-6
Table 3-5 (b) Population Factors for Non Residential Land Uses ..................
3-7
Table 3-6 Westside Fire Station Mitigation Fee Calculation ................. (follows)
3-8
Table 3-7 Station 4 Expansion Mitigation Fee Calculation ................... (follows)
3-8
Table 3-8 Public Safety Training Facilities Mitigation Fee Calculation (follows)
3-8
Table 3-9 City Hall Mitigation Fee Calculation .................................... (follows)
3-8
Table 3-10 Corporation Yard Expansion Mitigation Fee Calculation... (follows)
3-8
Table 3-11 Community Fields Mitigation Fee Calculation ................... (follows)
3-8
Table 3-12 Senior Center Expansion Mitigation Fee Calculation......... (follows)
3-8
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page TOC - 6
Table of Contents Draft
Table 3-13 Community Center Campus Improvements Mitigation Fee
Calculation............................................................................................. (follows)
Table 3-14 Recycled Water Main Mitigation Fee Calculation .............. (follows)
Table 3-15 Water Transmission Main Mitigation Fee Calculation ....... (follows)
Table 3-16 Sewer Main Mitigation Fee Calculation .............................. (follows)
Table 3-17 Sewer Trunk Line Mitigation Fee Calculation .................... (follows)
Table 3-18 Water System Model and Plan Mitigation Fee Calculation.. follows)
Table 3-19 Sewer System Model and Plan Mitigation Fee Calculation (follows)
Table 3-20 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Fees ............................... (follows)
Chapter 4 — Funding and Financing Strategy for Capital Improvements
Table 4-1(a) Roadway Facilities in the Public Finance Plan ................................
Table 4-1(b) Other Facilities in the Public Finance Plan ......................................
Table 4-2 Financing Mechanism Summary ..........................................................
Table 4-3 "Pay -as -you -Go" Finance Plan Infrastructure ......................................
Table 4-4 Bond Financed Infrastructure...............................................................
Table 4-5 Anticipated Principal Contribution from Specific Plan Areas .............
Table 4-6 Cost Allocation for Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange..
Table 4-7 Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange ................... (follows)
Chapter 5 — Funding Strategy for Maintenance and Services
Table 5-1 Revenue Generation Estimates for Various Land Uses ........................
Table 5-2 Maintenance Annuity Fund Scenarios ..................................................
3-8
3-8
3-8
3-8
3-8
3-8
3-8
3-12
4-1
4-2
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-8
5-3
5-4
May 11, 2004
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page TOC - 7
Table of Contents Draft
List of Figures
Chapter 1— Land Use
Figure 1.1 Specific Plan Areas............................................................... (follows) 1-1
Figure l.21nfill Projects Key Map ......................................................... (follows) 1-1
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements & Costs
Figure 2.1 Roadway Improvements Key Map ......................
Figure 2.2 Bridge & Overcrossing Improvements Key Map
Figure 2.3 Traffic Signal Improvements Key Map ...............
Figure 2.4 Public Safety Improvements Key Map ................
Figure 2.5 Public Facilities Improvements Key Map............
Figure 2.6 Parks & Recreation Improvements Key Map ......
Figure 2.7 Utilities Improvements Key Map .........................
4
.............. (follows)
2-3
.............. (follows)
2-3
.............. (follows)
2-3
.............. (follows)
2-4
.............. (follows)
2-5
.............. (follows)
2-6
.............. (follows)
2-7
May 11, 2004
Executive Summary
1
1
r
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page ES -1
Executive Summary Draft
Executive Summary
' ES.1Introduction
' The City of Rohnert Park ("City") is working to develop a comprehensive strategy for managing the costs of
capital facilities, maintenance and services that are impacted by new development. The City is interested in
utilizing a variety of funding mechanisms including but not limited to:
Mitigation Fees for capital improvements which can be financed on a "pay-as-you-go" basis
Bond Financing (secured by special assessments or special taxes) for capital improvements
which should be completed in advance of development
Maintenance Annuity Funds for services
In general, the City is working from the principle that new development needs to pay a "fair -share" of the
costs it generates. The fair share analysis is generally consistent with California Government Code Section
66000 et. seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act adopted in 1989 through Assembly Bill 1600 and amended in 1996 to
cover additional financing requirements. Hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Act requires that an agency
develop a "nexus" or reasonable relationship between mitigation fees and required infrastructure. New
development can only be required to pay its share of the costs; agencies must develop other funding sources
for improvements or rehabilitation required for serving the existing customer base. The City is utilizing the
' same nexus concepts to develop a strategy for securing long-term revenue for public services and
maintenance.
I This Public Facilities Finance Plan ("Finance Plan") includes a nexus analysis and Mitigation Fees for capital
facilities. It also presents strategies for bond financing and for funding new demands for maintenance and
services.
ES.2 Purpose
' The purpose of this Finance Plan is threefold.
1. To develop a Nexus Analysis and Mitigation Fee calculation. This will allow the City to adopt
Mitigation Fees in accordance with the Act.
2. To present a preliminary strategy for financing the construction of capital improvements in the
early years of planned buildout. This will allow the City to construct the necessary infrastructure
when it is needed to serve planned growth, while minimizing impacts to current users.
3. To develop a maintenance and services analysis for all new development and calculate the annuity
required to fund the maintenance and services deficit created by residential land uses. This
provides the City with the information necessary to acquire Maintenance Annuity Fund deposits
from new development.
ES.3 Scope of Analysis
The City's General Plan sets land -use patterns and population goals. The City is anticipating potential
development within five designated Specific Plan Areas: the Northwest Area, the Wilfred-Dowdell Area, the
Northeast Area, the University District and the Southeast Area. In addition, the City is anticipating infill
development consisting largely of non-residential land uses.
I
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan
Executive Summary
Page ES - 2
Draft
This Finance Plan analyzes development impacts, mitigation fee burdens and potential bond financing
programs for the following categories of capital improvements:
• Roadways • Utilities
• Public Safety Facilities • Utility Modeling & System Planning Studies
• Public Facilities • Regional Transportation
• Parks & Recreation
The City is currently preparing Utility System Models and Planning Studies for its water, sewer and storm
drain utilities. The City may update this Finance Plan and/or adopt additional Mitigation Fees for the water
sewer and storm drain utilities when these studies are complete.
This Finance Plan also analyzes the costs of general City services and maintenance associated with new
development and compares that to the revenue generated from various types of new development. The
maintenance and services analysis concludes that the costs to serve non-residential land uses are generally
balanced or more than balanced by the revenue generated from these land uses. A Maintenance Annuity
Deposit has been calculated to fund fiscal deficits created by residential land uses. Because nonresidential
development is fiscally neutral or positive for the City, the Finance Plan does not propose a Maintenance
Annuity Deposit for these classes of land use.
ESA Capital Facilities included in the Public Finance Plan
In July of 2000, the City Council adopted a General Plan with a planning horizon through year 2020. The
General Plan outlined projected growth and land use patterns and identified major infrastructure systems that
the City would need to support these land use patterns. In July of 2002, the City Council approved a 5 -year
Capital Improvement Program ("CIP") that further refined planned upgrades and modifications to the City's
infrastructure for the benefit of the existing population and to support new development. This Finance Plan
focuses on capital improvements identified in either the General Plan or the CIP that meet the nexus
requirements of the Act and where new development has a "fair -share" contribution. Under the Act, the City
may use Mitigation Fees to finance all or part of a CIP project, provided the City does the following:
1. Identifies the purpose of the fee.
2. Identifies the uses of the fee typically by reference to an approved Capital Improvement Program,
General Plan or other public document.
3. Establishes a reasonable relationship (or nexus) between the use of the fee and the type of
development. .
4. Establishes a reasonable relationship (or nexus) between the need for capital improvements and the
type of development.
5. Establishes a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the costs of the capital
improvements.
Table ES -1 (a) and (b), on the following pages, lists the improvements included in the Finance Plan and their
cost estimates. The cost estimates for each improvement have been updated based on the description provided
in the CIP and General Plan, information available from Specific Plan Area developers and independent cost
estimating efforts. The cost estimates developed in the Finance Plan are "order of magnitude" estimates and
have been developed without access to detailed design information; these estimates are accurate within +50%
to -30%. In general, the cost estimates do not include new right of way. It is assumed that the needed new
right-of-way, which is almost exclusively associated with roadways, will be dedicated by the adjoining
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page ES - 3
Executive Summary Draft
property owners as a condition of development. This is consistent with General Plan Policy TR -4 which
requires right of way dedication as a condition of development.' The exceptions to this general rule are:
• Roadway improvements to East Cotati Avenue, Seed Farm Drive and Snyder Lane south of
Rohnert Park Expressway because there is no new development adjacent to these proposed
improvements to dedicate right-of-way;
• The new Westside Public Safety Station because the site must be acquired;
• Community Fields because the site must be acquired;
• The sewer main serving the Eastside Specific Plan Areas, because an existing easement must
be expanded;
• The Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange, because there is no new development
adjacent to these proposed improvements to dedicate right-of-way.
1 Our Place ... Rohnert Park 2020 A Plan for the Future, General Plan, Third Edition; adopted July 2000, pg 4-11.
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan
Executive Summary
Table ES -1(a)
Roadway Facilities in the Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page ES - 4
Draft
Improvement Description
Total Cost
New Development
Share
Existing Development
Share
Roadway Improvements & Bridges
No. Name
1 Bodway Parkway (Valley House to Railroad
$
1,080,600
$
999,800
$
80,800
2 Commerce Blvd. Copeland Creek to Arlen)
$
498,700
$
286,300
$
212,400
Bridge @ Copeland Creek
$
268,000
$
268,000
$
-
3 Dowdell Avenue widening (Wilfred to 750' south)
$
695,300
$
695,300
$
-
4 Dowdell Avenue extension (750' south of Wilfed to Business Park)
$
924,100
$
924,100
$
Bridge @ Business Park Drive
$
498,000
$
498,000
$
-
5 East Cotati Avenue (Bodway to Petaluma Hill Road
$
4,014,500
$
3,460,800
$
553,700
6 Golf Course Drive (Fairway to Count Club)
$
1,994,800
$
565,900
$
1,428,900
7 Keiser Avenue (Snyder to Petaluma Hill Road)
$
3,258,400
$
3,072,000
$
186,400
8 Rohnert Park Expressway (Snyder to Petaluma Hill Road)
$
3,518,900
$
3,432,400
$
86,500
9 Seed Farm Drive (Rohnert Park Expressway to Enterprise)
$
1,624,000
$
1,439,700
$
184,300
10 Snyder Lane (G Section to Middle School)
$
2,347,400
$
2,265,600
$
81,800
Bridge @ Copeland Creek
$
162,000
$
162,000
Bridge @ Crane Creek
$
201,000
$
201,000
$
-
11 Snyder Lane Middle School to Med Center Drive
$
1,945,400
$
1,924,900
$
20,500
Bridge @ Five Creek
$
201,000
$
201,000
12 Snyder Lane (Med Center Drive to Southwest Blvd.)
$
5,056,800
$
5,006,400
$
50,400
Bridge @ Hinebaugh Creek
$
201,000
$
201,000
$
-
13 Wilfred Avenue (1999 City Limits to Urban Growth Bound )
$
3,310,000
$
3,233,900
$
76,100
Subtotal Roadways & Bridges
$
31,799,900
$
28,838,100
$
2,961,800
Traffic Control Devices
Bodway Pkwy @ Camino Collegio
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Bodway Pkwy @ Valley House
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Bodway Pkwy @ Railroad
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Commerce Blvd@ Avram
$
130,000
$
130,000
$
-
Commerce Blvd @ Alison
$
130,000
$
130,000
$
-
Dowdell Av @Wilfred
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
Eleanor Av @ RPX
$
227,500
$
227,500
$
-
Labath Av @ Wilfred
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Petaluma Hill Rd @ Keiser
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Petaluma Hill Rd @ RPX
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Petaluma Hill Rd @ East Cotati
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Petaluma Hill Rd @ Railroad
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Redwood Dr @ Wilfred
$
130,000
$
130,000
$
-
Seed Farm @ RPX
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Seed Farm @ Enterprise
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Snyder Ln @ Eleanor
$
104,000
$
104,000
$
-
Snyder Ln @ Keiser
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
Snyder Ln @ RPX
$
195,000
$
195,000
$
Snyder Ln @ Southwest Blvd
$
104,000
$
104,000
$
-
Stony Point Rd @ Wilfred
$
286,000
$
286,000
$.
-
Subtotal
$
3,256,500
$
3,256,500
$0
State Farm Drive Overpass
$
9,818,000
Subtotal for Roadways
$
44,874,400 1
$
32,094,600
$2,961,800
May 11, 2004
1
lJ
C�
1
1
1
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan
Executive Summary
Table ES -1 (b)
Other Public Facilities in the Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page ES - 5
Draft
Improvement Description
Total Cost
New Development
Share
Existing Development
Share
Public Safety
New West Side Safety Station
$
5,140,000
$1,843,068
$3,296,93
Station Four Expansion
$
728,000
$728,000
$0
Training Facilities
$
2,197,500
$546,384
$1,651,116
Public Facilities
City Hall
$
7,458,000
$1,854,340
$5,603,66
Corporation Yard Expansion
$
853,450
$853,450
$
Parks & Recreation
Community Fields
$
21,759,000
$5,410,100
$16,348,90
Senior Center Expansion
$
100,100
$24,895
$75,20
Community Center Campus Improvements
$
3,406,000
$846,864
$2,559,13
Utilities
Recycled Water Main
$
764,400
$764,400
$0
Water Transmission Line
$
764,400
$764,400
$0
Sewer Main
$
6,558,600
$6,558,600
$0
Sewer Trunk
$
12,000,000
$2,983,643
$9,016,357
Utility System Models & Studies
Water System Master Plan
$
20000
$49,731
$150,269
Sewer System Master Plan
$
200,000
$49,731
$150,26
Storm Drainage Master Plan
$
-
$0
$0
Regional Transportation Improvements
Petaluma Hill Road at Penn rove
$
15,000,000
East Cotati Ave
$
1,100,000
Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange
$
40,000,000
$33,350,139
$6,649,861
Subtotals for Other Public Facilities
Subtotal for Roadways
Total Facility Costs
$ 118,229,450
$ 44,874,400
$ 163,103,850 1
$56,627,745
$32,094,600
$ 88,722,345
$45,501,705
$2,961,80
$48,463,505
Note: Costs of Unfunded Facilities are not allocated to new or existing development
ES.5 Summary of the Nexus Analysis for Capital Facilities
Roadway Improvements: The roadway improvement component funds planned improvements to the citywide
traffic circulation network. Improvements include roadway widenings, bridge widenings and traffic signal
installation including intersection improvements. The Table ES -1 (a) lists the specific roadways; bridges and
intersections that will be improved. The analysis spreads the costs over all land uses based on trip -generation
potential. The mitigation fee burden is calculated on a citywide basis.
Public Safety: The public safety component funds planned improvements including a new Westside Fire
' Station, expansion of Station 4 (Maurice) and a new public safety training center, currently proposed to be
located with the new Westside Public Safety Station. The public safety component is calculated separately for
the areas east and west of Highway 101 because different facilities are impacted by development.
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page ES - 6
Executive Summary Draft
The Westside Public Safety Station serves all land uses west of Highway 101, including existing uses that will
benefit from faster response times. The mitigation fee component for the Westside Public Safety Station is
calculated across all development, new and existing, west of Highway 101.
The expansion of Station 4 is necessitated by new development on the east side of Highway 101. The
mitigation fee component for Station 4 is calculated across all new development east of Highway 101.
The new training facility is a centralized facility that will serve all development in the City. The mitigation fee
training facility is calculated on a citywide basis and includes all land uses.
Public Facilities: The public facilities component funds planned improvements for the new Civic Center and
an expansion of the existing corporation yard. The new Civic Center is a centralized facility that will serve all
new and existing development in the City. The mitigation fee burden is calculated on a citywide basis and
includes all land uses. The expansion of the corporation yard is necessitated by new development. The
mitigation fee burden is calculated across all new development in the City.
Parks & Open Space: The parks and open space component funds the construction of Community Fields, an
expansion of the Senior Center, and improvements to the campus of the Community Center located at Rohnert
Park Expressway and Snyder Lane. These facilities will serve all new and existing development in the City.
The mitigation fee burden is calculated on a citywide basis and includes all land uses.
Utilities: The utilities component funds the extension of a water transmission main and a recycled water
transmission main to serve the eastside Specific Plan Areas and the expansion of the City's sewer main from
Snyder Lane west under Highway 101. The extensions will serve new development east of Snyder Lane. The
mitigation fee burden is calculated across all new development east of Snyder Lane.
The utilities component also funds the upgrade of the City's trunk sewer from the Rohnert Park Pump Station
to the Subregional Treatment Plant. The schedule for this upgrade is triggered by new development. However,
the facility will be sized to serve both new and existing development. The mitigation fee burden is calculated
across new and existing development.
Utilities Modeling and System Planning & Studies: The utilities modeling and system planning studies
component funds system models and studies for the City's water, sewer, and storm water systems. These are
all centralized facilities and planning documents that will serve all development in the City, both new and
existing. The mitigation fee burden is calculated on a citywide basis and includes all new and existing
development.
Regional Transportation: The regional transportation component funds planned improvements to Wilfred
Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange, Petaluma Hill Road in Sonoma County, and East Cotati Avenue in
Cotati.
Improvements to the Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange are necessary to create acceptable levels
of service in the City's circulation system. The traffic model prepared for the General Plan and updated for
this Finance Plan assumes that the Interchange improvements are in place. Improvements to the Wilfred
Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange have.been programmed by Caltrans as part of its plan to improve the
Highway 101 Corridor through Sonoma County. However, these planned improvements have been deferred
because of constraints on the State's budgets. The facility is included in a proposed bond financing package.
The mitigation fee burden has not yet been calculated.
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page ES - 7
Executive Summary Draft
Improvements outside of the City's jurisdiction, namely improvements to Petaluma Hill Road in Sonoma
County and East Cotati Avenue in Cotati, were identified in the City's General Plan and the City has
committed to be a responsible participant in their planning and execution, to the extent that new development
in the City contributes to the impacted infrastructure. Currently the scope and cost of these regional facilities is
undefined. They are being carried in the Finance Plan as unfunded facilities. Unfunded facilities likely meet
the nexus test of the Mitigation Fee Act, however there is not enough information available to allow for
appropriate cost allocation. The City may elect to increase fees in the future to cover unfunded facilities
(provided it holds a properly noticed Public Hearing) or the City may dedicate surplus Mitigation Fee revenue
towards unfunded facilities at a future date.
ES.6 Summary of Base Mitigation Fee Burdens
Table ES -2, on the following page presents the results of the Mitigation Fee calculation. The Mitigation Fees
presented include a 3% administration allowance. These fee burdens represent the "fair share" cost of
planning, design and construction for the facilities included in this Finance Plan, in current dollars. The
Mitigation Fees do not take into account interest or the costs of financing. In some cases, the City may require
certain backbone infrastructure be financed through bonds so that the infrastructure can be available to serve
development immediately. In cases where infrastructure is financed through bonds, the City cannot collect
mitigation fees from the same property owners for the same facilities.
The Mitigation Fee Program is intended to function as a complete strategy for funding all capital
improvements identified in this Finance Plan. While the Nexus Study has analyzed each proposed
improvement individually, it is recommended that the City adopt a single Public Facilities Finance Plan Fee
for the area east of Highway 101 and a single Public Facilities Finance Plan fee for the area west of Highway
101. This single fee concept allows the City of use available cash .flow to fund needed facilities without undo
restrictions. Column D in Table ES -2 lists the recommended Public Facilities Finance Plan Fees for the
Eastside and the Westside of the City.
The City is currently undertaking utility and modeling studies and additional capital improvements, triggered
by new development, may be identified as the result of these efforts. The City may need to undertake a
separate update of its water, sewer or storm drainage Mitigation Fees as a result of the ongoing studies.
ES.7 Approval Process and Annual Updates
The City Council approves all Mitigation Fees. The Council renders its decision on the proposed Mitigation
Fees after calling a Public Hearing and considering testimony and evidence presented at a Public Hearing.
The Act allows agencies to update their Mitigation Fees and requires annual public accountings for the fees
and their use. These annual requirements include:
Identification of each impact fee and fund with a description.
• Identification of the amount of the fee.
• Statement of the beginning and ending fund balance for each fee account.
Identification of capital facilities funded by the fees and the percentage funded by the fee (for
' example, a new City Hall might be funded 40% by impact fees and 60% by other City revenue
sources).
Identification of the approximate time frame during which construction of improvements will
occur.
Description of any inter -fund transfers or loans and when these loans will be repaid.
I
May 11, 2004
Table ES -2
Summary of Proposed Mitigation Fees
Regional Transportation Facilities not Included
A
B
C
D
Population Based
Mitigation Fee
Traffic
Mitigation
Fee
Subtotal Mitigation Fees
3% Administrative
Allowance
Total Mitigation Fee
Eastside Westside
Eastside
Westside
Eastside Westside
Eastside
Westside
Single Family Residential units
$5,552
$4,02
$2,451
$8,003
$6,472
$240
$194
$8,243
$6,66
Multi -Family Residential units
$31470
$2 514
$1,5931
$5,063
$4106
$152
$123
$5,215
$4,230
Senior Housing units
$3,470
$2,51
$980
$4,451
$3,494
$134
$105
$41584
$3,599
Assisted Living units
$1,735
$1,257
$980
$29715
$2,237
$81
$67
$2,797
$2,30
General Office thousandsquare feet
$570
$413
$4166
$4,736
$4,57
$142
$137
$4,878
$4,716
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
$1,829
$1,32
$4,411
$6,240
$5,735
$187
$172
$6,427
$59908
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
$3,191
$2,311
$9,802
$12,993
$12,113
$390
$363
$13,383
$12,477
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
$3,123
$2,26
$9,802
$12,925
$12,064
$388
$362
$13,313
$12,426
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
$1,141
$826
$1,715
$2,856
$2,542
$86
$76
$2,942
$2,618
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
$1,141
$826
$1,71
$2,856
$2,54
$86
$76
$2,942
$2,618
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
$1,141
$826
$1,19
$2,337
$2,02
$70
$61
$2,407
$2,083
Education students
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Park/Recreation acres
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
April 13, 2004
C!
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page ES - 8
Executive Summary Draft
• Descriptions of any fee refunds that were made as a result of completion of identified capital
improvements.
All annual reporting is made at a public meeting.
In a city with a large planned growth element, these annual findings are especially relevant. The fee
calculations and revenue projections developed in this analysis are based on planning projections for new
development and budgetary estimates for the capital improvements. As capital improvement budgets are
updated through the design and construction process and as land use projections are updated as development
proceeds, it is very important to update the Mitigation Fees to reflect current costs and growth patterns in order
to assure that the Mitigation Fee Program is generating enough revenue to fund the planned capital facilities.
ES.8 Summary of the Maintenance Annuity Fund Analysis
This Finance Plan included review of each land uses' revenue generation potential and its service demands.
This review concluded that overall, and at buildout, the City has a "balanced" land use pattern, meaning that
overall revenue generation is generally equal to overall service costs. However the analysis also revealed that
' non-residential land uses generate sufficient revenue, through sales and property taxes, to cover the costs of
maintenance and service. Residential land uses do not. Consistent with the General Plan and its Environmental
Impact Report, it is recommended that the City establish a uniform Maintenance Annuity Fund ("MAF")
deposit for all new residential units within the City to mitigate fiscal impacts. The MAF deposit will be
invested by the City and investment proceeds would be used to fund maintenance and services.
This Finance Plan recommends that the MAF deposit be sufficient to amortize the predicted fiscal impact in
perpetuity, assuming an average annual interest rate of 6.11% (the 15 -year average earned by the State's Local
Agency Investment Fund). Because there is no general law procedure for establishing MAF contributions, the
City will need to secure commitments for its proposed MAF through Development and Disposition
Agreements.
r
The recommended MAF deposit is $7,400 per dwelling unit.
ES.9 Bond Financing Districts
The City will approve development in accordance with its Growth Management Ordinance. This Ordinance
has the effect of limiting the number of residential building permits that the City can issue, in order to maintain
1 an average annual growth rate of approximately 1% per year. Hence, this Ordinance will limit the amount of
Mitigation Fee revenue that the City can collect in a single year, because Mitigation Fees are collected at the
time a building permit is issued by the City.
Some of the capital improvements included in the Mitigation Fee Program need to be constructed prior to the
occupancy of newly developed land in the Specific Plan Areas. The Finance Plan includes provisions to offset
' all or a portion of the proposed Mitigation Fees with assessment or special tax liens in order to facilitate
orderly construction of public facilities. Developers within the Specific Plan Areas may reduce or completely
pay-off their calculated Mitigation Fee burden by participating in a bond -financing program. Development that
' occurs after the bond financing takes place would be required to pay Mitigation Fees in order to support their
"fair share" of capital improvements. Table ES -3 outlines the Finance Plan facilities that could be needed
early in the General Plan Implementation and are therefore included in a possible bond financing program.
The costs shown do not include the costs of financing.
1 May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page ES - 9
Executive Summary Draft
Table ES -3 also includes the Wilfred Avenue Golf Course Drive Interchange, assuming its construction will
be funded through a bond sale. Table ES -3 assumes participation from all new development and from existing
development located along Wilfred Avenue and Golf Course Drive, adjacent to the proposed improvement.
This assumption provides a method to calculate a preliminary cost -share. This cost -share will need to be
refined as the proposed bond financing district is developed.
Table ES -3
Potential Bond Financed Facilities
Improvement Description
Total Cost
New Development
Share
Existing Development
Share
Roadway Improvements & Bridges
No. Name
3 Dowdell Avenue widening Wilfred to 750' south
$
695,300
$
695,300
$
4 Dowdell Avenue extension 750' south of Wilfed to Business Park
$
924,100
$
924,100
$
-
Bridge @ Business Park Drive
$
498,000
$
498,000
$
-
5 East Cotati Avenue (Bodway to Petaluma Hill Road)
$
4,014,500
$
3,460,800
$
553,700
7 Keiser Avenue (Snyder to Petaluma Hill Road)
$
3,258,400
$
3,072,000
$
186,400
8 Rohnert Park Expressway (Snyder to Petaluma Hill Road)
$
3,518,900
$
3,432,400
$
86,500
10 Snyder Lane G Section to Middle School)
$
2,347,400
$
2,265,600
$
81,800
Bridge @ Copeland Creek
$
162,000
$
162,000
Bridge @ Crane Creek
$
201,000
$
201,000
$
-
11 Snyder Lane Middle School to Med Center Drive)
$
1,945,400
$
1,924,900
$
20,500
Bridge @ Five Creek
$
201,000
$
201,000
12 Snyder Lane Med Center Drive to Southwest Blvd.)
$
5,056,800
$
5,006,400
$
50,400
Bridge @ Hinebaugh Creek
$
201,000
$
201,000
$
-
13 Wilfred Avenue 1999 City Limits to Urban Growth Bound
$
3,310,000
$
3,233,900
$
76,100
Traffic Control Devices
Bodway Pkwy @ Camino Collegio
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
Bodway Pkwy @ Valley House
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
Dowdell Av @Wilfred
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
Eleanor Av @ RPX
$
227,500
$
227,500
$
Labath Av @ Wilfred
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
Petaluma Hill Rd @ Keiser
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
Petaluma Hill Rd @ RPX
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Petaluma Hill Rd @ East Cotati
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
Redwood Dr @ Wilfred
$
130,000
$
130,000
$
-
Snyder Ln @ Eleanor
$
104,000
$
104,000
$
-
Snyder Ln @ Keiser
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Snyder Ln @ RPX
$
195,000
$
195,000
$
-
Snyder Ln @ Southwest Blvd
$
104,000
$
104,000
$
-
Public Safety
New West Side Safety Station
$
5,140,000
$1,843,068
$3,296,93
Utilities
Recycled Water Main
$
764,400
$764,400
$
Water Transmission Line
$
764,400
$764,400
$0
Sewer Main
$
6,558,600
$6,558,600
$0
Sewer Trunk
$
12,000,000
$2,983,643
$9,016,357
Subtotal without Regional Trans oration
$
53,621,700
$
40,253,011
$13,368,689
Regional Transportation Improvements
Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange 1
$
40,000,000
$33,350,139
$6,649,861
Totals for Bond Financing Program
$
93,621,700 1
$
73,603,150 1
$20,018,550
(1) Cost Share is currently an estimate assuming participation by all new development and all existing development in Traffic Area
Zones bordering the proposed Interchange Improvement.
May 11, 2004
Chapter 1
'a ilities Finance Plan Pa
City of Rohnert Park Public e 1 -1 Facilities g
Chapter 1 — Land Use Draft
Chapter 1 - Land Use
' 1.1 Introduction
This Chapter outlines the various classes of existing and proposed residential and nonresidential land uses
within the City. The various land use classes will be used to model the population and traffic impacts of new
and existing development in order to quantify the impacts created by development.
Land use information was gathered from a range of sources including:
• City of Rohnert Park General Plan, July 2000, Third Edition ("General Plan")
0 Sonoma County Assessor's data, November 2002
• Wilfred-Dowdell Specific Plan, June 2002
• City Center Concept Plan, April 1999
• Northeast Area Specific Plan, October 2001, submitted by Van Logan
• University District, November 2001, submitted by Brookfield Homes and Quaker Hill
' Development
0 Southeast Specific Plan Area, February 2002, submitted by Willowglen Partners
• Northwest Area Specific Plan, January 2004, submitted by Redwood Equities Investments
• City of Rohnert Park Planning Department personal communication
Two significant changes to proposed land use have occurred since the preparation of the General Plan. First, a
significant portion of the Southeast Specific Plan Area proposed for industrial development was removed from
' the City's sphere of influence. The Finance Plan focuses on the reduced Southeast Specific Plan Area and
presents land uses and development impacts assuming the smaller sphere of influence. Second, a Casino has
been proposed just outside the City's sphere of influence in the Northwest area. At this point, the City does not
have sufficient information to model the impacts of the proposed Casino on infrastructure and the land use is
not included in this analysis. As information becomes available regarding the proposed Casino, this analysis
will provide a baseline from which the additive impacts of the Casino can be projected.
'
1.2 Participating Land Owners
' This Finance Plan was prepared with input from a working group that included City staff, consultants, and
landowner representatives. Participants included representatives from the various Specific Plan Areas.
' 1.3 Existing and Proposed Land Uses
The City's General Plan identified six Specific Plan Areas. The City is anticipating new development in five
of these Specific Plan areas, illustrated in Figure 1.1 (development in the Cannon Manor Area is not included
in this Finance Plan). The Specific Plan Areas are currently located in the County but within the City's Sphere
of Influence, meaning annexation to the City is planned. In addition, infill development and redevelopment
' projects are planned within the existing City limits. Figure 1.2 illustrates major planned infill projects.
During the development of the General Plan, the City and its Sphere of Influence were subdivided into Traffic
' Area Zones (TAZ) in order to model the effects of development on the transportation system. Figure A.1 and
Table A.1 in Appendix A provide an illustration of the TAZ and detailed breakdown of existing and proposed
land use within each TAZ. These land uses were based on the General Plan but have been updated to include
Specific Plan information and development that has occurred since the General Plan's adoption in 2000. Table
1-1 below is a summary of the citywide totals with breakdowns for each Specific Plan Area.
IMay 11, 2004
N
H-a,Ms & soCAat ;
L
i
Fig:. 1.1
Rohnert Park Finance Plan
Specific Plan Areas
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
w 9,9
� a
3
I S ilfred /
M6
",I*
LEGEND:
iyF9�
1. OAK VIEW SENIOR
O�
NE Corner Of RPX/Synder Ln
40
2. OLD CITY HALL SITE
9Fo
6750 Commerce Blvd
�g
3. OLD TEEN CENTER SITE
430 and 450 City Hall Dr
4. OLD TEEN CENTER SITE
430 and 450 City Hail Dr
5. CIRCUIT CITY
6258 Redwood Dr
6. STADIUM LANDS
Labath Ave to west, Business Park Dr to North
Redwood dr to East & Hinebaugh to East.
7. CITY HALL
South Side Of City Hall Dr, North Of New Library
Hiam-S sociad"es.,
N
SPHERE OF INFLUEgNCEE
Northeast
Specific
Plan Area
Full
�w
University District I cow:
w
S
Specific I e
Plan Area E
Specific Plan
Arpa
VALLEY HOUSE ;RD
OF INFLUENCE
Fig: 1.2
Rohnert Park Finance Plan
Infill Projects Key Map
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Pagel - 2
Chapter 1 — Land Use Draft
Table 1-1
Summary Land Use Breakdowns
(1) Specific Plan Land Use from the City of Rohnert Park, based on developer submittals through January 2004
(2) New Development Figures are calculated from the Traffic Model Land Use updated in June 2003. Current Specific Plan data anticipates 10% more Single
Family Residential Units than were included in the Traffic Model. The additional density is primarily in the Norteast Specific Plan Area
Because development has occurred in Rohnert Park between the time the General Plan was completed and the
Finance Plan process began, Sonoma County Assessor's Data was used to determine the number of existing
housing units and the non-residential square footage. Information on new development was taken from the
most recently available Specific Plan information, with some adjustments to reflect "expected" development
patterns. Adjustments have been made in the effort to create conservative estimates and allow the Mitigation
Fee Program to produce adequate revenue even if development occurs at a lower density than anticipated. In
these instances, the developers have acknowledged that development patterns have changed since the initial
Specific Plan was submitted and they have provided updated information. The land use assumptions have
gone through rigorous review by both the City and the development community.
Early in the Finance Plan process, it was agreed that the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area would be omitted
from the Finance Plan even though it was identified in the General Plan as an area that would develop. The
concern raised by both the City and participating property owners was that Canon Manor would not build out
according to General Plan estimates. It was felt that counting on participation from landowners who are not
planning to develop when calculating Mitigation Fees would be detrimental because anticipated amounts of
revenue would not be generated and that would lead to a funding shortfall. This decision is reflected in the
land use table. The City does have an agreement with the County of Sonoma regarding infrastructure
improvements in the Canon Manor area. This agreement is attached as Appendix A.2 for reference purposes.
1.3.1 Growth Management and Absorption Rates
The City has an adopted Growth Management Ordinance' that is intended to provide for orderly build
out of residential development over the 20 -year planning horizon contemplated by the General Plan. In
its simplest form, the Growth Management Ordinance has the effect of limiting the number of
residential building permits issued to 225 per year. There are exceptions for affordable housing and
provisions to carry over building permits (i.e. if 50 are issued in one year, 400 may be issued the
following year, providing a 2 -year average of 225 per year).
I t Chapter 17.66 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code.
May 11, 2004
Specific Plan
Area (1)
New
Planned
Development
University
Wilfred
Land Use Class
2002 Base
Buildout
(2)
Northeast
District
Southeast
Dowdell
Northwest
Infill
Single Family Residential (units)
7,764
9,720
1,956
863
880
463
0
0
0
Multi -Family Residential (units)
8,213
10,974
2,761
200
730
36
0
900
895
Senior Housing (units)
207
268
61
0
0
0
0
0
61
Assisted Living (units)
0
135
135
0
0
0
0
0
135
General Office (square feet)
1,017,615
1,518,737
501,121
0
200,000
0
190,080
0
111,041
Hotel/Motel (square feet)
457,603
581,399
123,796
0
50,000
0
63,796
0
10,000
Strip Retail (square feet)
506,937
601,373
94,436
0
0
20,000
0
0
74,436
Shopping Center/Retail (square feet)
1,458,725
2,692,455
1,233,730
0
71,820
0
0
404,204
757,706
Light Industrial (square feet)
1,638,472
2,962,629
1,324,157
0
0
0
0
534,600
789,557
Heavy Industrial (square feet)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Warehouse (square feet)
1,489,632
1,560,644
71,012
0
0
0
0
0
71,012
Education (students)
2,000
2,755
755
0
0
0
0
0
755
Park/Recreation (acres)
187
273
86
84
0
2
0
0
0
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
4281
4281
01
0
01
01
0
0
0
(1) Specific Plan Land Use from the City of Rohnert Park, based on developer submittals through January 2004
(2) New Development Figures are calculated from the Traffic Model Land Use updated in June 2003. Current Specific Plan data anticipates 10% more Single
Family Residential Units than were included in the Traffic Model. The additional density is primarily in the Norteast Specific Plan Area
Because development has occurred in Rohnert Park between the time the General Plan was completed and the
Finance Plan process began, Sonoma County Assessor's Data was used to determine the number of existing
housing units and the non-residential square footage. Information on new development was taken from the
most recently available Specific Plan information, with some adjustments to reflect "expected" development
patterns. Adjustments have been made in the effort to create conservative estimates and allow the Mitigation
Fee Program to produce adequate revenue even if development occurs at a lower density than anticipated. In
these instances, the developers have acknowledged that development patterns have changed since the initial
Specific Plan was submitted and they have provided updated information. The land use assumptions have
gone through rigorous review by both the City and the development community.
Early in the Finance Plan process, it was agreed that the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area would be omitted
from the Finance Plan even though it was identified in the General Plan as an area that would develop. The
concern raised by both the City and participating property owners was that Canon Manor would not build out
according to General Plan estimates. It was felt that counting on participation from landowners who are not
planning to develop when calculating Mitigation Fees would be detrimental because anticipated amounts of
revenue would not be generated and that would lead to a funding shortfall. This decision is reflected in the
land use table. The City does have an agreement with the County of Sonoma regarding infrastructure
improvements in the Canon Manor area. This agreement is attached as Appendix A.2 for reference purposes.
1.3.1 Growth Management and Absorption Rates
The City has an adopted Growth Management Ordinance' that is intended to provide for orderly build
out of residential development over the 20 -year planning horizon contemplated by the General Plan. In
its simplest form, the Growth Management Ordinance has the effect of limiting the number of
residential building permits issued to 225 per year. There are exceptions for affordable housing and
provisions to carry over building permits (i.e. if 50 are issued in one year, 400 may be issued the
following year, providing a 2 -year average of 225 per year).
I t Chapter 17.66 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code.
May 11, 2004
' Cit of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 1 - 3
Y g
Chapter 1 — Land Use Draft
Many municipal finance plan efforts include an absorption analysis that models the number of new
' units the local economy can be expected to absorb in any given year. This Finance Plan does not
include an absorption analysis. The purpose of an absorption analysis is to help the local agency
understand its cash flow from mitigation fees with respect to its infrastructure needs. If anticipated fee
' revenue is sufficient to support infrastructure construction, the finance plan program is described as
"pay-as-you-go," meaning revenues received are applied to infrastructure construction at the time they
are received.
The City's Growth Management Ordinance assures that a "pay -as -you" program will not provide
sufficient cash flow in the early years of development. Chapter 4 analyzes the timing of infrastructure
needs and develops a financing scenario that includes the use of bonded debt for infrastructure needed
early in the build out process and pay-as-you-go strategies for infrastructure needed later in the build
out process.
1.3.2 Growth Management Allocation System
' In October 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution 2003-252 approving a Growth Management
Allocation System ("GMAS"). The intent of the GMAS is to provide guidance on the methods used
for allocating residential building permits if developers request more permits in a given year than the
' Growth Management Ordinance allows. The GMAS is intended to "structure growth to ensure that it is
not haphazard and that it supports broader planning objectives." Resolution 2003-252 outlines ten
criteria drawn from the General Plan that will be used to prioritize requests for residential building
t permits. Resolution 2003-252 provides for implementation through GMAS Development Agreements,
which will allocate building permits to developers. A copy of Resolution 2003-252 is included in
Appendix A-3 for reference.
May 11, 2004
� Chapter 2
1
1
1
f
s
t
u
1
0
.1
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 2 -1
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements and Costs Draft
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements and Costs
2.1 Introduction
This Chapter describes the capital facilities included in this Finance Plan and their costs. New development
will contribute to the costs of these facilities based on the impact it creates.
Capital Facility information was gathered from a range of sources including:
• City of Rohnert Park General Plan, July 2000, Third Edition ("General Plan")
• City of Rohnert Park, 5 -year CIP Budget for Fiscal Year 2003/04
• Crane Transportation Group, Final Summary of Traffic Modeling Results, February 19, 2004
• City Rohnert Park Water, Sewer, and Storm Water Model Studies all under development
• City of Rohnert Park Engineering Department, personal communication .
Because the City currently has utility system planning efforts in progress and because the overall impacts of
the proposed Casino are not yet defined, additional capital facilities may be added to this Finance Plan at a
future date. All additional facilities and their cost impacts will be analyzed in accordance with Government
Code 66000 et.seq. (the "Mitigation Fee Act") and are subject to public hearing and review before formal
addition to the Finance Plan.
Facilities in this Finance Plan may also be described as "unfunded" meaning that they meet the reasonable
relationship test of the Mitigation Fee Act but there is either insufficient cost information or it appears
economically prohibitive to include them in the Finance Plan Program at this time. The City reserves the right
to apply surplus Mitigation Fee revenue to "unfunded" facilities at a future date.
2.2 Nature of Improvements
Within its General Plan, the City has adopted policies to assure that new development pays for the
infrastructure and service impacts it creates and that adequate infrastructure and services are in place before
new development occurs. While each individual development will be required to provide adequate onsite
infrastructure and recreational facilities, the General Plan also identified the need to expand citywide networks
(such as transportation, utilities, and public safety and services) to support planned growth. The purpose of this
Finance Plan is to provide a mechanism for new development to pay its fair share of improvements that are
generally located outside the physical boundaries of a specific development proposal.
The General Plan provided guidance on overall infrastructure needs. The Specific Plan process is currently
proceeding and the City and the development community have refined the General Plan guidance and
developed a list of facilities for inclusion in this plan. Facilities are grouped in seven major categories:
• Roadway Improvements
• Public Safety Improvements
• Public Facilities Improvements
• Parks & Recreation Improvements
• Utilities Improvements
• Utility Modeling and System Planning Studies
• Regional Transportation Improvements
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 2 - 2
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements and Costs Draft
This Chapter and its accompanying Appendix B provide narrative descriptions, graphic representations, and
quantity estimates for the proposed improvements as they are currently understood. However, because many
of the proposed facilities are still the subject of environmental documentation under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), alignments and construction strategies may be refined in the future.
The descriptions and illustrations included in this Finance Plan are intended to present the basis of the cost
estimates, not to commit the City or the development community to a particular construction strategy. As
environmental documentation is completed, the Finance Plan estimates may be updated to reflect the approved
alignments and construction strategies.
2.3 Basis of Costs
The facilities proposed for inclusion in the Finance Plan are all in the planning stage. Cost estimates have been
developed by reviewing the proposed design criteria (described below and illustrated in Appendix B),
reviewing construction cost databases available to Harris & Associates, the City, and developer representatives
and utilizing standard estimating guidance such as the Means Construction Cost Index. The unit costs applied
to the roadway cross sections were peer-reviewed by a construction contractor.
The cost estimating approach used is based on guidelines developed by the American Association of Cost
Engineers (AACE). AACE has developed definitions for levels of accuracy commonly used by professional
cost estimators. The AACE defined the three levels of cost estimates as order -of -magnitude, budget, and
definitive estimates. The costs presented here are best characterized as order -of magnitude estimates. An order -
of -magnitude estimate is made without detailed engineering data. Some examples include:
• An estimate from cost capacity curves
• An estimate using scale -up or scale -down factors
• An approximate ratio estimate
Typically, an order -of -magnitude estimate is prepared at the end of the schematic design phase of the design
delivery process. It is normally expected that an estimate of this type would be accurate within plus 50 percent
to minus 30 percent of the estimated cost.
Finance Plan cost estimates can be found in Appendix B. Appendix B also includes the current Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index ("ENR CCI"). The City's implementing ordinance may allow
improvement costs and fees to be updated by the ENR CCI ratios annually to stay current with inflation.
2.4 Land Acquisition and Rights -of -Way
The Finance Plan includes land acquisition costs for some Roadway Improvements, the new Westside Public
Safety Station the Community Fields, the eastside sewer main and the Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive
Interchange. Other land acquisition and right of way costs are not included. It is assumed that the needed new
right-of-way, which is almost exclusively associated with roadways, will be dedicated by the adjoining
property owners as a condition of development. This is consistent with General Plan Policy TR -4 that requires
right of way dedication as a condition of development.' Table 2-1, below, provides a listing of the anticipated
right-of-way needs for the roadway and utility improvements.
1 Our Place ... Rohnert Park 2020 A Plan for the Future, General Plan, Third Edition; adopted July 2000, pg 4-11.
May 11, 2004
r
1
1
[i
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 2 - 3
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements and Costs Draft
Table 2-1
Right -of -Way Acquisition Assumptions
Description
Proposed
Width
Dedication/Acquisition
Required of Specific
Plan Areas
Off -Site Right
of -Way
Required
Existing
Right -of-
Way 1
Required
Right -of -
Way 2
Roadways
Roadway Segment 1 - Bodway Parkway
56 feet
no
no
116 feet
0
Roadway Segment 2 - Commerce Blvd.
56 feet
no
no
80+ feet
0
Roadway Segment 3 - Dowdell Avenue
60 feet
yes
no
NA
0
Roadway Segment 4 - Dowdell Avenue
60 feet
yes
no
NA
0
Roadway Segment 5 - East Cotati Avenue
100 feet
no
yes
68 feet
32 feet
Roadway Segment 6 - Golf Course Drive
100 feet
no
no
116 feet
0
Roadway Segment 7 - Keiser Avenue
56 feet
yes
no
NA
0
Roadway Segment 8 - Rohnert Park Expressway
100 feet
yes
no
NA
0
Roadway Segment 9 - Seed Farm Drive
60 feet
no
yes
80 feet (typ)
60 feet
Roadway Segment 10 - Synder Lane
100 feet
yes
no
NA
0
Roadway Segment 11 - Synder Lane
100 feet
no
yes
62 feet
38 feet
Roadway Segment 12 - Synder Lane
100 feet
no
yes
62 feet
38 feet
Roadway Segment 13 - Wilfed Avenue
100 feet
yes
no
NA
0
Utilities
Water Main
NA
no
no
NA
0
Recycled Water Main
NA
no
no
NA
0
Sewer Main
30 feet
no
no
15 feet
15 feet
(1) Existing Right -of -Way Information developed from Sonoma County Assessor's Maps using graphic scale.
(2) Required Right -of -Way Information from estimating templates in Appedix B
' 2.5 Roadway Improvements
rovements
Finance Plan Roadway Improvements include new and modified roadways, new and modified traffic signals,
bridge widenings and an overcrossing all located on the City's arterial/collector network. Figure 2.1 illustrates
the roadways. Figure 2.2 illustrates bridge widenings and the overcrossing. Figure 2.3 illustrates new modified
r; traffic signals.
Appendix B includes illustrations of the various roadway cross sections, which are in general conformance
1 with the General Plan. Table 2-2, below provides a summary cost estimate of the proposed Roadway
Improvements. Appendix B contains the detail.
IMay 11, 2004
pgpk
LEGEND:
LL
O
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
1. BODWAY PKWY
(Between Valley House Dr & Railroad Ave)
2. COMMERCE BLVD ;
(Between Copeland Creek & Arlen Ave)
3. DOWDELL AVEo �•
(Between Wilfred Av.& 750 ft South of Wilfred Av.)
4. DOWDELL AVE
(Between 750 ft South of Wilfred Av.& Business Pa Dr)
5. EAST COTATI AVE
(Between Roadway Pkwy & Petaluma Hill Rd)
6. GOLF COURSE DRIVE
(Between Fairway Dr & Country Club Dr)
7. KEISER AVE
(Between Snyder Ln & Petaluma Hill Rd)
8. ROHNERT PARK EXPRESSWAY
(Between Snyder Ln & Petaluma Hill Rd)
9. SEED FARM
(Between Rohnert Park Expwy & Enterprise Dr)
10. SNYDER LN
(Between South Side of "G" Section & North Side of Creek Middle School)
11. SNYDER LN
(Between South Side of Creek Middle School & Medical Center Dr)
12. SNYDER LN
(Between Medical Center Dr & SouthWest Blvd.)
13. WILFRED AVE
(Between 1999 City Limits & Urban Growth Boundary)
& Associates
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
El
99
HOUSE
OF INFLUENCE
Fig: 2.1
Rohnert Park Finance Plan
Roadway Improvements Key Map
1
1
1
a
11
4. SYNDER LN CRANE CREEK
5. SYNDER LN FIVE CREEK
6. SYNDER LN HINEBAUGH CREEK
7. STATE FARM DR HIGHWAY 101
H'a.Mr-is &Aszocnatwesil
1
Fig: 2.2
Rohnert Park Finance Plan
Bridge & Overcrossing Improvements Key Map
LEGEND: '
1. BODWAY PKWY & - EAST COTATI AVE
2. BODWAY PKWY & CAMINO COLLEGIO
3. BODWAY PKWY & VALLEY HOUSE DRIVE
4. BODWAY PKWY & RAILROAD AVE
5. COMMERCE BLVD & AVRAM AVE
6. COMMERCE BLVD & ALISON DR
7. DOWDELL AV & WILFRED AVE
8. ELEANOR AV & ROHNERT PARK EXPWY
9. LABATH AV & WILFRED AVE
10. PETALUMA HILL RD & KEISER AVE
11. PETALUMA HILL RD & ROHNERT PARK EXPWY
12. PETALUMA HILL RD & EAST COTATI AVE
13. PETALUMA HILL RD & VALLEY HOUSE
14. PETALUMA HILL RD & RAILROAD AVE
15. REDWOOD DR & WILFRED AVE
16. SEED FARM & ROHNERT PARK EXPWY
17. SEED FARM & ENTERPRISE DR
18. SNYDER LN & ELEANOR AV
19. SNYDER LN & KEISER AV
20. SNYDER LN & ROHNERT PARK EXPWY
21. SNYDER LN & SOUTHWEST BLVD
22. STONY POINT RD & WILFRED AVE
I1
Fig: 2.3
Ham ----'s & soc—tak s Rohnert Park Finance Plan
Traffic Signal Improvements Key Map
11
'r�
11
i
11
J
1
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities°Finance Plan Page 2 - 4
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements and Costs Draft
Table 2-2
Roadway Improvements and Costs
Facility
Proposed
Project Costs
Roadway Improvements
Roadways
$
30,268,900
Traffic Signals
$
3,256,500
Brid es
$
1,531,000
State Farm Dive Overpass
$
9,818,000
The Roadway Improvements included in the Finance Plan generally follow Chapter 4 - Transportation of the
General Plan. The General Plan analysis included a detailed traffic modeling effort and established Level of
Service C as the generally acceptable design standard .2 General Plan Table 4.1-2 specifies roadways and
intersections where exceptions to this standard are allowed. General Plan Table 4.1-4 specifies the roadway
improvements that are needed to support planned growth.
After the General Plan was approved, the City made adjustments to its sphere of influence that eliminated
planned industrial development in the Southeast Specific Plan Area. Because of this change, the Finance Plan
effort included an update of the traffic model to verify the planned Roadway Improvements. This update effort
resulted in a reduction of the proposed width of Bodway Parkway and Valley House Drive. This update effort
also indicated that the Level of Service C standard, established by General Plan Policy TR -1 could be met
without the construction of the State Farm Drive Overcrossing. The City has requested that the facility
continue to be included in the planning analysis in order to provide for flexibility in responding to potential
intensification of land uses beyond the Northwest Specific Plan Area. Appendix C provides a summary of the
traffic modeling effort that supports this Finance Plan and describes the technical justification for the
improvements.
General Plan Table 4.1-4 includes three 2 -lane roadway segments (Eleanor Avenue, New Linear Park Road
and Labath Avenue) that are wholly contained within Specific Plan Areas. These roadway segments are not
included in the Finance Plan because they will be constructed as part of the on-site improvements in these
areas. General Plan Table 4.1-4 also includes two roadway segments within the Cannon Manor Specific Plan
Area (Alice Drive and Sturdevant Drive). As noted in Chapter 1, the City has a separate agreement with the
County regarding Cannon Manor and these improvements are not included in the Finance Plan.
The planned roadway improvements include intersection and traffic signal improvements necessary to
maintain Level of Service C. Bridge widenings are included where roadway widenings are warranted. Finally
the roadway improvements include the construction of bicycle system elements consistent with the Bicycle
System outlined in Figure 4.4-1 of the General Plan.
2.6 Public Safety Improvements
Finance Plan Public Safety Improvements include expansion of a Fire Station to serve new development east
of Highway 101, construction of a new fire station to serve new and existing users west of Highway 101, and
training facilities to support the City. Figure 2.4 illustrates the location of the proposed public safety facilities.
Descriptions of the basic design parameters and a summary cost estimate are included below. Appendix B
provides detailed cost estimates.
2Our Place ... Rohnert Park 2020 A Plan for the Future, General Plan, Third Edition; adopted July 2000, pg 4-10.
May 11, 2004
Fig: Z4
inHA�is & Associates, Rohnert Park Finance Plan
Public Safety Improvements Key Map ,
1
t
11
1
City of Rohnert Park Public FacilitiesPae2-5lities Finance Plan g
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements and Costs Draft
Table 2-3
Public Safety Improvements and Costs
Facility
Proposed
Project Cost
Public Safety
New West Side Safety Station
$ 5,140,000
Station Four Expansion
$ 728,000
Training Facilities
$ 2,197,500
New Westside Safety Station: This improvement includes building a new four to six bay station with
dormitory space for four to six firefighters. This station is necessary to meet the five-minute response
time criteria established by industry standards and Insurance Service Office, Inc. The station will be
located west of Hwy 101 in the Wilfred/Dowdell area.
Station Four Expansion —Maurice Station: This expansion will add at least one additional bay, to
house a total of two engines (first run and reserve), increased office space, and sleeping quarters for
four firefighters.
Training Facilities: These facilities will include a classroom for up to 50 students, a 90,000 square
foot exterior training area, and a three-story training tower. The facilities will be located adjacent to the
new Westside Station.
Public Safety Improvements are included in the Finance Plan if their construction is necessary to maintain the
current level of service (measured in either response time or staff -to -population ratio) or if their construction is
part of the City's overall plan for service.
2.7 Public Facilities Improvements
Finance Plan Public Facilities Improvements include a new City Hall and expansion of the City's Corporation
Yard. Figure 2.5 illustrates the location of the proposed public facilities. Descriptions of the basic design
parameters and a summary cost estimate are included below. Appendix B provides detailed cost estimates.
Table 2-4
Public Facilities Improvements and Costs
Facility
Proposed
Project Cost
Public Facilities
City Haill
$ 7,458,000
Corporation Yard Expansion
$ 853,450
�1
City Hall: This proposed facility will house all City administrative departments. Tentative plans call
for a 50,000 sq ft mixed-use building to include 20,000 square feet of commercial floor space and
30,000 square feet for City offices (only the public space is included in the Finance Plan). The facility
May 11, 2004
Fig: 2.5
Rohnert Park Finance Plan
H�a.�is .soC Public Facilities Improvements Key Map
11
1
r
r
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 2 - 6
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements and Costs Draft
is proposed to be located off Rohnert Park Expressway near the Public Safety building and the
Community Library.
Corporation Yard: The Finance Plan budgets for an expansion of the existing Corporation yard to
serve new development. The City may consider relocating and expanding the corporation yard, in
which case the budgeted costs for new development can be applied to the larger relocation
improvement.
Public Facility Improvements are included in the Finance Plan if their construction is necessary to maintain the
current. level of service (measured in staff -to -population ratio) or if their construction is part of the City's
overall plan for service.
2.8 Park & Recreation Improvements
Neighborhood parks will be constructed in Specific Plan Areas as conditions of development. Finance Plan
Park and Recreation Facilities include only facilities that have a community -wide use, including the planned
Community Fields, an expansion to the Senior Center, and improvements to the Community Center Campus,
particularly the addition of a lap pool. Figure 2.6 illustrates the location of the proposed Parks and Recreation
Improvements. Descriptions of the basic design parameters and a summary cost estimate are included below.
Appendix B provides detailed cost estimates.
Table 2-5
Parks & Recreation Improvements and Costs
Community Fields: The proposed Community Fields include lighted playing fields for various sports
(e.g. soccer, baseball, softball), a recreation building with restrooms, picnic areas, a playground,
jogging paths and possibly a skate park, turf area (for play during the rainy season), daycare center and
an Olympic -size swimming pool. The Community Fields facility is proposed to be located on 50 acres
on the east side of town north of Crane Creek and west of Petaluma Hill Rd.
Senior Center Expansion: The Senior Center is located at 6800 Hunter Drive. It currently occupies
10,000 square feet of a 19,000 square foot building that also houses the City's Finance Department.
The Finance Department will move to the new City Hall and the vacated space will be renovated for
the Senior Center.
Community Center Campus Improvements: The Community Center Campus is located at Rohnert
Park Expressway and Snyder Lane. The proposed improvements include a building to house an indoor
lap pool, Jacuzzi, and locker rooms
�' May 11, 2004
Proposed
Facility
Project Cost
Parks & Recreation
Community Fields
$ 21,759,000
Senior Center Expansion
$ 100,100
Community Center Campus
$ 3,406,000
Im rovements
Community Fields: The proposed Community Fields include lighted playing fields for various sports
(e.g. soccer, baseball, softball), a recreation building with restrooms, picnic areas, a playground,
jogging paths and possibly a skate park, turf area (for play during the rainy season), daycare center and
an Olympic -size swimming pool. The Community Fields facility is proposed to be located on 50 acres
on the east side of town north of Crane Creek and west of Petaluma Hill Rd.
Senior Center Expansion: The Senior Center is located at 6800 Hunter Drive. It currently occupies
10,000 square feet of a 19,000 square foot building that also houses the City's Finance Department.
The Finance Department will move to the new City Hall and the vacated space will be renovated for
the Senior Center.
Community Center Campus Improvements: The Community Center Campus is located at Rohnert
Park Expressway and Snyder Lane. The proposed improvements include a building to house an indoor
lap pool, Jacuzzi, and locker rooms
�' May 11, 2004
Fig: 2.6
Rohnert Park Finance Plan
Parks & Recreation Improvements Key Map
.1,
1
t
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 2 - 7
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements and Costs Draft
Parks & Recreation Improvements are included in the Finance Plan if their construction is necessary to
maintain the current level of service (measured proportionally to population) or if their construction is part of
the City's overall plan for service.
Utilities Improvements
Finance Plan Utilities Improvements include the extension of water, sewer, and recycled water mains to the
Eastside Specific Plan Areas and improvements to the City's main sewer trunk to the Subregional Water
Reclamation Plant. Figure 2.7 illustrates the location of the proposed utilities Descriptions of the basic design
parameters and a summary cost estimate are included below. Appendix B provides detailed cost estimates.
Table 2-6
Utilities Improvements and Costs
Facility
Proposed
Project Cost
Utilities
Recycled Water Main
$
764,400
Water Transmission Line
$
764,400
Sewer Main
$
6,558,600
Sewer Trunk
$
12,000,000
Recycled Water Main: The recycled water transmission main is estimated as 12 -inch diameter
pipeline beginning at Hinebaugh Creek west of the Northwest Pacific Railroad Tracks, continuing.
parallel to the railroad tracks to Rohnert Park Expressway and continuing along Rohnert Park
Expressway to Snyder Lane. At Synder Lane each of the eastside developments will use a different
alignment to bring recycled water to its property. These improvements are development specific and
not included in the Finance Plan.
Water Transmission: The water transmission main has been identified in the City's CIP list as an
aqueduct extension (CIP # WA -06). The water transmission main is estimated as a 12 -inch diameter
pipeline beginning at Hinebaugh Creek west of the Northwest Pacific Railroad Tracks, continuing
parallel to the railroad tracks to Rohnert Park Expressway and continuing along Rohnert Park
Expressway to Snyder Lane. At Synder Lane each of the eastside developments will use a different
alignment to bring recycled water to its property. These improvements are development specific and
not included in the Finance Plan
Sewer Main: The sewer main needed to serve new development in the Eastside Specific Plan Areas,
because adequate capacity is not available in the existing main. The wastewater main will start at
Snyder Lane, run west along the Rohnert Park Expressway right-of-way, continue northwest along the
Northern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, and under the freeway to J. Rogers Lane. Main diameter varies
from 18 to 30 inches. The estimate includes a jack -and -bore crossing of Highway 101 and the NPRR.
IMay 11, 2004
N
t
r
'M I HAS & ;I-Odades
A
Fig: 2.7
Rohnert Park Finance Plan '
Utilities Improvements Key Map
1
A
r
t
i
1
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 2 - 8
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements and Costs Draft
Sewer Trunk Line: This proposed improvement provides for an upgrade to the City's existing trunk
sewer from its pump station located in near the Wilfred Dowdell Specific Plan Area to the Subregional
Water Reclamation Facility. The upgrade will consist of a parallel sewer line. The existing facility
does not have adequate capacity to serve the City at buildout.
Utilities Improvements are included in the Finance Plan if their construction is necessary to serve new
development or if their construction is part of the City's overall plan for service.
2.10 Utility Modeling and System Planning Studies
The Finance Plan includes an allowance for water and sewer system studies and plans. These plans provide
information on the citywide utility network and improvements necessary to maintain levels of service. They
are included in the Finance Plan because they will provide information on capital and operational activities
necessary to serve new development and maintain overall system integrity. Each plan is estimated to cost
$200,000. A storm water model and system plan is also underway, however these costs are covered through
Zone 1A funding from the Sonoma County Water Agency and are not included in the Finance Plan.
2.11 Regional Transportation Improvements
Finance Plan Regional Transportation Improvements include a contribution to the regional traffic solutions for
Petaluma Hill Road at Penngrove and along East Cotati Avenue in Cotati. During its General Plan EIR
process, the City committed to be a "responsible party" in these developing regional efforts. At the City's
request, the Finance Plan also includes upgrades to the Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange. Table
2-7 below presents the cost estimates for these facilities.
Table 2-7
Regional Transportation Improvements and Costs
2.11.1 Petaluma Hill Road and East Cotati Avenue
These regional transportation improvements have been identified in both City and County planning
documents. However, the proposed design solutions for these improvements are not well developed.
Early cost data is available from the County's regional transportation planning agency and has been
carried forward but a range of costs should be anticipated as solutions are further developed. The
improvements are not located within the City limits or jurisdiction, raising questions about the City's
authority to collect fees for these improvements. Finally, at this time, the County is planning to use
other funding mechanisms, such as sales tax revenue, to fund Regional Transportation Improvements.
This strategy makes an overlying Mitigation Fee Program unnecessary. By carrying the facilities as
May 11, 2004
Proposed
Facility
Project Cost
Regional Transportation
Improvements
Petaluma Hill Road at Penn rove
$ 15,0 0 0,0 0 0
East Cotati Ave
$ 1,100,000
W ilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive
$ 40,000,000
Overcrossin
2.11.1 Petaluma Hill Road and East Cotati Avenue
These regional transportation improvements have been identified in both City and County planning
documents. However, the proposed design solutions for these improvements are not well developed.
Early cost data is available from the County's regional transportation planning agency and has been
carried forward but a range of costs should be anticipated as solutions are further developed. The
improvements are not located within the City limits or jurisdiction, raising questions about the City's
authority to collect fees for these improvements. Finally, at this time, the County is planning to use
other funding mechanisms, such as sales tax revenue, to fund Regional Transportation Improvements.
This strategy makes an overlying Mitigation Fee Program unnecessary. By carrying the facilities as
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 2 - 9
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements and Costs Draft
"unfunded" the City does preserve its ability to dedicate surplus Mitigation Fee revenue to these types
of improvements if that becomes appropriate in the future.
2.11.2 Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange
The Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange at Highway' 101 is a Caltrans facility that is
currently slated for improvements. The traffic model developed for the General Plan and updated for
this Finance Plan assumed that the planned improvements would be in place. The interchange
improvements are necessary in order to maintain the level of service goals established by General Plan
Policy TR -1. The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) has been actively working with
Caltrans to program improvements to Highway 101 and this particular improvement had been
programmed for construction in FY 2005-06. However, due to the current State budget crisis, the
improvements to the interchange have been deferred. Because these improvements are critical to the
City's overall transportation system, the City is including these improvements within the Finance Plan,
with a goal of securing funding through bond financing supported by both new development and
existing users. Chapter 4 presents a preliminary financing strategy for this improvement.
2.12 Summary
Table 2-8, on the following page, provides an overall summary of the Finance Plan Facilities and their costs.
This Table also includes information on the types of land uses that contribute the need for each capital
improvement and the geographic area that benefits from each capital improvement.
May 11, 2004
r
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 2 -10
Chapter 2 — Capital Facilities Requirements and Costs Draft
Table 2-8
Summary Cost Estimate
Facility
Proposed
Project Cost
Pt ercen
Total
Pmiprt
Contributing
Land Uses
Benefiting Area
Method of
Spread
Roadway Improvements
Roadways
$ 30,268,900
18.6%
All
City-wide
Trip Generation
Traffic Signals
$ 3,256,500
2.0%
All
City-wide
Trip Generation
Bridges
$ 1,531,000
0.9%
All
City-wide
Trip Generation
State Farm Drive Overpass
$ 9,818,000
6.0%
All
City-wide
Trip Generation
Public Safety
New West Side Safety Station
$ 5,140,000
3.2%
All
West of Hwy 101
Population
Station Four Expansion
$ 728,000
0.4%
All
East of Hwy 101
Population
Training Facilities
$ 2,197,500
1.30%
All
City-wide
Population
Public Facilities
City Hall
$ 7,458,000
4.6%
All
Ci -wide
Population
Corporation Yard Expansion
$ 853,450
0.5%
All New
City-wide
Population
Parks & Recreation
Community Fields
$ 21,759,000
13.3%
All Residential
City-wide
Population
Senior Center Expansion
$ 100,100
0.1%
All Residential
City-wide
Population
Community Center Campus
Improvements
$ 3,406,000
2.1 /o
All Residential
City-wide
Population
Utilities
Recycled Water Main
$ 764,400
0.5%
All New
Specific Plan Areas
East of Hwy 101
Population
Water Transmission Line
$ 764,400
0.5%
All New
Specific Plan Areas
East of Hwy 101
Population
Sewer Main
$ 6,558,600
4.0%
All New
Specific Plan Areas
East of Hwy 101
population
Sewer Trunk
$ 12,000,000
7.4%
All
City-wide
Population
Utility System Models & Studies
Water System Master Plan
$ 200,000
0.1%
All
City-wide
Population
Sewer System Master Plan
$ 200,000
0.1%
All
City-wide
Population
Storm Drainage Master Plan
$ -
0.0%
All
City-wide
Population
Regional Transportation
Improvements
Petaluma Hill Road at Penngrove
$ 15,000,000
9.2%
All
City-wide
Trip Generation
East Cotati Ave
$ 1,100,000
0.7%
All
City-wide
Trip Generation
Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive
Interchange
$ 40,000,000
24.5%
All
City-wide
Trip Generation
Total Facility Costs
$ 163,103,850
i 100%
May 11, 2004
Chapter 3
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 3-1
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities Preliminary Draft
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities
3.1 Purpose of the Nexus Findings
This chapter presents the findings necessary to establish Mitigation Fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee
Act (Government Code Section 66000 et.seq.). The chapter also outlines the proposed Mitigation Fees
assuming a "pay-as-you-go" program for capital improvement construction. Chapter 4 will outline potential.
financing strategies for capital facilities that do not lend themselves to a "pay-as-you-go" program.
3.2 Authority
An agency's ability to levy Mitigation Fees, also know as Development Impact Fees, is governed by the
California Government Code Section 66000 et. seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act adopted in 1989 through
Assembly Bill 1600 and amended in 1996 to cover additional financing requirements; hereinafter referred to
as the "Act"). The Act requires that any agency develop a "nexus" or reasonable relationship between
mitigation fees and required infrastructure. New development can only be required to pay its share of the
costs. Agencies must develop other funding sources for improvements or rehabilitation required for serving
the existing customer base. The Act specifically states that mitigation fees may not be used for general revenue
purposes. In addition, the Act requires regular accounting for expenditures from the mitigation fee funds, in
part in order to assure that services and infrastructure keep pace with demand.
3.2.1 Findings at Adoption
In order to adopt new Mitigation Fees a public agency must do the following:
• Identify the purpose of the fee.
• Identify the uses of the fee typically by reference to an approved Capital Improvement Program,
General Plan or other public document.
• Establish a reasonable relationship (or nexus) between the use of the fee and the type of
' development.
• Establish a reasonable relationship (or nexus) between the need for capital improvements and the
type of development.
• Establish a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the costs of the capital
improvements.
Because Mitigation Fees often finance multi-year capital improvement programs, an agency may
include an annual escalator within its fee calculation. The annual escalator must be reasonable and
must be identified during adoption. Mitigation Fees must be deposited in an identifiable "fund" and
fees within the fund can only be used for improvements identified within the initial adoption findings.
3.2.2 Annual Reporting Requirements
In addition to findings at adoption, public agencies that collect Mitigation Fees are required to make
regular accountings for the fees and their use at a public meeting. These annual requirements include:
• Identification of each Mitigation Fee and fund with a description.
• Identification of the amount of the fee.
• Statement of the beginning and ending fund balance for each fee account.
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 3-2
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities Preliminary Draft
• Identification of capital facilities funded by the fees and the percentage funded by the fee (for
example, a new City Hall might be funded 25% by mitigation fees and 75% by other City revenue
sources).
• Identification of the approximate time frame during which construction of improvements will
occur.
• Description of any inter -fund transfers or loans and when these loans will be repaid.
• Descriptions of any fee refunds that were made as a result of completion of identified capital
improvements.
3.3 Roadway Improvements
3.3.1 Definition of Facilities Included
The roadway improvements include the roadway segments, traffic signal installation and
modifications, bridge widenings, and bicycle paths described in Chapter 2. Cost estimate details are in
Appendix B.
3.3.2 Cost Allocation Factors
For roadway improvements, trip generation rates are used to create an equivalency relationship
between the various land use types in the City. The trip generation rates used in this study were
provided by Crane Transportation Group and are consistent with the traffic model used to size the
circulation network. The trip generation rates are outlined in Table 3-1 below.
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 3-3
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities Preliminary Draft
Table 3-1
Trip Generation Rates (Weekday)
Land Use
Number '
of Trips
Unit
Single Family
Residential
10.00
Dwelling Unit
Multi -Family
Residential
6.50
Dwelling Unit
Senior Housing
4.00
Dwelling Unit
Assisted Living
Facility
4.00
Dwelling Unit
Office
17.00
1,000 square feet
Hotel
18.00
1,000 square feet
Hotel w/ Conference
Center
20.40
1,000 square feet
Retail -Strip
Commercial
40.00
1,000 square feet
Retail -Shopping
Center
40.00
1,000 square feet
Industrial -Light
7.00
1,000 square feet
Industrial -Heavy
7.00
1,000 square feet
Warehouse
4.88
1,000 square feet
Educational
1.40
Student
Institutional &
Government
6.48
1,000 square feet
Recreational
4.10
Acre
3.3.3 Impact Zone Allocation
The proposed roadway improvements form the basis of the citywide circulation system. Costs are
allocated on a citywide basis; zones are not used to allocate improvement costs.
3.3.4 Fee Calculation
The estimated cost for roadway improvements in the Finance Plan is $35,056,400, excluding the State
Farm Drive Overcrossing. The State Farm Drive Overcrossing is discussed in Section 3.5 below. New
developments' share of the proposed roadway improvements includes facilities that are required only
for new development plus a fair -share of the facilities that are required for new development and
existing users. These are described below.
Facilities for New Development that are Funded by Development. A number of the facilities
proposed in the Finance Plan are required by development and would not otherwise be constructed by
the City. These include:
• All new and modified traffic signals;
• All widened bridges;
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 3-4
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities Preliminary Draft
• Mobilization, clearing and grubbing, and demolition on all roadway segments (except Golf Course
Drive);
• Medians and median landscaping on the roadway segments on all the roadway segments (except
Golf Course Drive);
• Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and curbside landscaping on the roadway segments on all the roadway
segments (except Golf Course Drive);
• Bike lanes on the roadway segments on all the roadway segments (except Golf Course Drive);
• Street lighting on the roadway segments on all the roadway segments (except Golf Course Drive);
• Utility extensions on the roadway segments;
• Off-site right-of-way acquisition.
Costs for these various items and components of construction can be obtained from the Cost
Estimating Templates included in Appendix B. Because Golf Course Drive is an existing, narrow
roadway segment within the City limits, the typical frontage improvements required of development
(medians, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, bikelanes and lighting) cannot be allocated to new
development because there is no development with frontage along this segment of Golf Course. All
costs for the planned Golf Course Drive improvements are allocated to all land uses based on their trip
generation rates.
Facilities Funded by Development and Existing Users (Shared Facilities): The cost of facility
components that are supported by new and existing development (shared facilities) can be calculated
by subtracting the cost of facilities that only serve development from the overall budget. For the all
roadway segments, except Golf Course Drive, these are the costs associated with roadway paving. All
costs for the Golf Course Drive improvements are shared costs. Table 3-2 illustrates this calculation
and arrives at a "shared facility budget of approximately $12.5 million.
Table 3-2
Roadway Facilities & Components
Development and Shared Costs
Facility or Component Estimated Costs
Costs Funded only by New Development
Traffic Signals $3,256,500
Bridges $1,531,000
Median and Frontage Improvements for New Development $19,202,300
Subtotal $23,989,800
otal Estimate for Roadway Improvements $35,056,4001
Costs Shared by New & Existing Development ("Shared Facilities") (1) $11,066,600
(1) Shared Facilites Cost is Total Estimate less Costs Funded by New Development
Allocating the Costs of the Shared Facilities: Shared facility budgets will be allocated to new
development and existing development based on the percentage of trips each development class
creates on the roadway and the proposed method of construction to be used on the roadway. For
example, if a roadway, like Keiser, is proposed to be completely reconstructed and new development
accounts for 85% of the trips on a given roadway segment, the development impact fee program would
support 85% of the cost. The City's share would be the remaining 15%. On the other hand, if traffic is
equally split between new and existing development and lanes are added to serve new development
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 3-5
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities Preliminary Draft
' while the existinglanes are overlaid the new development will a for the new lanes and the existing
� P pay g
development will pay for the overlays. The predicted traffic volumes and percentage allocations are
outlined in Table 3-3, following. Appendix C includes the detailed calculations and a summary of the
traffic modeling effort.
Mitigation Fee Calculation: Table 3-4, following, presents the traffic mitigation fee component, based
on the allocation strategy described above. The resulting fee per land use category is shown per
dwelling unit for residential land uses and per thousand square feet for non-residential land uses.
3.3.5 Nexus Findings for Roadway Improvements
Purpose of Fee: The purpose of the fee is to provide a citywide transportation network as required by
the General Plan. The elements include widening of existing roadways and bridges, construction of
new roadways and overcrossings, construction of new bike paths and bikeways, and modification and
installation of traffic signals.
Use of Fee: Revenue from fees will be used to fund the design and construction of improvements to
the citywide transportation network as described in the General Plan Chapter 4 - Transportation and
supporting reports including the updated traffic model prepared by Crane Transportation Group.
Relationship Between Use of Fee and Type of Development. The development of new and infill
residential and non-residential land uses will generate additional vehicular trips. The capacity of the
City's primary circulation system will need to be increased to maintain levels of service goals outlined
in the General Plan. The fees will be used to expand capacity allowing traffic flow patterns and levels
of service to meet the goals established in the General Plan.
' Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Improvement. Each new development project
will add to the incremental need for transportation system capacity as indicated by the traffic model. If
minimum levels of service are to be maintained, the transportation system must be expanded.
Relationship Between Amount of Fee and Cost or Portion of Facility Attributed to Development
Upon 91dch Fee is Imposed: The trip generation potential of each land use is used to measure the
relative impacts each new and existing land use has on the roadway network. Costs are allocated
across all land uses and across new and existing development.
3.4 Improvements Allocated on a Population Equivalency Basis
3.4.1 Definition of Facilities Included
The Finance Plan Improvements identified for Public Safety Facilities, Public Facilities, Parks &
Recreation, Utilities, and Utility System Models and Studies are all sized to reflect the impacts of
population. The nexus findings for these various improvements are outlined below.
3.4.2 Cost Allocation Factors
For capital improvements not related to transportation, population factors are used to create an
equivalency relationship between the various land use types in the City. Population factors used in this
study were developed in two ways. For residential land uses, the population factor is equal to the
May 11, 2004
Table 33
Roadway Segment Cost Allocations
segment
N-WOwab
SU-tNems
L"atim
Lmmth(rty
Cmb hwurr dOnly 7w Deo I"-ffl
ShwW Cset CslsuleWn
Shoed C"tANwaW (1)
P mo ot Total
MedCIea/DSs
MaI.,-Wewelke
CQ i
S
B9d"ee
.$"
um- L
-A -M a
Rv"-wN
TelaleOM'(ar
T.W EsffinW
Tod Shred
mmkw q
%New
Oardo0rr�ent
S6LN0 5�, DwslWineCt Ody
Devdean"t Sherod eW
1
BODWAY PARKWAY
Bdwe"Vdlsy Ha Or"d
P.e,.W Av
2,600
$5.37
$0.00
$4290
$108.11
$0.00
W26
$0.00
56279
$0.00 $
635,414 $
1,060,000 $
445,166
16.16%
atA4% $
50,87792 $
361,716.08 $
950_150
2
COMMERCE BOULEVARD
Aril" -Dr CMdao Creek -W
1,050$0.10
$18.56
$21.45
$63.05
$0.00
527.28
$0.00
$35.76
$0.00 $
202,146 S
498,700 S
296,564
71.63%
28.37% $
21;419.30 $
81.134.70 $
256,700
3
DOWDELLAVENUE
BW-Wefred Av. end750
n S euh d W Mrd Av.
750
$1190
$0.00
54290
$106.11
$0.00
$2726
5166.00
$41.66
$0.00 $
573,520 S
095,300 $
171,77a
0.00%
100.00% S
- S
171,777.50 $
685,300
Bebwn 750 nSaAh d
4
DOWDELLAVENUE
WNIWA-ABL h-
1_150
$9A9
$0.00
$1290
$100.11
$0.00
$27.28
$316.50
$41.56
$0.00 $
682660 S
921,100 S
241,450
0.00%
100.00% S
- S
241,450.00 $
924,100
Or.
6
EAST COTATI AVENUE
8.P,Wm He Rd Pkwyao
Peldume l46 Rd
2700
$073
$18.55
$21A5
$0.00
$21.45
$27.26
$0.00
$65.75
$1,040.00 $
3,241,485 $
4,011,500 $
777,016
71.63%
28.37% $
5_1,710.61 S
219,304.36 $
3,460,500
8
OOLFCOURSEDRNE
8 Fi �e6
4,200
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
50.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00 S
$
1,991AW $
1,99/,600
71.63%
n.37% $
1,422,87524 S
565_121.76 S
565,900
7
KEISERAVENUE
no
�Sp Rd
5,4W
$7.75
$0.50
$4290
$106.11
$0.00
$2730
$149.50
58279
$O.W S
2.140.07/ $
3.=.400 $
1,118,328
16.67%
53,37% $
186,757.67 $
931_135.33 $
3,072050
a
ROMNERTPARK
EXPRESSWAY
Belle" Sr0der LL nd
P.tft-ke Rd.
5,400
$2,36
$15.85
$21.45
$75.79
$0.00
$2736
$0.00
$179.10
$.50 S
1,706,156 S
3,518.900 $
1,730,744
6.00%
95.00% 5
88,53730 S
1,644_1D6.50 $
3,432100
9
SEED FARM
Belle" Roh w Pak EW"
1,300
$9A9
50.00
$4290
$106.11
$0.00
$2736
$310.50
$41.55
$510.00 S
1,772,956 $
1,624,500 S
251,044
73.42%
29.58% S
131,710.78 S
66,73332 S
1,439,750
Bebeen S.M silo d a
10
SNYDER4ANE
Secy" wo Norh Side d
CreaW" WWde Sdnd
4.400
$6.55
$15.88
$21A5
$0.00
S21A5
$2726
$0.00
$66.75
$0.00 5
71117/8 S
2,717,400 $
1,636.052
5.00%
95.00% $
810250 S
1954,249A0 $
2266,600
BaMea4 sadh gds dC.*
11
SNYDERIANE
SW. MIddb Sdvad end
1.100
$6.85
$18.Oe
$21A5
$0.00
521.45
$2736
$0.50
$55.76
$1=5.00 S
1,536.337 $
1,945,400 S
109,053
5.00%
95.00% $
20,453.15 $
369.509.85 $
1924,900
MedIcd Ce Dr.
12
SNYDERLANE
BeNve"Medied C" W.
.W SO.hn BM
2.900
$0.53
Stria
521.45
.50.00
WAS
$2738
$0.00'
585.78
51_175.50 $
4,049,415 S
5,050800 s
1,007,385
S.DD%
95.00% $
50.70935 $
957,015.75 S
5,008,400
13
W6FRE0 AVENUE
Urb�" OrohBBeredry sb
3,000
$14.16
$1aAa
$4290
$0.00
$4250
$51.52
516500
5771.56
50.50 $
2,718,750 $
3j10,OD0 $
887,210
7.87%
8277% $
76,06790 S
915,178.10 $
3_17]950
T-1.
36,050
$
19302364 S
3020.9001$
11,066,637
$2961.767.66
S9.104.655.841$
27,307,150
(7) P-tg fm C-A9xa"ne nem Trofc Mehl We ApPandb C). Aesc"f a wsi9hbd when=[.me taco euPport" evarley and naw devt.P tsuppab the egnbuetlendnaw lens
Road Improf tz with ROW AW Coal Aexa6ons m widening
Apr513.2004
W = M .= =! = =I ISI Mm M - M ! MIM IIS = M
Table 3-4
Roadway Improvements
Mitigation Fee Calcuation
Total Cost: $ 27,307,100 (1)
Cost per Trip Unit $245.05(2)
Land Use
Total New
Units
Trip
Generation
Rate
3
Total Trip
Units
Cost Per Land Use Unit
Single Family Residential units
1,956
` 10.00
19,560
$
2,451
Multi -Family Residential units
2,761
6.50
17,946
$
1,593
Senior Housing units
61
4.00
245
$
980
Assisted Living units
135
4.00
540
$
980
General Office thousandsquare feet
501
17.00
8,519
$
4,166
Hotel/Motel thousand square feet
124
18.00
2,228
$
4,411
Hotel w/ Conference Center thousand square feet
0
20.40
$
4,999
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
94
40.00
3,777
$
9,802
Shopping Center/Retail thousand square feet
1,234
40.00
49,349
$
9,802
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
1,324
7.00
9,269
$
1,715
Heavy Industrial (thousand square feet)
0
7.00
0
$
1,715
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
71
4.88
347
$
1,196
Education students
755
1.40
1,057
$
343
Park/Recreation (acres)
86
. 4.10
353
$
1,005
Total
111,433
Notes:
(1) Total Cost Allocated to New Development includes all traffic signals, bridges, medians, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping and right of way
[File]\Roadway Facilities April 13, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities
Page 3-6
Preliminary Draft
average household size as defined in the City's General Plan. Table 3-5(a) presents the population
factors used for residential land uses
Table 3-5 (a)
Population Factors for Residential Land Uses
Land Use
Common Use Factor
Peo le per House
Single -Family Residential 1
3.2 peo le/dwellin unit
Multi -Family Residential 2
2.0 people/dwelling people/dwellingunit
Assisted Living Facility
1.0 people/dwelling unit
(1) Includes Estate, Large Lot, Low Density, and Medium Density Residential.
(2) Includes Senior Housing
For non-residential land uses, a population factor has been developed that estimates the number of
employees per 1,000 square feet. The non-residential population factor was developed in the
following manner:
1. U.S. Census Bureau data was obtained that listed the average number of employees for various
types of non-residential land uses classes. This data is shown in Column (A) of Table 3-5(b).
2. This data was used to calculate an "average number" of employees per business. This average
number is 22.22 employees per business.
3. Next a "ratio to average" was calculated for each non-residential land use category. For example
the General Office category with an employee count of 9.26 employees per business has a ratio of
0.42 (9.26/22.22 average). The "ratio to average" illustrates whether a particular class of non-
residential land use can be expected to have more, less, or about the same number of employees as
the "average" business. Column (B) of Table 3-5(b) presents this "ratio to average" information for
each non-residential land use category.
4. Next the "ratio to average" was applied to the City of Rohnert Park's average employee density of
34.09 employees per acre'. For example, a General Office business that is expected to have 42%
of the average employee density would have 14.32 employees/acre in Rohnert Park (0.42 x 34.09
employees per acre on average). The results of this calculation are presented in Column (C) of
Table 3-5(b).
5. Column (D) presents employees per gross thousand square feet, which is simply a direct
conversion from acres to thousand square feet.
6. Finally, employees per developed thousand square feet is arrived at by multiplying the number in
Column (D) by the standard Floor Area Ratio for each land use class outlined in the General Plan.
Floor Area Ratio is the amount of a total site that can be devoted to developed buildings. For the
industrial land use classes, the Floor Area Ratio used in Table 3-5(b) is average of the minimum
and maximum approved ratio.
t City of Rohnert Park General Plan, Table 2.3-3.
May 11, 2004 1
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 3-7
Chapter 3 - Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities Preliminary Draft
Table 3-5 (b)
Population Factors for Non Residential Land Uses
(1) Based on U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Eoonomic Census Data. Mean is 22.22 and is the average of all employees per business.
(2) Average employees from General Plan "Table 2.3-3: General Plan Buildout: Population and Jobs," p. 2-27.
3.4.3 Impact Zone Allocation
The Public Safety Facilities do have impact zones. The areas west of Highway 101 support the
construction of the Training Facilities and the Westside Fire Station. The areas east of Highway 101
support the construction of the Training Facilities and the Station 4 expansion.
The proposed Public Facilities Improvements support the delivery of citywide services. No zones are
used to allocate improvement costs.
The proposed Park and Recreation Improvements support the citywide recreation system (local parks
are provided by each development). No zones are used to allocate improvement costs.
The proposed water, recycled water, and sewer mains provide service to only to the Specific Plan
Areas east of Highway 101. These costs are allocated only to new development in the Eastside
Specific Plan Areas.
The trunk sewer upgrade is a critical piece of the City's overall utility network and no impact zone is
used.
The models and planning studies support the citywide utility network. No zones are used to allocate
improvement costs.
' 3.4.4 Fee Calculation
The estimated cost for public safety in the Finance Plan is $8,065,500. Tables 3-6, 3-7, and 3-8
following, outline the allocation of new development's cost to each category of land use. The resulting
fee per land use category is shown per dwelling unit for residential land uses and per thousand square
feet for non-residential land uses.
1 May 11, 2004
C
B
Employee
D
A
Ratio to Average
Intensity/Acre
Employee
E
F
Land Use
Employees Per Business (1)
(A/ 22.22 employees
(B x 34.09
Intensity/gross 1000 sf
Floor Area
Employees
per average)
employees per
(C/43,560 *1000)
Ratio
per 1000 sf
acre in Rohnert
Park)
General Office
9.26 employeestbusiness
0.42
14.32
0.3287
1.00
0.328
Hotel/Motel
44.83 employeesibusiness
2.02
68.86
1.5808
1.50
1.053
Strip Retail
20.86 employees/business
0.94
32.04
0.7355
0.40
1.838
Shopping Center Retail
20.40 ernployeestbusiness
0.92
31.36
0.7199
0.40
1.799
Light Industriall
13.93 employees/business
0.63
21.481
0.4931
0.75
0.657
Heavy Industriall
13.93 enployees/business
0.63
21.!j0.4931
0.7
0.657
Warehousd
13.93 employees/business
0.63
21.41
0.4931
0.7q
0.657
(1) Based on U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Eoonomic Census Data. Mean is 22.22 and is the average of all employees per business.
(2) Average employees from General Plan "Table 2.3-3: General Plan Buildout: Population and Jobs," p. 2-27.
3.4.3 Impact Zone Allocation
The Public Safety Facilities do have impact zones. The areas west of Highway 101 support the
construction of the Training Facilities and the Westside Fire Station. The areas east of Highway 101
support the construction of the Training Facilities and the Station 4 expansion.
The proposed Public Facilities Improvements support the delivery of citywide services. No zones are
used to allocate improvement costs.
The proposed Park and Recreation Improvements support the citywide recreation system (local parks
are provided by each development). No zones are used to allocate improvement costs.
The proposed water, recycled water, and sewer mains provide service to only to the Specific Plan
Areas east of Highway 101. These costs are allocated only to new development in the Eastside
Specific Plan Areas.
The trunk sewer upgrade is a critical piece of the City's overall utility network and no impact zone is
used.
The models and planning studies support the citywide utility network. No zones are used to allocate
improvement costs.
' 3.4.4 Fee Calculation
The estimated cost for public safety in the Finance Plan is $8,065,500. Tables 3-6, 3-7, and 3-8
following, outline the allocation of new development's cost to each category of land use. The resulting
fee per land use category is shown per dwelling unit for residential land uses and per thousand square
feet for non-residential land uses.
1 May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 3-8
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities Preliminary Draft
The estimated cost for Public Facilities in the Finance Plan is $8,311,875. Tables 3-9 and 3-10,
following, outline the allocation of estimated costs to each land use by the appropriate common use
factor. The resulting fee per land use is shown per dwelling unit for residential land uses and per acre
for non-residential land uses.
The estimated cost for park and recreation facilities in the Finance Plan is $25,265,100. Tables 3-11,
3-12, and 3-13, following, outline the allocation of estimated costs to each land use by the appropriate
common use factor. The resulting fee per land use is shown per dwelling unit for residential land uses
and per acre for non-residential land uses.
The estimated cost for utility improvements in the Finance Plan is $20,087,400. Tables 3-14,3-15,
3-16 and 3-17, following, outline the allocation of estimated costs to each land use by the appropriate
common use factor. The resulting fee per land use is shown per dwelling unit for residential land uses
and per acre for non-residential land uses.
The estimated cost for models and system planning studies in the Finance Plan is $400,000. Table
3-18 and 3-19, following, outline the allocation of estimated costs to each land use by the appropriate
common use factor. The resulting fee per land use shown per dwelling unit for residential land uses
and per acre for non-residential land uses.
3.4.5 Nexus Findings
Purpose of Fee:
• The purpose of the Public Safety Fee component is to provide improvements needed to support the
delivery of Police, Fire, and Emergency Response Service within the City in accordance with
established response standards and service levels.
• The purpose of the Public Facilities Fee component is to provide general public facilities (a City
Hall and Corporation yard expansion) necessary to serve the growing population of the City.
• The purpose of the Parks & Recreation Fee component is to develop community -wide park and
recreational facilities, including Community Fields, and expansions to the Senior Center and
Community Center Campus.
• The purpose of the Utilities Fee component is to provide extensions of water, recycled water, and
sanitary sewer mains to the eastside of the City and to provide for the upgrade of the City's main
trunk sewer.
• The purpose of the Utility System Models and Studies Fee component is to provide models and
system planning studies for the City's water and wastewater systems.
Use of Fee: Revenue from fees will be used to:
• Design and construct: one public safety station to serve the area west of Highway 101; an
expansion to existing Station 4 to serve the area east of Highway 101; and a public safety training
facility to serve the entire City.
Design and construct a new City Hall and expanded Corporation Yard to serve the entire City
May 11, 2004
i M. i i i i i i i i i MIi t
Table 3-6
Public Safety Improvements
Westside Fire Station
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 5,140,000
Cost Der CUF $447.93H)
Land Use
Units
(2)
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
Land Use
nit3
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Existing
New
New
Single Family Residential units
1,024
342
1.366
3.20
3.277
1,09
4,371
28.56%
9.54%1 $
1,467,777
$
490,215
$
1,433
Multi -Family Residential units
1,458
966
2,424
2.00
2,916
1,932
4848
25.41%
16.84% $
1,306,163
$
865,401
$
896
Senior Housing units
0
0
0
2.00
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
$
$
896
Assisted Living units
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
-
$
$
448
General Office thousandsquare feet
81
431
512
0.33
27
142
168
0.23%
1.24% $
11,916
$
63,539
$
147
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
0
114
114
1.05
0
120
120
0.00%
1.04% $
$
53,587
$
472
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
17
12
130
1.84
32
23
55
0.28%
0.20% $
14,188
$
10,240
$
824
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
147
68
215
1.80
264
122
386
2.30%
1.06% $
118,453
$
54,593
$
806
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
1,285
1,037
2,322
0.66
845
682
1 527
7.36%
5.94% $
378,441
$
305,493
$
295
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
$
$
295
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
0
42
42
0.66
0
281
28
0.00%
0.24% $
$
12,491
$
295
Education students
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
-
$
-
$
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00%1
0.00% $
0.00% $
$
$
$
$
Total
1
1
7,360
4,143
11,475
64.14%1
35.86%1$
3,296,938
$
1,843,068
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total Cost/Total Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people/land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the Land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\Westside Fire Station 5/5/2004
Table 3-7
Public Safety Improvements
Station 4 Expansion
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 728,000
Cost uer CUF $54.34(1)
Land Use
Units
l2)
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
Laud'iYse
3
Existing New Total
Existing
New Total
Existing New
Existing
New
New
Single Family Residential (units)
2,206
1 3.20
0
7,059
I
0
52.69% $
- $
383,609
$ 174
Multi -Family Residential (units)
1,795
2.00
0
3,590
0
26.80% $
- $
195,072
$ 109
Senior Housing (units)
61
2.00
0
122
0
0.91% $
- $
6,645
$ 109
Assisted Living (units)
135
1.00
0
135
0
1.01% $
- $
7,337
$ 54
General Office (thousand square feet)
70
0.33
0
23
0
1 0.17% $
- $
1,244
$ 18
Hotel/Motel (thousand square feet)
10
1.05
0
ill
0
0.08% $
- $
589
$ 57
Strip Retail (thousand square feet)
82
1.84
0
151
0
1.13% $
- $
8,195
$ 100
Shopping Center/Retail (thousand square feet)
1,166
1.80
0
2,099
0
15.67% $
- $
114,042
$ 98
Light Industrial (thousand square feet)
287
0.66
0
189
0
1.41% $
- $
10,249
$ 36
Heavy Industrial (thousand square feet)
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
-
$ 36
Warehouse (thousand square feet)
29
0.66
0
19
0
0.14% $
- $
1,022
$ 36
Education (students)
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00% $
- $
$
Park/Recreation (acres) i
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
01
0
0
0
0
0.00% $
0.00% $
- $
$
-
$
$
Total I
Ol
13,3971
0
1 99.86% $
- $
726,982
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total Cost/Total Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people/land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x. Common Use Factor for the Land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\Station 4 Expansion
5/5/2004
= MM MM MW WIMMMM IM
Ir Ir r tr Ir �Ir r rr lr r Ir Illllr ar Ilr r r llllr r. Ir
Table 3-8
Public Safety Improvements
Public Safety Training Facilities
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 2,197,500
Cost per CUF $35.03
Land Use
Units
l2)
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
Land Use
nit3
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Existing
New
New
Single Family Residential units
7,764
1,956
9,720
3.20
24,845
6,25
31,104
39.60%
9.98%1$
870,277
$
219,251
$
112
Multi -Family Residential units
8,213
2,761
10,974
2.00
16,426
5,52
21,948
26.18%
8.80% $
575,379
$
193,418
$
70
Senior Housing units
207
61
268
2.00
414
122
536
0.66%
0.19% $
14,502
$
4,284
$
70
Assisted Living units
0
135
135
1.00
0
135
135
0.00%
0.22% $
-
$
4,729
$
35
General Office thousandsquare feet
1,018l
501
1,519
0.33
335
165
499
0.53%
0.26% $
11,719
$
5,771
$
12
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
458
124
581
1.05
482
130
613
0.77%
0.21% $
16,893
$
4,570
$
37
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
507
94
601
1.84
932
174
1,106
1.49%
0.28% $
32,653
$
6,083
$
64
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
1,459
1,234
2,692
1.80
2,625
2,220
4,84
4.18%
3.54% $
91,966
$
77,781
1$
63
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
1,638
1,324
2,963
0.66
1,07
871
1,948
1.72%
1.39% $
37,736
$
30,497
$
23
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
$
$
23
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
1,490
711
1,561
0.66
979
47
1,026
1.56%
0.07% $
34,308
$
1,636
$
23
Education students
2,000
755
2 755
0.00
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
-
$
$
-
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
187
428
86
0
2731
428
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00%
0.00% $
0.00% $
$
$
$
$
Total
47,136
15,645
62,735
75.14%124.86%1$
1 651,125
$
546,384
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total Cost/Total Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people/land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the Land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Caics.xls\Training Facilities
5/5/2004
Table 3-9
Public Facilities Improvements
City Hall
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 7,458,000
Cost per CUF $ 118.88 (1)
Land Use
Units
C2)
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
Land' Use
3
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Existing
New
New
Single Family Residential units
7,764
1,956
9,720
3.20 1
24,845
6,259
31,104
39.60%
9.98% $
2,953,593
$
744,105
$
380
Multi -Family Residential units
8,213
2,761
10,974
2.00
16,426
5,522
21,94
26.18%
8.80% $
1,952,751
$
656,4321$
238
Senior Housing units
207
61
268
2.00
414
122
536
0.66%
0.19% $
49,218
$
14,537
$
238
Assisted Living units
0
135
135
1.00
0
135
135
0.00%
0.22% $
$
16,050
$
119
General Office thousandsquare feet
1,018
501
1,519
0.33
335
165
499
0.53%
0.26% $
39,770
$
19,585
$
39
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
458
124
581
1.05
4821
130
613
0.770/6
0.21% $
57,332
$
15,510
$
125
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
507
94
6011
1.84
932
174
1,10
1.49%
0.28% $
110,819
$
20,645
$
219
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
1,45
1,234
2,692
1.80
2,625
2,22
4,84
4.18%
3.54% $
312,117
$
263,976
$
214
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
1,63
1,324
2,963
0.66
1,077
871
1,948
1.72%
1.39% $
128,088
$
103,500
$
78
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
-
$
$
78
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
1,4901
71
1,561
0.66
979
47
1,026
1.56%
0.07% $
116,434
$
5,551
$
78
Education students
2,000
755
2,755
0.00
0
Ol
0
0.00%
0.00% $
$
$
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
187
428
86
Ol
273
4281
0.00
0.00
01
0
01
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00%
0.00% $
0.00% $
$
$
$
$
Total
47,136
15 645.
62,735
75.14%124.86%, $
5,603,668
1 $
1,854,340
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total CosttTotal Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people/land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the Land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\City Hall
5/5/2004
Ili IM =1110111111 i .ate M M M IMI M M lid = 111111110 = = = IIIA
Table 3-10
Public Facilities Improvements
Corporation Yard Expansion
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 853,450
Cost per CUF $54.550)
Land Use
Units
C2)
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
Land' Yse
3
Existing New Total
Existing
New Total
Existing New
Existing
New
New
Single Family Residential (units)
1,956
3.20
0
6,259
0
40.01% $
- $
341,449
$
175
Multi -Family Residential (units)
2,761
2.00
0
5,522
0
35.29%1$
- $
301,219
$
109
Senior Housing (units)
61
2.00
0
122
0
0.78% $
- $
6,671
$
109
Assisted Living (units)
135
1.00
0
135
0
0.86% $
- $
7,365
$
55
General Office (thousand square feet)
501
0.33
0
165
0
1.05% $
- $
8,987
$
18
Hotel/Motel (thousand square feet)
124
1.05
0
130
0
0.83% $
- $
7,118
$
57
Strip Retail (thousand square feet)
94
1.84
0
174
0
1.11% $
- $
9,474
$
100
Shopping Center/Retail (thousand square feet)
1,234
1.80
0
2,22
0
14.19% $
$
121,131
$
98
Light Industrial (thousand square feet)
1 324
0.66
0
871
0
5.56% $
$
47,494
$
36
Heavy Industrial (thousand square feet)
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
$
36
Warehouse (thousand square feet)
71
0.66
0
47
0
0.30% $
- $
2,547
$
36
Education (students)
755
0.00
0
01
0
0.00% $
$
$
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
860.00
0
0.00 1
0
0
0
01
0
0.00% $
0.00% $
- $
$
$
$
Total
I
I 1
0
15,6451
01
99.70% $
$
850,908
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total CostlTotal Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people1land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the Land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\Corporation Yard Expansion 5/5/2004
Table 3-11
Parks & Recreation Improvements
Community Fields with Pool
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 21,759,000
Cnst nor CI IF _Q.3dii RA !11
Land Use
Units
CUF
(2)
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
Land Use
Unit
3
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New I
Total
Existing
New
Existing
New
New
Single Family Residential units
7,764
1,956
9,720
3.20 1
24,845
6.2591
31,104
39.60%
9.98%1$
8,617,219
$
2,170 954
$
1 110
Multi -Family Residential units
8,213
2,761
10,9
2.00
16,426
5,522
21,948
26.18%
8.80% $
5,697,226
$
1,915,165
$
694
Senior Housing units
207
61
268
2.00
414
122
536
0.66%
0.19% $
143,593
$
42,412
$
694
Assisted Living units
0
135
135
1.00
0
135
135
0.00%
0.22% $
$
46,824
$
347
General Office thousandsquare feet
1,018
501
1.519
0.33
335
165
499
0.53%
0.26% $
116,030
$
57,139
$
114
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
458
124
581
1.05
482
130
613
0.77%
0.21% $
167,267
$
45,251
$
366
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
507
94
6011
1.84
932
174
1,1 D6
1.49%
0.28% $
323,319
$
60,231
$
638
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
1,459
1,23
2,69
1.80
2,62
2,220
4,846
4.18%
3.54% $
910,612
$
770,159
$
624
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
1.638
1,324
2,96
0.66
1,07
871
1,94
1.72%
1.39% $
373,643
$
301,965
$
228
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
$
$
228
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
1,490
71
1.561
0.66
979
47
1,026
1.56%
0.07% $
339,701
$
16,194
$
228
Education students
2,000
755
2,755
0.00
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
$
$
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
187
428
86
0
273
428
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
Oi
0.00%
0.00%
0.00% $
0.00% $
$
$
-
$
$
Total
1
1
47,1361
15.6451
62,7351
75.14%1 24.86%1$
16,348,909
$
5,410,100
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total Cost/Total Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people/land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\Community Fields with Pool
5/5/2004
= m m m = .= = IIS 11111IN i = = == m r Ili = =
Ir rl■ r I� ra IIIA l� ll� Ir r a• r .+■� r llllr I� � I. r
Table 3-12
Parks & Recreation Improvements
Senior Center Expansion
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 100,100
Cost per CUF $1.60 (1)
Land Use
Units
(2)
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
d Use
LaUnit
3
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Existing
New
New
Single Family Residential units
7,764
1,956
9,7201
3.20
24,845
6,259
31,104
39.60%
9.98%1 $
39,643
$
9,988
$ 5
Multi -Family Residential units
8,213
2,761
10,974
2.00
16,426
5,522
21,948
26.18%
8.80% $
26,210
$
8,811
$ 3
Senior Housing units
207
61
268
2.00
414
122
536
0.66%
0.19% $
661
$
196
$ 3
Assisted Living units
0
135
135
1.00
0
135
135
0.00%
0.22% $
-
$
216
$ 2
General Office thousandsquare feet
1,018
501
1,519
0.33
335
165
499
0.53%
0.26% $
534
$
263
$ 1
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
458
124
581
1.05
482
1301
613
0.77%
0.21% $
770
$
209
$ 2
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
507
94
601
1.84
932
1,106
1.49%
0.28% $
1,488
$
278
$ 3
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
1,459
1,234
2,692
1.80
2,625
4,846
4.18%
3.54% $
4,190
$
3,544
$ 3
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
1638
1324
2,963
0.66
1,077
1,948
1.72%
1.39% $
1,719
$
1,390
$ 1
Hea Industrial thousands uare feet
0
0
0
0.66
0
t871
0
0.00%
0.00% $
$
$ 1
Warehouse thousands uare feet
1,490
71
1,561
0.66
979
1026
1.56%
0.07% $
1,563
$
75
$ 1
Education students
2,000
755
2 755
0.00
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
-
$
$
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
187
428
86
0
273
428
0.00
0.00 1
0
0
0
Oil
0
01
0.00%
0.000%
0.00% $
0.00% $
$
$
$
$
Total
47,136
15,645
62,735
75.14% 24.86% $
75,215
$
24,895
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total Cost/Total Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people/land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the Land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\Senior Center Expansion 5/5/2004
I
Table 3-13
Parks & Recreation Improvements
Community Center Campus Improvements
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 3,406,000
Cost Der CUF $54.29 (1)
Land Use
Units
CZ)
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
LandUse
nit3
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Existing
New
New
Single Family Residential units
7,764
1,95
9,720
3.20
24,845
6,259
31,1041
39.60%
9.98% $
1,348,879
$
339,826
$
174
Multi -Family Residential units
8,213
2,761
10,974
2.00
16,426
5,52
21,948
26.18%
8.80% $
891,804
$
299,787
$
109
Senior Housing units
207
61
268
2.00
414
122
536
0.66%
0.19% $
22,477
$
6,639
$
109
Assisted Living units
0
135
135
1.00
0
135
135
0.00%
0.22% $
$
7,330
$
54
General Office thousandsquare feet
1,018
501
1,519
0.33
335
165
499
0.53%
0.26% $
18,163
$
8,945
$
18
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
458
124
581
1.05
4821
130
613
0.77%
-0.21% $
26,183
$
7,084
$
57
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
507
94
601
1.84
932
1741
1,1G6
1.49%
0.28% $
50,610
$
9,429
$
100
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
1,459
1,234
2,692
1.80
2,625
2,220
4,846
4.18%
3.54% $
142,541
$
120,556
$
98
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
1,638
1,324
2,96
0.66
1,077
871
1,948
1.72%
1.39% $
58,488
$
47,268
$
36
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
$
$
36
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
1,490
71
1561
0.66
979
47
1,026
1.56%
0.07% $
53,175
$
2,535
$
36
Education students
2,000
755
2,75
0.00
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
$
$
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
187
428
86
0
2731
428
.00
0.00
00
0
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00%
0.00% $
0.00% $
-
$
$
$
$
Total
1
47,1361
15,6451
62,7351
75.14%
24.86%1$
2,559,145
$
846,864
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total Cost/Total Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people/land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the Land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\Community Center Campus Imps
5/5/2004
Table 3-14
Utilities Improvements
Recycled Water Main
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 764,400
Cost per CUF $82.41 (1)
Land Use
Units
�2I
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
La ud' Use
3
Existing New Total
Existing
New Total
Existing New
Existing
New
New
Single Family Residential units
2,206
1 3.20
0
7,059
0
76.11% $
- $
581,783
$
264
Multi -Family Residential units
966
2.00
0
1,932
0
20.83% $
- $
159,226
$
165
Senior Housing units
0
2.00
0
0
0
0.00% $
- $
-
$
165
Assisted Living units
0
1.00
0
0
0
0.00% $
- $
$
82
General Office thousandsquare feet
219
0.33
0
72
0
0.78% $
$
5,942
$
27
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
60
1.05
0
63
0
0.68% $
- $
5,212
$
87
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
0
1.84
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
$
152
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
83
1.80
0
149
0
1.60% $
$
12,240
$
148
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00% $
- $
-
$
54
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
$
54
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00% $
- $
$
54
Education students
0
0.00
01
01
0
0.00% $
$
$
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
1 0
0
0.00
0.00
01
01
0
01
0
01
0.00% $
0.00% $
$
$
-
I $
$
Total
0
9,275
0
100.00% $
$
764,403
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total Cost/Total Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people/land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the Land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\Recycled Water Main 5/5/2004
Table 3-15
Utilities Improvements
Water Transmission Main
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 764,400
Cost ner CUF $82.41 (1)
Land Use
Units
U
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
LaUd1 ase
3
Existing New Total
Existing
New Total
Existing New
Existina
New
New
Single Family Residential units
2,206
3.20
0
7,059
0
76.11% $
$
581,783
$264
Multi -Family Residential units
966
2.00
0
1,932
0
20.83% $
$
159,226
$ 165
Senior Housing units
0
2.00
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
$ 165
Assisted Living units
0
1.00
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
$ 82
General Office thousandsquare feet
219
0.33
0
72
0
0.78% $
$
5,942
$ 27
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
60
1.05
0
63
01
0.68% $
- $
5,212
$ 87
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
0
1 1.84
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
$ 152
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
83
1.80
0
149
0
1.60% $
$
12,240
$ 148
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
-
$ 54
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0.66
0
0
0
_0.00% $
$
$ 54
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
$ 54
Education students
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
$
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
2000
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00% $
0.00% $
- $
$
$
$
Total
1
1
0
9,2751
01
1 100.00%1$
$
764,403
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total CosttTotal Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people/land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the Land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\Water Transmission Main
5/5/2004
= = 11111110 1111110 = IIIA IIS 1111111115111111110 = 4111111101111110 == M'= =
rrr Ir r ir■ r I• rr r� Ir r Ir r irr ■r r Ir rr �■ r
Table 3-16
Utilities Improvements
Sewer Main
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 6,558,600
Cost per CUF $707.120)
Land Use
Units
C2)
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
La Ud' Yse
3
Existing New Total
Existing
New Total
Existing New
Existing
New
New
Single Family Residential units
2,2G6
3.20 1
0
7 059
0
76.11%1 $
- $
4,991 732
$
2.263
Multi -Family Residential units
966
2.00
0
1,932
0
20.83% $
$
1,366165
$
1.4141
Senior Housing units
0
2.00
0
0
0
0.00% $
- $
$
1 414
Assisted Living units
0
1.00
0
0
0
0.00% $
- $
$
707
General Office thousandsquare feet
219
0.33
0
72
0
0.78% $
$
50,979
$
232
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
60
1.05
0
631
0
0.68% $
$
44,714
$
745
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
0
1.84
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
$
1,300
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
83
1.80
0
149
0
1.60% $
- $
105,013
$
1,273
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
-
$
465
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
$
465
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00% $
- $
$
465
Education students
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00% $
$
$
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
Ol
0
0.00
0.00
00
0
0
0
0
0.00% $
0.00% $
- $
$
$
$
Total
01
9,2751
01
100.00%1$
1 $
6,558,603
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total Cost/Total Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people/land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the Land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\Sewer Main 5/5/2004
Table 3-17
Utilities Improvements
Sewer Trunk Line
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 12,000,000
Cost per CUF $191.28(1)
Land Use
Units
CZ)
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
Laud' Use
3
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Existing
New
New
Single Family Residential units
7,764
1,956
9,720
3.20
24,84
6,259
31,104
39.60%
9.98% $
4,752,361
$
1,197 272
$
612
Multi -Family Residential units
8,213
2,761
10,974
2.00 1
16,426
5,522
21,948
26.18%
8.80% $
3,141,997
$
1,056,206
$
383
Senior Housing units
207
61
268
2.00
414
122
536
0.66%
0.19% $
79,191
$
23,389
$
383
Assisted Living units
0
135
135
1.00
0
135
135
0.00%
0.22% $
$
25,823
$
191
General Office thousandsquare feet
1,018.
501
1,519
0.33
335
165
499
0.53%
0.26% $
63,991
$
31,511
$
63
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
458
124
581
1.05
482
1301
613
0.77%
0.21 % $
92,247
$
24,955
$
202
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
507
94
601
1.84
932
174
1 106
1.49%
0.28% $
178,309
$
331,216
$
352
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
1,459
1,234
2,692
1.80
2,625
2,220
4,8461
4.18%
3.54% $
502,199
$
424,739
$
344
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
1.63
1,324
2963
0.66
1,07
871
1,94
1.72%
1.39% $
206,063
$
166,532
$
126
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
-
$
$
126
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
1,490
71
1,561
0.66
979
47
1,02
1.56%
0.07% $
187,344
$
8,930
$
126
Education students
2,0001
755
2,755
0.00
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
-
$
$
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
1871
428
86
0
273
428
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0:00%
0.00%
0.00% $
0.00% $
-
$
$
$
$
Total
47,136
15,645
62,7351
75.14%1 24.86%1$
9,016,358
$
2,983,643
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total Cost/Total Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people/land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the Land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\Sewer Trunk Line
5/5/2004
I� � i I� � � � � ' A � � I• i � t• � i i
II. = IIIA M m m m. IIS ! m m m m m III. I. ll� �■
Table 3-18
Utility Modeling & System Planning. Studies
Water System Model and Plan
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 200,000
Cost per CUF $3.19(1)
Land Use
Units
�Z)
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share.
Cost Per
Laud Use
3
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New
Existing
New
New
Single Family Residential units
7,764
1,956
9,720
3.20
24,845
6,259
31,1041
39.60%
9.98%1 $
79,207
$
19,955
$
10
Multi -Family Residential units
8,213
2,761
10,974
2.00
16,426
5,522
21,948
26.18%
8.80% $
52,367
$
17,604
$
6
Senior Housing units
207
61
268
2.00
414
122
536
0.66%
0.19% $
1,320
$
390
$
6
Assisted Living units
0
135
135
1.00
0
135
135
0.00%
0.22% $
$
431
$
3
General Office thousandsquare feet
1,018
501
1,519
0.33
335
165
499
0.53%
0.26% $
1,067
$
526
$
1
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
458
124
581
1.05
482
130
613
0.77%
0.21% $
1,538
$
416
$
3
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
507
94
6011
1.84
932
1741
1,106
1.49%
0.28% $
2,972
$
554
$
6
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
1,459
1,234
2,692
1.80
2,625
2,22
4,846
4.18%
3.54%1 $
8,370
$
7,079
$
6
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
1,638
1,324
2,963
0 .66
1,077
871
1,948
1.72%
1.39% $
3,435
$
2,776
$
2
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
$
$
2
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
1,490
71
1,561
0.66
979
47
1,026
1.56%
0.07% $
3,123
$
149
$
2
Education students
2,0001
755
2,755
0.00
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
$
$
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
187
428
86
0
273
428
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
Oi
0.00%
0.00%
0.00% $
0.00% $
$
$
-
$
$
Total
47,136
15,645
62,735
75.14% 24.86%1 $
150,276
$
49,731
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total Cost/Total Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is people/land use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the Land Use
i
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.Xls\Water System Master Plan 5/5/2004
Table 3-19
Utility Modeling & System Planning Studies
Sewer System Model and Plan
Mitigation Fee Calculation
Total Cost: $ 200,000
Cns4 nor rl IF it3 4Q Ml
Land Use
Units
CUF
(2)
Total Common Use Factors
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost Per
Land Use
Unit
3
Existing
New
Total
Existing
New I
Total
Existing
New
Existing
New
Now
Single Family Residential units
7,764
1,956
9,7201
3.20
24,845
6,2591
31,104
39.60%
9.98%1 $
79,207
$
19,955
$ 10
Multi -Family Residential units
8,213
2,761
10,974
2.00
16,426
5,522
21,94
26.18%
8.80% $
52,367
$
17,604
$ 6
Senior Housing units
207
61
268
2.00
414
122
536
0.66%
0.19% $
1,320
$
390
$ 6
Assisted Living units
0
135
135
1.00
0
135
135
0.00%
0.22% $
-
$
431
$ 3
General Office thousandsquare feet
1,018
501
1,519
0.33
335
165
499
0.53%
0.26% $
1,067
$526
$ 1
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
458
124
581
1.05
482
130
613
0.77%
0.21% $
1,538
$
416
$ 3
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
507
94
601
1.84 1
932
174
1,106
1.49%
0.28% $
2,972
$
554
$ 6
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
1,45
1,234
2,692
1.80
2,625
2,220
4,846
4.18%
3.54% $
8,370
$
7,079
1$ 6
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
1,638
1,324
2,963
0.66
1,077
871
1,94
1.72%
1.39% $
3,435
$
2,776
$ 2
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
0
0
0
0.66
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
-
$
$ 2
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
1,490
71
1,561
0.66
979
47
1,026
1.56%
0.07% $
3,123
1 $
149
$ 2
Education students
2,000
755
2,755
0.00
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00% $
Is
$
Park/Recreation (acres)
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
187
428
86
0
273
428
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
0.00%
0.00% $
0.00% $
$
$
$
$
Total
I
1
1
47,1361
15,6451
62,735
75.14% 24.86% $
150,276
$
49,731
Notes:
(1) Cost per Common Use Factor is Total CostlTotal Common Use Factors
(2) Common Use Factor is peoplenand use unit
(3) Cost per Land Use Unit is Cost per Commoon Use Factor x Common Use Factor for the Land Use
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\Sewer System Master Plan
5/5/2004
Mll M i M =11 Il i M i M M lW M i M M M i M
Page 3-9
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Pa g
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities Preliminary Draft
• Design and construct Community Fields, an expansion to the Senior Center, and improvements to
the Community Center Campus to serve the entire City.
Design and construct three utility mains to serve development on the eastside of the City and
design and construct an upgrade of the main trunk sewer to serve the entire City.
• Support the preparation of the utility models and system planning studies to serve the entire City.
' Relationship Between Use of Fee and Type of Development
• The development of new residential and non-residential land uses in Rohnert Park will generate
demand for police, fire suppression, and emergency response services. The fees will be used to
design and construct the facilities necessary to maintain public safety service levels and response
time.
• The development of new residential and non-residential land uses in Rohnert Park will generate
the additional need for civic services. The fees will be used to construct facilities to house the
workers and equipment that deliver these services.
• The development of new residential and non-residential land uses in the City will increase the
demand for park and recreational facilities. The fees will be used to design and construct necessary
expansions and additions to the City's park and recreation facilities.
• The development of new residential and non-residential land uses in Rohnert Park requires
adequate utility service. The fees will be used to construct the mainline infrastructure necessary to
provide this service and to plan for provision of this service through models and studies of the
utility systems.
Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Improvement
Each new development project will generate additional demand for public safety services. Current
fire facilities are only adequate for existing residents and businesses, so the City must develop or
expand facilities to meet the needs of new development. Specifically, to maintain the City's
current level of service (response time), a fire station should be located within 1.5 miles of all new
development. To meet this standard, Rohnert Park will need a new station on the Westside of
Highway 101 and will need to expand its existing station east of Highway 101 to house the
additional staff and equipment necessary to support service to an increased population. The new
training facility is a City service standard, established by the General Plan, in order to provide
quality service to all land uses.
Each new development project will generate additional demand for public administrative and
operational services. Current public facilities are only adequate for existing residents and
businesses, so the City must develop or expand facilities to meet the needs of new development.
Specifically, to maintain the City's current level of service (staff and equipment per population),
additional workers and equipment will need to added and housed. To meet this standard, the City
needs additional office and corporation yard space.
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 3-10
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities Preliminary Draft
• Each new development project will generate additional demand for parks and recreation. Current
facilities are only adequate for existing residents and businesses, so the City must develop or
expand facilities to meet the needs of new development. Specifically, to maintain the City's
current level of service (facilities and programs per population), additional parks and recreational
centers are needed.
Each new development project (residential and non-residential) will generate additional demand
for utility service. Current utilities are only adequate for existing residents and businesses, so the
City must develop or expand the utility systems to meet the needs of new development.
Specifically, in order to deliver adequate water supply to the Eastside Specific Plan Areas, new
water and recycled water mains are needed. Likewise adequate sewer collection and treatment
cannot be provided without a new Eastside sewer main and new trunk sewer. Finally the trunk
sewer that connects the effluent from the City's pump station to the Laguna Treatment Plant, must
be upgraded to serve the flows generated by new and existing development.
• Each new development project (residential and non-residential) will generate additional demand
for additional utility service. Utility models and system planning studies will assist the City in
developing or expanding the utility systems to meet the needs of all users.
Relationship Between Amount of Fee and Cost of or Portion of Facility Attributed to Development
Upon Which Fee is Imposed. Population factors are used to measure the relative benefit of public
safety facilities, public facilities, parks and recreation facilities and utilities, utility system models and
studies.
• Costs for the Westside Public Safety facility are allocated across all land uses west of Highway
101 because the new facility will service both new and existing development on the West side.
• Costs for the Eastside facility are allocated across all new land uses east of Highway 101 only
(existing development is not included in the cost allocation). The Eastside expansion is only
necessary to serve new Eastside development.
• Costs for the Training Facilities are allocated to all land uses because it will serve new and existing
development.
• Costs for the new City Hall are allocated across all land uses because the new facility will service
both new and existing development.
• Costs for the Corporation Yard expansion are allocated across all new land uses only (existing
development is not included in the cost allocation). The expansion is only necessary to serve new
development.
• Costs for the Community Fields and the Community Center Campus Improvements are allocated
across all land uses because the new facility will service both new and existing development and
the facilities are available to persons who work in the City as well as persons who live in the City.
• Costs for the Senior Center expansion are allocated across all new land uses only (existing
development is not included in the cost allocation). The expansion is only necessary to serve new
development.
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 3-1.1
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities Preliminary Draft
• Costs for the eastside water, recycled water and sewer mains are allocated across all land uses in
the Eastside Specific Plan Areas (Northeast, University District and Southeast). These utilities are
only necessary to serve new Eastside development.
• The trunk sewer upgrade is a critical piece of the City's overall utility network and is allocated to
all land uses City-wide.
• The Utility System Models and Planning Studies are critical planning tools for the City and costs
are allocated to all land uses City-wide.
3.5 Unfunded Improvements
Chapter 2 presented a range of capital improvements that are needed to serve new development or mitigate its
impacts. In each case, reasonable relationships may be established between the proposed improvements and
new development. However in several cases, the proposed improvements are either not within the City limits
or may not be needed simply to mitigate the impacts of proposed new development. These facilities are
considered "unfunded" improvements within the Finance Plan. Specific unfunded improvements include the
following facilities:
The State Farm Drive Overcrossing: This improvement is not necessary to maintain the Level of Service
Standard set forth in the General Plan if development proceeds in accordance with the General Plan. However,.
the City is aware of pending regional land use proposals that will necessitate construction of this facility. The
facility is carried within the Finance Plan so that if adequate regional support develops, the City has a
mechanism for contributing the fair -share associated with its development.
Petaluma Hill Road at Penngrove: The City has committed to be a responsible participant in the eventual
design solution for improvements to the regional transportation system in this area. However, at the current
time the regional design solution and funding strategy is undefined. The facility is carried within the Finance
Plan so that if adequate regional support develops, the City has a mechanism for contributing the fair -share
associated with its development.
East Cotati Avenue in Cotati: The City has committed to be responsible participant in the eventual design
solution for improvements to the regional transportation system in this area. However, at the current time the
regional design solution and funding strategy is undefined. The facility is carried within the Finance Plan so
that if adequate regional support develops, the City has a mechanism for contributing the fair -share associated
with its development.
Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course -Drive Interchange: The City may elect to fund these facilities in the future
either through an update to the Finance Plan, where Mitigation Fees are increased after a public hearing or
with surplus Mitigation Fee revenues, should such be generated. Special considerations related to the bond
financing of the Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange are included in Chapter 4.
3.5.1 Nexus Findings for Unfunded Improvements
Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the fee is to provide a fair share contribution to Regional
Transportation Improvements at Petaluma Hill Road in Penngrove, along East Cotati Avenue, at the
State Farm Drive Overcrossing and at the Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange from new
development in Rohnert Park.
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 3-12
Chapter 3 — Nexus Findings for Capital Facilities Preliminary Draft
Use of the Fee: Fee revenues will be used to fund the fair share of the planning, design and
construction of improvements to Petaluma Hill Road at Penngrove, East Cotati Avenue, State Farm
Drive Overcrossing and Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange.
Relationship Between Use of Fee and Type of Development: The development of new and infill
residential and non-residential land uses in City will generate additional vehicular trips and the need
for roadway capacity to maintain Level of Service on the regional transportation network.
Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Improvement. Each new development project
will add to the incremental need for roadway capacity as indicated by the traffic model. If minimum
levels of service are to be maintained, the roadway system must be expanded.
Relationship Between Amount of Fee and Cost of Portion of Facility Attributed to Development
Upon Which Fee is Imposed. The trip generation potential of each land use is used to measure the
relative impacts each new and existing land use cause to the roadway network. Costs are allocated
across all new land uses.
3.6 Summary
Based on the findings, costs, and calculations discussed in this chapter, Table -3-20, following, summarizes
proposed Mitigation Fees for each land use category. The fees include a 3% allowance for costs of
administering the fee program. Fees are calculated by dwelling unit for all residential land uses, and per
thousand square feet for all non-residential land uses.
May 11, 2004
M = M
Table 3-20
� � � � � � I� � i� i� Ilililll>• � I�
Summary of Proposed Mitigation Fees
Regional Transportation Facilities not Included
A
B
C
D
Population Based
Mitigation Fee
Traffic
Mitigation
Fee
Subtotal Mitigation Fees
3% Administrative
Allowance
Total Mitigation Fee
Eastside Westside
Eastside
Westside
Eastside
Westside
Eastside
Westside
Single Family Residential units
$5,552
$4,02
$2,451
$8,003
$6,4721
$240
$194
$8,243
$6,666
Multi -Family Residential units
$3,470
$2,514
$1,593
$5,063
$4,106
$152
$123
$5,215
$4,23
Senior Housing units
$3,470
$2,514
$980
$4,451
$3,49
$134
$105
$4,584
$3,599
Assisted Living units
$1,735
$1,25
$980
$2,715
$2,23
$81
$67
$2,797
$2,30
General Office thousandsquare feet
$570
$413
$4,166
$4,736
$4,57
$142
$137
$4,878
$4,716
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
$1,829
$1,324
$4,411
$6,240
$5,735
$187
$172
$6,427
$5,908
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
$3,191
$2,311.
$9,802
$12,993
$12,113.
$390
$363
$13,383
$12,47
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
$3,123
$2,262
$9,802
$12,925
$12,064
$388
$362
$13,313
$12,426
Light Industrial thousandsquare feet
$1,141
$826
$1,71
$2,856
$2,542
$86
$76
$2,942
$2,618
Heavy Industrial thousandsquare feet
$1,141
$826
$1,71
$2,856
$2,54
$86
$76
$2,942
$2,618
Warehouse thousandsquare feet
$1,141
$826
$1,19
$2,33
$2,022
$70
$61
$2,407
$2,083
Education students
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Park/Recreation acres
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Agricultural/Rural (acres)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
April 13, 2004
Chapter 4
1
1
1
1I
' City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 4 -1
Chapter 4 - Funding and Financing Strategy for Capital Improvements Draft
Chapter 4 - Funding and Financing Strategy for Capital Improvements
1 4.1 Introduction
r
1
7
Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of this Finance Plan have developed the basis for establishing Mitigation Fees in the City
of Rohnert Park. Mitigation Fee revenue would be used to construct facilities necessary to serve both
anticipated infill development and planned development in Specific Plan, Areas in the City's sphere of
influence. Tables 471 (a), and 4-1(b), following, outline all facilities funded through the Finance Plan and
provides a breakdown of the cost share between new and existing development.
Table 4-1(a)
Roadwav Facilities in the Public Finance Plan
Improvement Description
Total Cost
New Development
Share
Existing Development
Share
Roadway Improvements & Bridges
No. Name
1 Bodway Parkway (Valley House to Railroad
$
1,080,600
$
999,800
$
80,800
2 Commerce Blvd. (Copeland Creek to Arlen)
$
498,700
$
286,300
$
212,400
Bridge @ Copeland Creek
$
268,000
$
268,000
$
-
3 Dowdell Avenue widening Wilfred to 750'south)
$
695,300
$
695,300
$
-
4 Dowdell Avenue extension 750' south of Wilfed to Business Park)
$
924,100
$
924,100
$
-
Bridge @ Business Park Drive
$
498,000
$
498,000
$
-
5 East Cotati Avenue (Bodway to Petaluma Hill Road)
$
4,014,500
$
3,460,800
$
553,700
6 Golf Course Drive (Fairway to Count Club)
$
1,994,800
$
565,900
$
1,428,900
7 Keiser Avenue (Snyder to Petaluma Hill Road
$
3,258,400
$
3,072,000
$
186,400
8 Rohnert Park Expressway (Snyder to Petaluma Hill Road)
$
3,518,900
$
3,432,400
$
86,500
9 Seed Farm Drive (Rohnert Park Expressway to Enterprise)
$
1,624,000
$
1,439,700
$
184,300
10 Snyder Lane G Section to Middle School)
$
2,347,400.
$
2,265,600
$
81,800
Bridge @ Copeland Creek
$
162,000
$
162,000
Bridge @ Crane Creek
$
201,000
$
201,000
$
-
11 Snyder Lane Middle School to Med Center Drive)
$
1,945,400
$
1,924,900
$
20,500
Bridge @ Five Creek
$
201,000
$
201,000
12 Snyder Lane Med Center Drive to Southwest Blvd.)
$
5,056,800
$
5,006,400
$
50,400
Bridge @ Hinebaugh Creek
$
201,000
$
201,000
$
-
13 Wilfred Avenue (1999 City Limits to Urban Growth Bound )
$
3,310,000
$
3,233,900
$
76,100
Subtotal Roadways & Bridges
$
31,799,900
$
28,838,100
$
2,961,800
Traffic Control Devices
Bodway Pkwy @ Camino Collegio
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Bodway Pkwy @ Valley House
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Bodway Pkwy @ Railroad
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Commerce Blvd@ Avram
$
130,000
$
130,000
$
-
Commerce Blvd @ Alison
$
130,000
$
130,000
$
-
Dowdell Av @Wilfred
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Eleanor Av @ RPX
$
227,500
$
227,500
$
-
Labath Av @ Wilfred
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Petaluma Hill Rd @ Keiser
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Petaluma Hill Rd @ RPX
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
Petaluma Hill Rd @ East Cotati
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Petaluma Hill Rd @ Railroad
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Redwood Dr @ Wilfred
$
130,000
$
130,000
$
-
Seed Farm @ RPX
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Seed Farm @ Enterprise
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Snyder Ln @ Eleanor
$
104,000
$
104,000
$
-
Snyder Ln @ Keiser
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
Snyder Ln @ RPX
$
195,000
$
195,000
$
-
Snyder Ln a Southwest Blvd
$
104,000
$
104,000
$
-
Stony Point Rd Q Wilfred
$
286,000
$
286,000
$
-
Subtotal
$
3,256,500
$
3,256,500
$
State Farm Drive Overpass
$
9,818,000
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 4 - 2 '
Chapter 4 — Funding and Financing Strategy for Capital Improvements Draft
Table 4-1(b)
Other Facilities Included in the Public Finance Plan
Improvement Description
Total Cost
New Development
Share
Existing Development
Share
Public Safety
collect in a single year, because these fees are collected at the time a building permit is issued by the City.
New West Side Safety Station
$
5,140,000
$1,843,068
$3,296,93
Station Four Expansion
$
728,000
$728,000
$0
TrainingFacilities
$
2,197,500
$546,384
$1,651,116
Public Facilities
City Hall
$
7,458,000
$1,854,340
$5,603,660
Corporation Yard Expansion
$
853,450
$853,450
$0
Parks & Recreation
Community Fields
$
21,759,000
$5,410,100
$16,348,900
Senior Center Expansion
$
100,100
$24,895
$75,205
Community Center Campus Improvements
$
3,406,000
$846,864
$2,559,136
Utilities
Recycled Water Main
$
764,400
$764,400
$0
Water Transmission Line
$
764,400
$764,400
$0
Sewer Main
$
6,558,600
$6,558,600
$0
Sewer Trunk
$
12,000,000
$2,983,643
$9,016,357
Utility System Models & Studies
Water System Master Plan
$
200,000
$49,731
$150,269
Sewer System Master Plan
$
200,000
$49,731
$150,269
Storm Drainage Master Plan
$
-
$0
$0
Regional Transportation Improvements
Petaluma Hill Road at Penn rove
$
15,000,000
East Cotati Ave
$
1,100,000
Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange
$
40,000,000
$33,350,139
$6,649,861
Subtotals for Other Public Facilities
Subtotal for Roadways
Total Facility Costs
$ 118,229,450
$ 44,874,400
$ 163,103,850
$56,627,745
$32,094,600
1 $ 88,722,345
$45,501,705
$2,961,800
$48,463,505
f
k
r
As noted earlier, the City will approve development in accordance with its Growth Management Ordinance.
This Ordinance has the effect of limiting the number of residential building permits that the City can issue in a
'
single year. By extension, this Ordinance will limit the amount of Mitigation Fee revenue that the City can
collect in a single year, because these fees are collected at the time a building permit is issued by the City.
Some of the capital facilities identified by the City's General Plan and included in the Mitigation Fee Program
need to be constructed prior to the commencement of development. In addition, the City would like to
accelerate the construction of the Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange and this cannot be done
without the use of municipal bonds. This Chapter presents a strategy for utilizing municipal bond financing to
provide the cash flow necessary to construct facilities in a timely manner. This Chapter outlines a strategy to
balance assessment or special tax liens against proposed Mitigation Fees and a separate strategy for the '
Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange, which is not yet included in the Mitigation Fee Program.
Developers within -the Specific Plan areas may reduce or completely pay-off their calculated Mitigation Fee
burden by participating in a bond -financing program. The Bond Financing Program may also provide a
May 11, 2004 1
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 4 - 3
Chapter 4 — Funding and Financing Strategy for Capital Improvements Draft
strategy for willing property owners, including developers, to participate in the funding of the Wilfred
Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange.
' 4.2 Land Secured Bond Financing for New Development
The City has two options for land -secured bonds that can finance new developments' fair share of
infrastructure improvements. These are Benefit Assessments and Mello -Roos Special Taxes.
4.2.1 Benefit Assessments
Benefit Assessments for capital improvements are most commonly established under the auspices of
the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code (the "1913
Act"). Since 1996, benefit assessments must comply with the provisions of Articles XIIIC and XIIID
of the State Constitution (Proposition 218). Benefit assessments may be used to fund capital
improvements that specially benefit property provided that: (i) assessments are levied based on the
special benefits provided by the project, (ii) any assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the
proportional special benefit conferred on a parcel, and (iii) the cost of general benefits conferred by
improvements are not included within the assessment.
The establishment of a benefit assessment requires a public hearing and a property owner ballot.
Assessment ballots are weighted by the amount of the assessment. If the majority of the weighted
ballots (more than 50%) approve the proposed assessment, the City may impose the assessment.
Confirmed 1913 Act assessments may be paid in cash before bonds are issued. 1913 Act assessments
are also commonly used to secure municipal bonds issued under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915,
' Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code (the "1915 Act"). The City has used 1913/1915 Act
combinations to fund capital improvements for the Camino Colegio Assessment District Project No.
1985-1 ("AD 85-1"), the Wilfred Avenue Interchange Area Assessment District Project No. 1987-10
("AD 87-10") and the Millbrae Avenue Assessment District Project No. 1988-1 ("AD 88-1").
Assessment bonds may be refunded to allow property owners to take advantage of lower interest rates
under the Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds, Section 9523 of the Streets and
Highways Code (the "1984 Act"). The City has used the 1984 Act on several occasions to refund
existing assessment bonds to reduce assessment payments by property owners.
4.2.2 Mello -Roos Community Facilities Districts
' Mello -Roos Community Facilities Districts ("CFDs") are established under the Mello -Roos
Community Facilities Act of 1982, Section 53111 et. seq. of the Government Code (the "Mello -Roos
Act"). CFDs establish special taxes, which are not required to be based on special benefits and
therefore are not subject to the Proposition 218 requirements for benefit assessments.
The establishment of a CFD also requires a public hearing and a vote. If there are fewer than twelve
1 registered voters within proposed boundaries of the CFD, property owners vote; otherwise the
registered voters vote. In Rohnert Park's case, there are existing dwelling units within the proposed
Specific Plan Areas and there may well be more than 12 resident registered voters with the Specific
Plan Area. The resident registered voter requirements may be in important consideration for the City
and the development community when selecting a financing vehicle.
1
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 4 - 4
Chapter 4 — Funding and Financing Strategy for Capital Improvements Draft
A two-thirds vote approval (of those actually voting) is required to confirm the special tax and
authorize bonds. If the vote is by property owners, each has one vote for each acre or part of acre
owned in the CFD. If the vote is by voters, each has one vote. Special taxes may be paid off in cash if '
the special tax formula makes such provisions. Special tax revenue can also be used to secure
municipal bonds, issued under Mello -Roos Act. Mello -Roos bonds also may be refunded under the
provisions of Mello -Roos.
Table 4-2 outlines the features of Mitigation Fees and each of the financing options described above.
Table 4-2
Financing Mechanism Summary
1
* Some agencies will consider Mitigation Fee Revenue when structuring Certificates of Participation
** If there are more than 12 registered voters in the District, then the registered voters are the electorate
*** For an owner vote, the approval requirement is the owners of 2/3 of the land area ,
4.3 "Pay-as-you-go" Mitigation Fee Elements for New Development
This Finance Plan includes a wide variety of public infrastructure. Some of this infrastructure, particularly
roadway and utility system improvements, must be installed prior to occupancy of some new development in
order to provide basic service to the Specific Plan Areas. However, some of the proposed infrastructure
provides citywide benefit and is not needed immediately. Table 4-3, below, outlines the infrastructure that can
be constructed over time, using Mitigation Fee revenue. This revenue will be collected from infill
development and may be collected from development within the Specific Plan areas. Within the Specific Plan
areas, Mitigation Fee revenue is most likely to be collected from discrete assessor's parcels in the Northwest,
Northeast, and University District that are not included in the current master development proposals.
1�
May 11, 2004 1
Voter
Security for
Hearing
Vote
Approval
Municipal
Required
Required
Voter Pool
Requirement
Bonds
Mitigation Fees
Yes
No
NA
NA
No*
Benefit Assessments
Yes
Yes
Owners
50%
Yes
Mello -Roos Special Taxes
Yes
Yes
Owners **
Two -Thirds***
Yes
1
* Some agencies will consider Mitigation Fee Revenue when structuring Certificates of Participation
** If there are more than 12 registered voters in the District, then the registered voters are the electorate
*** For an owner vote, the approval requirement is the owners of 2/3 of the land area ,
4.3 "Pay-as-you-go" Mitigation Fee Elements for New Development
This Finance Plan includes a wide variety of public infrastructure. Some of this infrastructure, particularly
roadway and utility system improvements, must be installed prior to occupancy of some new development in
order to provide basic service to the Specific Plan Areas. However, some of the proposed infrastructure
provides citywide benefit and is not needed immediately. Table 4-3, below, outlines the infrastructure that can
be constructed over time, using Mitigation Fee revenue. This revenue will be collected from infill
development and may be collected from development within the Specific Plan areas. Within the Specific Plan
areas, Mitigation Fee revenue is most likely to be collected from discrete assessor's parcels in the Northwest,
Northeast, and University District that are not included in the current master development proposals.
1�
May 11, 2004 1
11
1
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 4 - 5
Chapter 4 - Funding and Financing Strategy for Capital Improvements Draft
Table 4-3
"Pay -as -you -Go" Finance Plan Infrastructure
Improvement Description
Total Cost
New Development
Share
Existing Development
Share
Roadway Improvements & Bridges
No. Name
1 Bodway Parkway (Valley House to Railroad
$
1,080,600
$
999,800
$ 80,800
2 Commerce Blvd. (Copeland Creek to Arlen)
$
498,700
$
286,300
$ 212,400
Bridge @ Copeland Creek $
268,000
$
268,000
$ -
6 Golf Course Drive(Fairway to Country Club)
$
1,994,800
$
565,900
$ 1,428,900
9 Seed Farm Drive (Rohnert Park Expressway to Enterprise) $
1,624,000
$
1,439,700
$ 184,300
Traffic Control Devices
Bodway Pkwy @ Railroad
$
162,500
$
162,500
$ -
Commerce Blvd@ Avram
$
130,000
$
130,000
$ -
Commerce Blvd @ Alison
$
130,000
$
130,000
$ -
Petaluma Hill Road @ Railroad Avenue
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
Seed Farm @ RPX
$
162,500
$
162,500
$ -
Seed Farm @ Enterprise
$
162,500
$
162,500
$ -
Stony Point Road @ Wilfred
$
286,000
$
286,000
$ -
Public Safety
Station Four Expansion
$
728,000
$728,000
$
Training Facilities
$
2,197,500
$546,384
$1,651,116
Public Facilities
City Hall
$
7,458,000
$1,854,340
$5,603,660
Corporation Yard Expansion
$
853,450
$853,450
$0
Parks & Recreation
Community Fields
$
21,759,000
$5,410,100
$16,348,90
Senior Center Expansion
$
100,100
$24,895
$75,205
Community Center Campus Improvements
$
3,406,000
$846,864
$2,559,136
Utility System Models & Studies
Water System Master Plan $
200,000
$49,731
- $150,269
Sewer System Master Plan $
200,000
$49,731
$150,26
Storm Drainage Master Plan $
-
$0
$
Totals for Pay -as-you-Go Program
$
43,564,150
$
15,119,195
$28,444,95
' 4.4 Bond Financing Program for Mitigation Fee Offsets
As noted above, a number of capital facilities included in the Finance Plan must be constructed early in the
development program. The City has worked with the participating landowners to identify those capital
facilities whose construction is critical to serving orderly development. This Finance Plan proposes to fund the
construction of these facilities with the proceeds from municipal bond sale(s). The municipal bonds would be
secured by assessments or special taxes levied on the property that is developing.
Municipal bonds can be issued in series over time, allowing the pattern of facility construction to match the
pattern of development. Appendix B includes a preliminary construction phasing strategy that would support
the planned development pattern in the City. This preliminary strategy guided the initial decisions on what
infrastructure could be included in a bond financing program. Table 4-4 presents the costs of the infrastructure
proposed for financing and the allocation of these costs between new and existing development. All property
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 4 - 6
Chapter 4 - Funding and Financing Strategy for Capital Improvements Draft
owners should anticipate additional costs associated with overhead of a public financing. These overhead costs
can include:
• Bond Reserve Funds, typically budgeted at 10%;
• Underwriter's Discount, typically budgeted at 2%;
• Issuance Costs (legal, engineering, administration), typically budgeted at 5%;
• Capitalized Interest, currently budgeted at 6% per year for up to 3 years.
Table 4-4
Bond Financed Infrastructure
Improvement Description
Total Cost
New Development
Share
Existing Development
Share
Roadway Improvements & Bridges
No. Name
3 Dowdell Avenue widening (Wilfred to 750' south)
$
695,300
$
695,300
$
-
4 Dowdell Avenue extension (750' south of Wilfed to Business Park)
$
924,100
$
924,100
$
-
Bridge @ Business Park Drive
$
498,000
$
498,000
$
-
5 East Cotati Avenue (Bodway to Petaluma Hill Road)
$
4,014,500
$
3,460,800
$
553,700
7 Keiser Avenue (Snyder to Petaluma Hill Road)
$
3,258,400
$
3,072,000
$
186,400
8 Rohnert Park Expressway (Snyder to Petaluma Hill Road)
$
3,518,900
$
3,432,400
$
86,500
10 Snyder Lane G Section to Middle School
$
2,347,400
$
2,265,600
$
81,800
Bridge @ Copeland Creek
$
162,000
$
162,000
Bridge @ Crane Creek
$
201,000
$
201,000
$
-
11 Snyder Lane (Middle School to Med Center Drive)
$
1,945,400
$
1,924,900
$
20,500
Bridge @ Five Creek
$
201,000
$
201,000
12 Snyder Lane Med Center Drive to Southwest Blvd.
$
5,056,800
$
5,006,400
$
50,400
Bridge @ Hinebaugh Creek
$
201,000
$
201,000
$
-
13 Wilfred Avenue (1999 City Limits to Urban Growth Bound
$
3,310,000
$
3,233,900
$
76,100
Traffic Control Devices
Bodway Pkwy @ Camino Collegio
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Bodway Pkwy @ Valley House
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Dowdell Av @Wilfred
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
Eleanor Av @ RPX
$
227,500
$
227,500
$
-
Labath Av @ Wilfred
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Petaluma Hill Rd @ Keiser
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Petaluma Hill Rd @ RPX
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Petaluma Hill Rd @ East Cotati
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Redwood Dr @ Wilfred
$
130,000
$
130,000
$
-
Snyder Ln @ Eleanor
$
104,000
$
104,000
$
-
Snyder Ln @ Keiser
$
162,500
$
162,500
$
-
Snyder Ln @ RPX
$
1.95,000
$
195,000
$
-
Snyder Ln @ Southwest Blvd
$
104,000
$
104,000
$
-
Public Safety
New West Side Safety Station
$
5,140,000
$1,843,068
$3,296,93
Utilities
Recycled Water Main
$
764,400
$764,400
$0
Water Transmission Line
$
764,400
$764,400
$0
Sewer Main
$
6,558,600
$6,558,600
$
Sewer Trunk
$
12,000,000
$2,983,643
$9,016,357
Subtotal without Regional Trans oration
$
53,621,700
$
40,253,011
$13,368,689
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 4 - 7
Chapter 4 — Funding and Financing Strategy for Capital Improvements Draft
4.4.1 Land Uses Supporting Bond Financing
Land -secured bonds (Improvement Bonds issued under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 or the
Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act) will be tailored such that their principal amount is less
than or equal to the Mitigation Fees that would otherwise be generated from the various Specific Plan
Areas. Developers who participate in bond financing would have their Mitigation Fees credited to
account for facilities that have been constructed with bond proceeds. Table 4-5, below, outlines the
anticipated contribution from each Specific Plan Area. It appears the City can anticipate approximately
$37.2 million in Mitigation Fee revenue from the Specific Plan areas. This is slightly_ less than $40.2
million obligation for new development in the proposed bond financing program. The City has several
options for balancing the necessary funding including reducing the scope of the proposed bond
financing program or contributing available Mitigation Fee Fund Balances to the overall construction
effort.
Table 4-5
AnticlDatea Principal contribution trom 5
Land Use Class
Single Family Residential (units)
Multi -Family Residential (units)
Senior Housing (units)
Assisted Living (units)
General Office (thousand square feet)
Hotel/Motel ( thousand square feet)
Strip Retail (thousand square feet)
Shopping Center/Retail (thousand square feet)
Light Industrial (thousand square feet)
Heavy Industrial (thousand square feet)
Warehouse (thousand sauare feet)
University
Northeast
District
So
863
880
Revenue
200
730
$18,184,250
0
0
$ 5,037,719
0
0
$ -
0
200
$ -
0
50
$ 975,682
0
0
$ 321,338
c Plan Areas
I Total for Eastside Specific Plan Areas $ 25,742,768 1
Mitigation
Total
past
Fee (1)
Revenue
463
8,243
$18,184,250
36
5,215
$ 5,037,719
0
4,584
$ -
0
2,797
$ -
0
4,878
$ 975,682
0
6,427
$ 321,338
20
13,383
$ 267,652
0
13,313
$ 956,127
0
2,942
$ -
0
2,942
$ -
0
2,407
$ -
I Total for Eastside Specific Plan Areas $ 25,742,768 1
May 11, 2004
Westside Specific
Plan
Proposed
Wilfred
Mitigation
Total
Land Use Class
Dowdell
Northwest
Fee (1)
Revenue
Single Family Residential (units)
0
0
6,666
$ -
Multi -Family Residential (units)
0
900
4,230
$ 3,806,637
Senior Housing (units)
0
0
3,599
$ -
Assisted Living (units)
0
0
2,304
$ -
General Office (thousand square feet)
190
0
4,716
$ 896,500
Hotel/Motel ( thousand square feet)
64
0
5,908
$ 374,512
Strip Retail (thousand square feet)
0
0
12,477
$ -
Shopping Center/Retail (thousand square feet)
0
404
12,426
$ 5,022,650
Light Industrial (thousand square feet)
0
535
2,618
$ 1,399,549
Heavy Industrial (thousand square feet)
0
0
2,618
$ -
Warehouse (thousand square feet)
0
0
2,083
$ -
Total for Eastside Specific Plan Areas $ 11,499,848
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 4 - 8
Chapter 4 — Funding and Financing Strategy for Capital Improvements Draft
4.5 The Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange
As part of this planning effort, a preliminary estimate was made of cost shares between new and existing
development for the Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange. The cost allocation was performed over
all new development and the existing development located in the Traffic Area Zones directly adjacent to
Wilfred Avenue and Golf Course Drive. This cost allocation is illustrated in Table 4-6 below.
Table 4-6
Cost Allocation for Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange
ew
Development
Im rovement Descri tion Total Cost Share
Existing
Development
Share
Regional Transportation Improvements
Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange 1 $40,000,0001 $33,350,0001
$6,650,000
The $33.35 million can be allocated to new development based on the same Trip Generation Methodology
outlined in Chapter 3 in order to calculate the additional burden placed on each class of development. This
calculation is presented in Table 4-7, following. This methodology does not meet the rigorous nexus
requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, because the traffic modeling data necessary for a full calculation of
the allocation between new and existing development was not available. However, it does provide some initial
estimates to guide a bond financing program. If the City utilizes the Mello -Roos CFD structure for its bond
financing, it has the ability to tax new development for capital improvements without a definitive benefit or
impact nexus.
4.6 Funding "Existing Users' Share"
This Plan includes costs that are allocated to existing users. There are a number of options that the City can
use to fund these costs. This section highlights two funding mechanisms that appear to be most appropriate for
the City.
4.6.1 Certificates of Participation
Certificates of Participation ("COPs") are the most commonly used funding mechanism for local
agencies. A COP is essentially a lease and the City pledges various revenue streams or assets to secure
the lease. COPS can be secured by water and sewer revenues, sales taxes, general fund revenues, and
assessments and special taxes. Like the bond financing programs described above for new
development, CON allow the City to access capital in the near term and make repayments over time,
which softens the overall cash flow demand.
4.6.2 State Revolving Fund Loans
The State Revolving Fund ("SRF") Loan program provides low interest (or no interest) loans to local
government to fund water quality projects. These loans can be secured for amounts up to $50 million
per agency in a given fiscal year. The loans are paid back over a 20 -year term. In order to access a
loan, the City enters into a contract with the State of California. Loans are typically repaid from the
rate base of sewer enterprise. Because of the favorable rates and terms of the State's loan, repayment
often does not require dramatic rate increases. The SRF Loan program provides a viable source to fund
existing users' share of the proposed sewer trunk line improvements.
May 11, 2004
1
r
t
Table 4-7
Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive Interchange
Total Cost: $ 40,000,000
Cost per New Trip Unit $300.00
Land Use
Total New
Units
Total
Existing
Units 1
Trip
Units
Total Trip
Units
Existing
New
Cost Per New
Land Use Unit
Single Family Residential units
1,956
0
10.00
19,560
0
19560
$
3,000
Multi -Family Residential units
2,761
0
6.50
17,946
0
17946
$
1,950
Senior Housing units
61
0
4.00
245
0
245
$
1,200
Assisted Living units
135
0
4.00
540
0
540
$
1,200
General Office thousandsquare feet
501
25
17.00
8,944
425
8519
$
5,100
Hotel/Motel thousandsquare feet
124
18.00
2,228
0
2228
$
5,400
Hotel w/ Conference Center thousand square feet
0
252
20.40
5,148
5148
0
$
6,120
Strip Retail thousandsquare feet
94
245
40.00
13,567
9789
3777
$
12,000
Shopping Center/Retail thousandsquare feet
1,234
166
40.00
55,989
6639
49349
$
12,000
Light Industrial thousand square feet
1,324
31
7.00
9,488
218
9269
$
2,100
Heavy Industrial (thousand square feet)
0
0
7.00
0
0
0
$
2,100
Warehouse thousand square feet
71
210
4.88
1,372
1026
347
$
1,464
Education students
755
0
1.40
1,057
0
1057
$
420
Park/Recreation (acres)
86
0
4.10
353
0
353$
1,230
Total
i
133,6531
22,219
111,4331
1
Total Cost 6,649,861 33,350,139
Share
Notes:
(1) Existing Development is in Traffic Area Zones 124-A, 127-A, 240-D and 240-E which are adjacent to the proposed interchange improvement
Rohnert Park Finance Plan\Cost Allocations\Mitigation Fee Calcs.xls\Wilfred Golf Course Overcross 5/5/2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 4 - 9
Chapter 4 — Funding and Financing Strategy for Capital Improvements Draft
4.7 Summary
Table 4-3 and 4-4 above provides a summary of the facilities that will be funded from pay-as-you-go
Mitigation Fee proceeds and the facilities that will be funded from bond proceeds. It is anticipated that
Mitigation Fees will be generated primarily from in -fill development, which is too discrete to include in a
land -secured financing program. It is anticipated that bond proceeds will be generated from the various
Specific Plan Areas, where the contributions from large tracts of land can be leveraged into a municipal bond
sale. The analysis presented in Table 4-5 indicates that the land uses proposed in the Eastside and Westside
Specific Plan Areas will generate enough fair -share cost contribution to cover the proposed bond financing
program.
May 11, 2004
Chapter 5
t
1
r
1
n
1
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 5 -1
Chapter 5 — Funding Strategy for Maintenance and Services Draft
' Chapter 5 - Funding Strategy for Maintenance and Services
5.1 Introduction
The City's General Plan outlines goals and objectives related to maintenance and services. Fundamentally, the
General Plan requires that:
• New development will pay its own way;
• Infrastructure will be built and maintained in anticipation of growth;
• The City will uphold or improve current levels of City service, as development proceeds.
One of the purposes of the Finance Plan is to present strategies to make these objectives a reality. This chapter
of the Finance Plan:
• Analyzes potential funding mechanisms that can be used for maintenance and services;
• Identifies public services and ongoing maintenance that will be required for new development and the
costs of these activities;
• Makes recommendations regarding an implementation strategy and proposed charges necessary to
support the strategy.
The analysis considers all public systems and services with the exception of the water and sewer utilities.
Maintenance and services for these utilities are funded by the dedicated rates. for each utility enterprise.
5.2 Funding Mechanisms for Maintenance & Services
There are three principal mechanisms for funding ongoing maintenance and services. These include Landscape
and Lighting Districts, Mello -Roos Special Taxes, and Annuity Funds. These mechanisms have some basic
t similarities to the funding mechanisms used for capital improvements and are briefly discussed below. The
City has specifically requested an analysis using the Maintenance Annuity Fund Model. This analysis is
presented in the subsequent sections of this Chapter.
5.2.1 Maintenance Annuity Funds
The Maintenance Annuity Fund (MAF) model was popularized by the City of Santa Maria, which
captured an award from the League of California Cities for its work. Santa Maria developed a
' spreadsheet -based fiscal modeling tool that is available in the public domain. Fundamentally the Santa
Maria model provides a tool for estimating the cost of extending current service levels to new
development and predicting if the new revenue provided by the development is sufficient to cover
costs. The MAF model calculates the fiscal impact (positive or negative) caused by the development.
Negative fiscal impacts are overcome by requiring the developer to deposit a principal amount into an
annuity fund that is used for providing services in the future. In many ways the MAF calculation
parallels the Mitigation Fee calculation in that impacts are funded through an upfront deposit.
The City of Santa Maria's MAF model covers the full range of civic services (including street
maintenance). The model is adaptable: it can project revenue needs on a straight-line basis (i.e.
maintaining the same level of service currently provided) but also allows for the addition of new cost
centers. The model can estimate the size of annuity needed to cover fiscal impacts in perpetuity or over
a limited time frame.
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 5 - 2
Chapter 5 — Funding Strategy for Maintenance and Services Draft
There is no general law covering the concept of Maintenance Annuity Funds and no specific statutory
provisions for adopting MAF requirements. Charter cities (such as the City of Santa Maria) can adopt
procedures through Charter City Ordinances. Rohnert Park is not a charter city and will need to
incorporate MAF deposits into its Development and Disposition Agreements for the various Specific
Plan areas in order to use this tool.
5.2.2 Landscape and Lighting Districts
The City's General Plan references the formation of Landscape and Lighting Districts (LLDs) to
maintain parks and parkways within new development areas. LLDs, which are a form of benefit
assessment district, are established under the authority of the 1972 Landscape and Lighting Act. LLDs
can fund the maintenance of street lighting facilities and various community recreation facilities
provided that the special benefit tests of Proposition 218 can be satisfied. LLDs cannot be used to
maintain streets or storm water facilities and cannot provide for general City services or public safety
services (primarily because the "special benefit" tests of Proposition 218 cannot be met). For the City,
this means that LLDs would need to be coupled with other financing mechanisms to achieve a
complete maintenance strategy. LLDs are also procedurally difficult to implement. Each year the City
is required to prepare an Engineer's Report and conduct a public hearing on the proposed assessments.
Established LLDs that predate Proposition 218, can provide valuable funds for maintenance and cities
will often consider new LLDs in established areas because the approval requirement is a simple
majority of property owners rather than two-thirds of registered voters. However because of its
statutory and annual administrative limitations, the LLD is not the preferred choice in developing
areas, where a small number of developers cast the assessment ballots.
5.2.3 Mello -Roos Community Facilities Districts
The Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act provides that Community Facilities Districts
(CFDs) can be established to generate special taxes for maintenance and services. Because the special
tax is not subject to a benefit nexus, CFDs can fund a wide variety of maintenance and services.
However, CFD law does not provide for street maintenance. For the City, this means that a CFD
would need to be coupled with other funding mechanisms to provide a complete maintenance strategy.
Once established, CFDs can be relatively easy to administer. The City is not required to develop an
annual report or hold a public hearing; rather the appropriate special tax is calculated and submitted to
the County for collection on the property tax bill. Services CFDs establish new taxes and require two-
thirds voter approval. However, in developing areas, property owners are allowed to vote and with a
small number of cooperative developers, services CFDs are routinely approved.
5.3 Budgets for Maintenance and Services
In its most basic form, the MAF makes a straight-line extrapolation from the current City budget in order to
arrive at the budget required to serve future growth. These straight-line budget extrapolations, from the City's
fiscal year 2002-2003 budget, were utilized for all categories of services except street maintenance (including
medians and planter strip maintenance) and storm drain maintenance. Anticipated street maintenance costs
were developed from independent quantity take -offs of the development proposals. Storm drain maintenance
is the subject of new regulatory requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the
federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. This category of costs is not
captured -in historical City budgeting information and was also independently estimated.
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 5 - 3
Chapter 5 — Funding Strategy for Maintenance and Services Draft
This independent estimating effort added approximately $3,000,000 to the annual budget for maintenance and
services. The added costs were included in the model. Appendix D provides the detailed cost estimates for
street and storm drain maintenance that were added to the current City budget in order to model future
maintenance needs. The MAF model was submitted to the City under separate cover.
5.4 Summary of Maintenance Annuity Fund Modeling
The MAF model was used to review a range of annuity fund scenarios with various assumptions regarding
interest rate earned on the annuity fund and the intended life of the annuity fund (for perpetuity or a shorter
time frame). Specific Plan areas and Infill development were modeled independently and as part of blended
whole in order to understand the fiscal impacts of the City's proposed development pattern. In general, the
MAF modeling concluded that non-residential development generates a revenue surplus and residential
development does not support itself (i.e. it demands more services than its revenues can support). Taken on the
whole, the City's proposed development pattern appears to be fiscally neutral (i.e. revenues are equal to costs
' as long as commercial land uses fully develop and sales tax generation is reasonable). However, the model is
sensitive to interest rates and tax generation and the "fiscally neutral" picture is only achieved at full build -out
of the non-residential land uses which is anticipated to occur late in the planning period.
5.4.1 Assumptions
1
In addition to the budget estimates outlined above, the MAF incorporates a series of revenue
generation estimates. Table 5-1 presents these estimates.
Table 5-1
Revenue Generation Estimates for Various Land Uses
For applicable specific plan areas, the following assumptions were applied:
Estimated taxable retail sales per sf $200
Average daily room rate $100
Average occupancy rate 65%
1) SFR applies to Estate, Large Lot, Low Density, and Medium Density categories.
2) MFR applies to High Density, Assisted Living, and Mixed Use categories
3) Commercial values were applied to square footage associated with Mixed Use.
5.4.2 Model Results for Infill Development
Infill development, which is almost exclusively non-residential, generates a fiscal surplus. The MAF
model predicts this could be as much as $1,800,000 per year. This development, within the existing
City limits, serves to balance existing residential development within the City limits. In accordance
with the stated goals of the General Plan, this revenue is assumed to be dedicated to maintaining
service levels for existing development: The potential revenue surplus from infill development is not
used to offset revenue demands from new development.
May 11, 2004
Northwest
Wilfred/Dowdell
Northeast
University District
Southeast
Infill
Land Use
value per unit/sf
value per unitlsf
value per unit/sf
value per unit/sf
value per unit/sf
value per unit/sf
$0
$0
$450,000
$325,000
$0
SFR (1)
$325,000
MFR (2)
$200,000
$0
$200,000
$200,000
$225,000
$200,000
Commercial (3)
$95.36
$95.36
$0.00
$95.36
$140.00
$95.36
Professional/Office
$103.43
$0.00
$0.00
$103.43
$0.00
$103.43
Industrial
$108.64
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$108.64
Public/Institutional
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$135.69.
Hotel I
$0.00 1
$91.601
$0.001
$91.601
$0.001
$0.00
For applicable specific plan areas, the following assumptions were applied:
Estimated taxable retail sales per sf $200
Average daily room rate $100
Average occupancy rate 65%
1) SFR applies to Estate, Large Lot, Low Density, and Medium Density categories.
2) MFR applies to High Density, Assisted Living, and Mixed Use categories
3) Commercial values were applied to square footage associated with Mixed Use.
5.4.2 Model Results for Infill Development
Infill development, which is almost exclusively non-residential, generates a fiscal surplus. The MAF
model predicts this could be as much as $1,800,000 per year. This development, within the existing
City limits, serves to balance existing residential development within the City limits. In accordance
with the stated goals of the General Plan, this revenue is assumed to be dedicated to maintaining
service levels for existing development: The potential revenue surplus from infill development is not
used to offset revenue demands from new development.
May 11, 2004
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 5 - 4
Chapter 5 — Funding Strategy for Maintenance and Services Draft
5.4.3 Model Results for Specific Plan Areas
The MAF model was also run for each Specific Plan area individually and for the four major Specific
Plan areas as a group. As a group, the four Specific Plan areas generate a modest fiscal surplus
(approximately $500,000 per year) at full buildout. However, the residential land uses are a fiscal
drain. A final model run was performed to analyze the annuity deposit required to achieve fiscal
balance for new residential land uses. The final model run included several scenarios related to the
interest earnings on the annuity deposit and whether the annuity deposit would fund the fiscal deficit in
perpetuity or for some shorter period of time. Table 5-2, below presents the results of the various
modeling scenarios. The table illustrates the annual costs that need to be covered and calculated a one-
time deposit necessary to fund the services deficit under the following assumptions:
• In perpetuity, assuming the current interest rate of 2.4% earned on California's Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF);
• In perpetuity, assuming the LAIF 15 -year average interest rate of 6.11%;
• In perpetuity, assuming the LAIF 20 -year average interest rate of 6.99%;
• For 15 years, assuming the LAIF 15 -year average interest rate of 6.11%;
• For 20 years assuming the LAIF 20 -year average interest rage of 6.99%.
Table 5-2
Maintenance Annuity Fund Scenarios
(1) MFRs = total projected MFRs of 2761 less 895 infill MFRs where the MAF may not
be able to be collected because of lack of a Development Agreement. Other general
law funding mechanisms could be used for infill. B1 O
(2) SFR= total projected SFRs in the Specific Plan Areas.
May 11, 2004
Multi-
Family
(1)
Single
Family
(2)
Average
Dwelling Units
1,886
1,956
3,783
Annual Cost per Dwelling Unit (Straightline)*
$260
$350
$310
Project Specific Maintenance Costs
Street -Related Maintenance/NPDES
$50
$70
$60
Landscape Maintenance*
$70
$100
$80
Subtotal
$120
$170
$140
Total Annual Maintenance/Services Needs
$380
$520
$450
One -Time MAF Fee per Dwelling Unit
Current LAIF Interest Rates 2.40%
$15,800
$21,700
$18,800
Average LAIF Interest Rates - Perpetuity
15 -yr average 6.11%
$6,200
$8,500
$7,400
20 -yr average 6.99%
$5,400
$7,400
$6,400
Average LAIF Interest Rates- Amortized
15 -yr average 6.11%
$3,700
$5,000
$4,300
20 -yr average 6.99%
$4,000
$5,500
$4,800
Average annual MAF cost per DU is based on
the
amounts for the Northeast and Southeast areas.
(1) MFRs = total projected MFRs of 2761 less 895 infill MFRs where the MAF may not
be able to be collected because of lack of a Development Agreement. Other general
law funding mechanisms could be used for infill. B1 O
(2) SFR= total projected SFRs in the Specific Plan Areas.
May 11, 2004
n
1
1
City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 5 - 5
Chapter 5 — Funding Strategy for Maintenance and Services Draft
City staff reviewed the MAF runs and implicit assumptions and is proposing a one-time fee, sufficient
to cover the maintenance and services deficit in perpetuity and assuming interest earnings of 6.11%.
The City is currently proposing that this fee be $7,400, the average cost for all dwelling units.
5.5 Recommended Maintenance Annuity Deposit
This Finance Plan recommends establishing a uniform MAF deposit for all new residential land uses within
the Specific Plan Areas. These residential land uses are part of citywide plan to achieve a balance of land uses.
However the residential land uses create a fiscal impact for the City. The MAF deposit will be invested by the
City and proceeds would be used to fund maintenance and services.
This plan recommends that the MAF deposit be sufficient to amortize the predicted fiscal impact in perpetuity,
assuming an average annual interest rate of 6.11% (the 15 -year average earned by the State's Local Agency
Investment Fund).
The recommended MAF deposit is $7,400 per residential dwelling unit. No MAF deposits are proposed for
non-residential land uses.
As noted above, there is no general law procedure for establishing MAF contributions. The City will need to
secure commitments for its proposed MAF through Development and Disposition Agreements.
May 11, 2004
Chapter 6
1
1
1
1
1
City Of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan. Page 6 -1
Chapter 6 —Implementation Draft
Chapter 6 — Implementation
p p
' 6.1 Introduction
This Chapter outlines implementation steps for the Finance Plan. When implemented, the Finance Plan will
I provide for the funding of public infrastructure over the 20 -year planning horizon included in the City's
General Plan. The Finance Plan also outlines a strategy to fund the maintenance and services impacts of new
residential development in perpetuity. As such, the Finance Plan is not a static document and must be revisited
' and updated frequently. The general steps outlined here should be supplemented with additional review and
analysis as development plans move forward.
' 6.2 Conceptual Framework for the Finance Plan
This Finance Plan is premised on the fundamental assumption that the project developer(s) will pay for a fair
share of off-site capital improvements and maintenance and services attributable to the development. The basis
for fair share contributions for capital improvements is defined in Chapter 3 of this Plan. The basis for fair
share contributions of maintenance and services costs is defined in Chapter 5 of this Plan.
' In general, the City will implement the Public Facilities Finance Plan so that project developer(s) in the major
Specific Plan Areas will have the option of paying for capital improvements (both on-site and off-site) with
' cash or by financing the cost of public improvements with municipal bonds. The City will make the final
decision on bond issuance based on its own policies for municipal debt and sound public financing principles.
The City acknowledges that infill development, and some small development within the Specific Plan areas,
may be unwilling or unable to participate in bond financing districts due to timing and readiness -to -proceed
issues. The intent of the City is to maintain equivalency between the Mitigation Fee Program and various bond
financing programs so that all new development pays its fair share.
6.3 Establishment and Review of Mitigation Fees
The City has previously established a number of "mitigation -like" fees under a variety of ordinances. The
Mitigation Fees calculated in this Plan are intended to replace the existing fees, with the exception of water,
sewer, and storm drainage fees that will be updated upon completion of the Utility Modeling and System
Planning Studies. The Mitigation Fees calculated in this Finance Plan are intended to work as an integrated
whole to fund the Finance Plan facilities outlined in Chapter 2. This Finance Plan recommends the
establishment of a general "Public Facilities Fee" structure rather than the establishment of separate classes of
fees for each of the seven categories of infrastructure reviewed under the Plan. A general Public Facilities Fee
structure provides the City with maximum flexibility to use Mitigation Fee revenue (or off -setting bond
proceeds) to fund construction of any and all required infrastructure in accordance with the needs and
priorities of the City. .
6.3.1 Fee Establishment
Mitigation Fees should be established by Ordinance of the City. This Ordinance should:
Establish the fees outlined in Chapter 3 of this Plan,
Repeal previous ordinances establishing fees that fund the same facilities outlined in this Plan,
Acknowledge that water, sewer, and storm water capacity fees are not included and will be set by
separate ordinance,
May 11, 2004
City Of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 6 - 2
Chapter 6 -Implementation Draft
• Provide for annual adjustment of the fees to reflect inflation (typically measured by the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI)) without public hearing,
• Provide for the collection of an administration fee (recommended at 3 percent) to cover the City's
costs associated with administering the Mitigation Fee program,
• ' Provide for the date that the new fee schedule will come into effect (typically 30 to 90 days from
Council action).
6.3.2 Fee Credits & Reimbursements
From time to time, developers may elect to construct Finance Plan facilities as part of their project.
This is most likely to happen with Finance Plan facilities that are included the bond financing districts
proposed in Chapter 4. When a developer or group of developers funds the construction of Finance
Plan facilities, the establishing Ordinance should provide for appropriate crediting of Mitigation Fees.
Should the developer's constructed value exceed its calculated Mitigation Fee burden, the establishing
Ordinance should provide for reimbursement subject to the City's available cash flow from Mitigation
Fees. The goal of the credit and reimbursement program should be to have developer's pay once (and
be reimbursed once) for their fair share of Finance Plan facilities.
6.3.3 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee Program
The City should anticipate regular updates of the Finance Plan and Mitigation Fee Program. The Act
requires that Mitigation Fee programs be updated every five years. The City should also plan to update
the fee program upon the following significant events.
At the completion of design of Finance Plan Facilities: costs included in this Plan are "order of
magnitude costs" (see Chapter 2). These costs should be updated when final design is complete.
At the completion of Construction of Finance Plan Facilities: cost increases incurred during
construction should be captured in a Mitigation Fee update
Upon the approval of significant land use changes: Mitigation Fees and Maintenance Annuities
are calculated based on planned land use. If this changes significantly, the fee calculation should
be updated.
6.4 Financing District Establishment
The City is currently contemplating financing both Finance Plan Facilities and onsite public infrastructure with
bond financing districts. The bond financing district that includes Finance Plan Facilities can be fairly easily
quantified using the guidance presented in Chapter 4. The onsite public infrastructure financing districts are
likely to vary by Specific Plan area and have not been quantified at this time.
In order to form Financing Districts and begin the procedures for the sale of bonds, the City will need to
accomplish the following tasks:
• Retain its financing team including bond counsel, underwriter, financial advisor, assessment/tax
consultant and appraiser;
• Secure deposits from interested developers to fund the appraisal, the assessment/tax analysis and the
preparation of boundary maps;
• Review proposed boundaries and property included and confirm the number of registered voters in the
proposed district (Mello -Roos CFDs only);
• Review the scope of the proposed off-site facilities financing (Chapter 4 provides initial guidance);
May 11, 2004
City Of Rohnert Park Public Facilities Finance Plan Page 6 - 3
Chapter 6 —Implementation Draft
• Adjust facilities included and proposed bond series to balance each developer's cost contribution
against their calculated Mitigation Fee burden,
• Secure petitions from interested developers expressing their willingness to participate and, for a Mello -
Roos CFD, waiving the election waiting times;
• Complete assessment/tax analysis including rate and method and apportionment calculations to set
maximum lien on property;
• Begin the formal assessment/tax proceedings including adopting Resolutions of Intention and
distributing property owner ballots;
• Hold a public hearing on the proposed Financing District, confirming its formation and setting the
maximum tax/assessment liens;
• Perform recordings of appropriate documents;
• Develop the Official Statement for the proposed bond offerings;
• , Conduct bond pricing and sale.
For the Public Finance Plan Facilities that have been quantified, the City should allow at least 6 months to
complete the financing district formation process. Financing districts can only be confirmed once the
environmental documentation for the proposed development is complete.
' The City may wish to consider two types of financing districts: one for the offsite improvements quantified in
this Public Facilities Finance Plan and another for onsite improvements that will vary by Specific Plan Area. If
the City uses a Mello -Roos CFD for the Finance Plan facilities, it can use an Assessment District for the onsite
' facilities and retain primacy of lien of each district (i.e. there will be prime Mello -Roos lien and a prime
assessment lien on each property).
6.5 Maintenance Annuities
As noted earlier, there are no general law provisions that guide the establishment of Maintenance Annuities. It
' is anticipated that the terms and conditions outlining the payment of Maintenance Annuities will be included
in the Development and Disposition Agreement for each Specific Plan area.
The City may elect to set its Maintenance Annuity policy by Ordinance (similar to Ordinance 2003-252 which
provides guidance on Growth Management Allocation System Development Agreements).
The Maintenance Annuity calculation was based on current costs. Similar to the Mitigation Fees, the
Maintenance Annuity deposit should be adjusted each year to account for inflation. Should the City establish a
Maintenance Annuity Ordinance, the provision for annual adjustments to account for inflation should be
included.
May 11, 2004
Appendix A-1
Land Use Breakdowns by Traffic
Area Zones
WMERT PARK FINANCE FU
TRAFFIC MODEL
TRAFFIC AREA ZONE MAP
MOM SDC Ad
General Plan Land Uses Plus 1997 and 2002 Land Uses for Traffic Model
taz land use 01-20-03.xls/2002 Update -97 formula
1/7
= i M= r== i= r M==
Single-
Multi-
Family
Residential
Family
Residential
Senior Assisted
General Offices
Housing Living Hotel/Motel
Strip Retail
Shopping
rg
Center/ / Retail
Light Heavy Education
Warehouse (7)
Recreation/ Agricultural/
(3)
Facility
(4)
Industrial
(5)
(6) Industrial
(8)
Park 02) Rural
03)
2
K-5 (9) 6-800)
9-12(11)
(units)
(units)
(units)
(units)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft) (sq ft)
(sq ft) (students) (students)
(students)
(acres) (acres)
East Side
97base
18
125-A
26.2
46.9
2O02base
19
137,2
125-A
Total '.
.:19
: ; . 0 ..
< 0' .
"_ 0. _
°?'0 0." _0.0<� s0 0 0.0'
�_ 0.0 0.0
_0.0 _ 0 0 a�'. 0.0+:
O.O`w . X0:0 s°
137x2
97base
749
1101
500.0
1
13.0
125-B
j
31.6 52.0
rm'."
10...�:,�
a
-
0':0 560 0- -
;..., 0.0:44.6
.-
`-
2002base
945
533
0.0
0.0
"
500.0
19.1
125-B
j
j
0.0
0.0
Total""
.*, .2945
533 ���"C "0 _
0 is>
��00,>�T�,0.0
,�- �� "�m0O". 0:0
00 0.0
0"0. 50�0.0:0.0=--
0.0 7T91
0:0:
97base I
51
125-C
j
109.8
2002base
7
125 C
Total,
2351
.
2-427777777777_00`'
` - '"0
a 0.0
n w 0.0
'Q:O
= 0 aO 0 0.0
1 58.6' 25.81
�" :. ".
=,=s" 0.0 , 58 6 " 25.8
21.11
" 21.1
26.2
26.2x°0.0
97base I
10
125-D
607
1611
14
1 176.01
76.51
61.1-1
125.4
total
617 "x.161
2002base
11
2
125-D
395
225
8,0
-TTotal
4O6MO;;";,,227
0.
"" ' 0
�r:00".
"� 0.0
', :;0.0
'x" .0.0".
Q..O< "�0.0
0.:0 :0.0
""00: 0.0 v
8.0 0�0
97base
1
125-E
6
1 1.51
0.71
0.51
12.61
86.4
total
7
0
,. -.0,..
0,<;
x=O"0;
0.0'x.". . ..:O.Q"0.0-
0.000
:r�;_ 00 »'x,_1.5 .y
�,, 0:7,x,
0.6".�12.6..,
86:4
20O2base
4
20,7
125-E
51
12.9
5.7
4.6
50.0
r,"u Total`
:56
0
;�.,,�..p
0,.. :._: 0.0".
," 0`0
00 0.0.:
O.Q 00
r<"_' X1'29 ":a
-" ;.OzO'
57'�°':- ",_4 6>
,. ,5OQ .`�
20;7
97base
0
1,000.01
125-F
116
426
37
64,416.01
38,649.61
92.91
38.31
27.5
28.6
total
116
2O02base
1
11000.0
125-F
2661
2121
94,330.0
31,185.0
Total r_=212'
0.<,;° n 0 z
"`.,94;33O.Q
n. O.O.
'; ;_00_
".;.3,1,18b.0_'.,"
.=a=0.0 + 'aO0 W 0,0 ., ;:.0+
_;000.0._-
0:0
00 r"
0;0
taz land use 01-20-03.xls/2002 Update -97 formula
1/7
= i M= r== i= r M==