CITY OF SAN MATEO. Administrative Report

Transcription

1 CITY OF SAN MATEO City Hall 330 W. 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA Administrative Report Agenda Number: 7., Status: Public Hearing TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: City Council Larry A. Patterson, City Manager Finance Department MEETING DATE: Monday, April 06, 2015 SUBJECT: Proposed Fee Revisions for Fiscal Year RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution to approve the proposed fee manual to include new rental and service fees, make adjustments to existing rental, service and development impact fees; and introduce an Ordinance to increase the South Trunk Sewer Impact Fee in accordance with Government Code sections through BACKGROUND The City conducts a fee review annually prior to the preparation of the budget. It is the City s policy and practice to increase fees annually by the CPI for the San Francisco Bay Area. The increase is necessary because it reflects the City s increased materials and maintenance costs incurred in providing the services. The CPI normally used is as of October which was the most recent data available at the beginning of the review process (CPI for FY is 3.6% from October 2013 to October 2014). Other adjustments to fees are made periodically as deemed necessary to better reflect actual costs, stay competitive in the market, or comply with policy. The proposed fee adjustments are based on the annual CPI increase, a periodic adjustment, or are the result of detailed analysis of the cost of providing specific programs/activities. Recreation fees have been studied and recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission at their December 3, 2014 meeting by a vote of 5 to 0 and the Park in-lieu fee at their January 7, 2015 meeting by a vote of 3 to 1 (see attachment 7). All the fees will become effective July 1, 2015, except where noted. Sewer service charges are set separately by Ordinance and not part of this fee revision process. A table summarizing new fees and various fee changes in excess of CPI is provided in Attachment 3. More specific information on the changes is found in Attachments 4, 5, 6 and 7. More details on the Development Impact Fee changes are provided in Attachment 8. Summary of the Recommended Changes The proposed new fees and adjustments to existing fees reflect the cost of providing the services and conform to state law. Permit fees are imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs incident to issuing licenses and permits, including performing investigations or inspections, and parking and rental fees are charges imposed for the entrance upon or rental of City property. New Fees Use of Public Parking Spaces for Valet Stations Planning Application Archive Fee Obituary Search Service Picnic Reservation Fees CITY OF SAN MATEO Page 1 of 3 Printed on 4/2/2015 powered by Legistar

2 Agenda Number: 7., Status: Public Hearing Service or User Fees Recommended to be increased in excess of CPI Music Recitals Piano Tuning Passport Processing/Notary/Research Service Document Delivery Services Park In-Lieu/Park Impact Fee for Residential Planning Application Massage Permit Biyearly Renewal Fee Other Changes Downtown Parking Fees Below Market Rate Housing In-Lieu Fee Reserves for Titles Library Children s Birthday Special Event Fee and Special Event Alcohol Fee Prevailing State, Federal, and County Fees for Fingerprinting Outside Detail Rates Final Map-Plan Check/Processing Development Impact Fees To comply with the accounting and reporting requirements set forth in State law, the Council is required to annually and every fifth year, after funds are first deposited, review developer impact fees and make specific findings (Gov. Code sections and 66006). Attachment 8 and its related Exhibits include the detailed required information in accordance with the Government Code such as description of the fee; purpose and use of the fee as well as the relationship between the need/use of the fee and the type of development. Attachment 8 also includes the beginning and ending fee account balance; amount of interest earned, identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement. Attachment 8 also contains the findings required to be set forth every five years. With the exception of the non-residential component, the South Trunk Sewer Relief Development Impact Fee is recommended to increase by 3.6% (CPI). The City s costs are expected to rise 3.6% and the increase offsets those costs. There is no increase recommended to the Waste Water Treatment Plant Expansion Fee or the Transportation Improvement Fee. BUDGET IMPACT A summary of the estimated annual revenues from the proposed fee increases is shown below. CITY OF SAN MATEO Page 2 of 3 Printed on 4/2/2015 powered by Legistar

3 Agenda Number: 7., Status: Public Hearing In accordance with Government Code sections and 6062a, notice of these fee increases was published twice beginning 10 days in advance of the public hearing. Prior to the meeting, City staff made available to the public data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied, and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b) (4), those fee updates are not project subject to CEQA because (b)(4) fiscal activity does not involve a commitment to any particular project. With regard to the development impact fees and the sewer connection charge, the environmental impacts of projects funded with these fees have been analyzed separately. NOTICE PROVIDED Notice was provided via agenda posting - public hearing ATTACHMENTS 1 - Proposed Resolution 2 - Proposed Ordinance 3 - Summary of Miscellaneous New Fees and Fee Changes in Excess of CPI 4 - New Fees 5 - Description of Fee Revisions in Excess of CPI 6 - Other Changes 7 - Parks and Recreation Administrative Report Regarding Fee Changes 8 - Developer Impact Fee Required Information 9 - Proposed Fee Manual STAFF CONTACT Jun Nguyen, Finance Specialist II jnguyen@cityofsanmateo.org (650) Kathleen VonAchen kvonachen@cityofsanmateo.org (650) CITY OF SAN MATEO Page 3 of 3 Printed on 4/2/2015 powered by Legistar

4 Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN MATEO RESOLUTION NO. (2015) ESTABLISHING NEW AND UPDATED FEES BY APPROVING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR WHEREAS, each year during the adoption of the Business Plan the City completes a fee review; and WHEREAS, with regard to service fees, it is the City s policy and practice to recover costs, including increases, based on the Consumer Price Index which is 3.6% for Fiscal Year ; and WHEREAS, as detailed in the accompanying Administrative Report, one new fee for service is recommended: Use of Public Parking Spaces for Valet Stations Planning Application Archive Fees Obituary Search Service Fees Picnic Reservation Fees (Paddock Park); and WHEREAS, various service fees are recommended to be increased in excess of the 3.6% CPI factor as follows: Music Recitals Fees Piano Tuning Fees Passport Processing and Notary Service Express Mail Services and Research Service Document Delivery Fees Park In-Lieu/Park Impact Fees for Residential Planning Application Massage Permit Biyearly Renewal Fees WHEREAS, with regard to development impact fees, to comply with the accounting and reporting requirements set forth in State law, the Council is required, every fifth year after funds are first deposited, to review development impact fees and make specific findings, however it has been the City s practice to perform this review process annually; and WHEREAS, based on the City s costs to acquire parkland, the park impact fee and park in lieu fee are recommended to be increased by two acres per 1,000 population x Median Land Value per acre x population factor per dwelling unit type based on the 2010 Census; and WHEREAS, the City s below market rate housing in-lieu fee is designed to cover the City s costs to provide affordable housing; and WHEREAS, due to the increased City costs to provide affordable housing, the City s below market rate housing in-lieu fee is recommended to be increased in excess of 3.6% CPI factor; and WHEREAS, based on the City Manager s Office handling Downtown Parking, the Downtown Parking Fees is recommended to be listed under the City Manager section, and change of Downtown

5 Parking Fees per Downtown Parking Municipal Code Changes conducted at April 6, 2015 Council Meeting: and WHEREAS, the Peninsula Library System no longer charge for the service, reserves (holds) for titles fee is recommended to be eliminated; and WHEREAS, the City did not implement the service due to capacity and logistical challenges, library children s birthday parties fee is recommended to be eliminated; and WHEREAS, to create consistency and to improve the ease of administration and calculation, special event fee is recommended to change to hourly fee and per use; and WHEREAS, the city inadvertently removed last year, prevailing state, federal, and county fees for fingerprinting is recommended to be added back; and WHEREAS, the city inadvertently removed last year, special community events categories, outside detail rates are recommended to be added back at current top step prevailing overtime rate to cover the actual staff costs; and WHEREAS, to provide full cost recovery for the designated activity, final map-plan check/processing fee is recommended to as deposit to cover actual staff cost; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 66016, the Council held a public hearing to consider these fee increases on April 6, 2015; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 66019, at least ten days prior to the public hearing, the City made data available to the public supporting the need for fee increases; that; NOW, THEREFORE, THE SAN MATEO CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND RESOLVES 1. With regard to the fees for services, it is necessary to increase fees in accordance with the CPI increase in order to recover the City s increased labor, materials, and maintenance costs. 2. With regard to the development impact fees, in accordance with Government Code sections and following, the City Council approves the increased development impact fees set forth below and adopts findings set forth in Attachment 8 to the Administrative Report as the findings for each of the increased development impact fees set forth therein; SOUTH TRUNK AREA SEWER RELIEF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE 3. With regard to development impact fees, to comply with the accounting and reporting requirements set forth in State law as required by Government Code sections and following, whereby the City Council must every fifth year after funds were first deposited, review development impact fees and make findings, the City Council approves Attachment

6 8 to the Administrative Report submitted with this Resolution and adopts Attachment 8 as the findings in support of the development impact fees set forth therein. 4. The fees included in the Comprehensive Fee Schedule, as set forth in the Administrative Report submitted with this Resolution, are approved. 5. Effective Dates: a. The Parks and Recreation Outdoor Facility fees shall be effective upon adoption of this resolution. b. The special event fee shall take effect upon the effective date of the City s special events ordinance. c. All other fees, detailed in the accompanying Administrative Report, shall become effective July 1, 2015.

7 Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDINANCE NO SETTING THE SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES RELATED TO THE SOUTH TRUNK SEWER RELIEF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE WHEREAS, the increase in the Consumer Price Index ( CPI ), calculated at 3.6% for would apply to sewer connection charges related to the South Trunk Sewer Relief Development Impact Fee, with the exception of the non-residential component (set forth in the supporting technical memorandum on file in the Public Works Department), which would increase by 3.6%; IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY FINDS, WITH REGARD TO THE SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES RELATED TO THE SOUTH TRUNK SEWER RELIEF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE, that, 1. The purpose of the fee is to make the City s sewer collection system function smoothly; 2. The fee will be used to construct the South Trunk sewer line; 3. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the South Trunk sewer line and new development paying the fee, because new development will benefit from improved sewer flow; 4. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the South Trunk sewer line and new development, because new development contributes to sewer flow. NOW, THEREFORE, THE SAN MATEO CITY COUNCIL HEREBY ORDAINS that: Section 1. Effective July 1, 2015, the sewer connection charges related to the South Trunk Sewer Relief Development Impact Fees are increased by the CPI factor of 3.6% as set forth in the portion of the Comprehensive Fee Schedule. Public Works Department Section VIII, Item C, South Trunk Area Sewer Improvement Fee Charges, attached as Exhibit A, with the exception of those sewer connection charges noted in Section 2 below. Section 2. Effective July 1, 2015, the sewer connection charges related to South Trunk Sewer Relief Development Impact Fees for the non-residential component (per the supporting technical memorandum on file in the Public Works Department), are increased by 3.6%, as set forth in the portion of the Comprehensive Fee Schedule, Public Works Department Section VIII, Item C, South Trunk Area Sewer Improvement Fee Charges, attached as Exhibit A. Section 3. SEVERABILITY. In the event any section, clause or provision of this Chapter shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section, clause or provision shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. It is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this ordinance irrespective of any such portion declared to be invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), this is not a project subject to CEQA because the adoption of fees is a fiscal activity not involving commitment to any particular project.

8 Section 5. PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be published in summary in the Examiner Peninsula Edition, posted in the City Clerk s Office, and posted on the City s website, all in accord with Section 2.15 of the Charter and shall be effective on July 1, 2015.

9 EXHIBIT A SOUTH TRUNK AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENT FEE 1. Single-family dwelling Per dwelling unit $4, Multi-family dwelling, 1 bedroom Per dwelling unit $2, Multi-family dwelling, 2 bedroom Per dwelling unit $3, Multi-family dwelling, 3 bedroom per dwelling unit $4, Hotels or motels Per room $2, Non-residential Per fixture unit $

10 Summary of New Fees and Fee Changes in Excess of CPI: New Fees Item Proposed Fee/Deposit Cost Methodology Annual Revenue Estimate City Manager s Office 1. Use of Public Parking Spaces for Valet Stations (after 5pm) $1.00 per space per days of operation x 52 weeks Community Development 1. Planning Application Archive Fee $25 universal fee per Planning Application, plus $4 per Plan Sheet Library 1. Obituary Search Service $20/search for non-san Mateo County residents Parks & Recreation 1. Picnic Reservation Fee Paddock Park To recuperate 1 hour of lost parking meter revenue since valet service usually begins at 5pm. Addition to off-set the cost archiving the records. The fee is consistent with other libraries in the Peninsula Library System. $50 per use Added to list of those available for reservation for patron convenience and at the request of patrons. Parking Fund: $1,000 Construction Services Fund: $10,000 General Fund: $400 General Fund: $750 Attachment 3 Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Att 3 - Summary Table.docx 1

11 Fee Changes in Excess of CPI Item Current Fee Proposed Fee/Deposit Cost Methodology Annual Revenue Estimate Library 1. Music Recitals (rental of Oak Meeting Room with piano) $75 per use (up to 3 hours) $120 per use (up to 3 hours) The venue has proved extremely popular, requiring additional staff and janitorial time to manage and prepare the room for use. The increase is in line with fees paid by other non-profit groups. 2. Piano Tuning (special request) $125 each $165 each Increase to reflect the current cost of service to administer the request. 3. Passport Processing and Notary Service Express Mail Services USPS Express Mail (up to 8 oz.) FedEx (up to 8 oz.) Research Service Document Delivery 1 st class mail Parks & Recreation 1. Park In-Lieu/Park Impact fee for Residential Planning Application Single Family Multi-Family 2-4 Units Multi-family 5+ Units Mobile Homes $18.95 or current postal rate $20.26 or current FedEx rate $1.70 or current postal rate $16,942 per unit $17,196 per unit $12,310 per unit $24,810 per unit $19.99 or current postal rate $24.42 or current postal rate $1.82 or current postal rate $19,105 per unit $19,392 per unit $13,882 per unit $27,798 per unit Increase to reflect the current charges for express mailing services. Calculation = 2 acres per 1,000 population x Median Land Value per acre x population factor per dwelling unit type based on the 2010 Census. General Fund: $2,500 General Fund: $0 General Fund: $0 Other Fund: Impact depends on the amount of residential development Police 1. Massage Permit Biyearly Renewal Fee Establishment Only Owner/Practitioner $78 each $78 each $103 each $103 each Increase to keep consistent with Massage Practitioner biyearly renewal fees. The process and administrative time involved for both are the same. General Fund: $300 Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Att 3 - Summary Table.docx 2

12 Other Changes Item Current Fee Proposed Fee/Deposit Cost Methodology Annual Revenue Estimate City Manager s Office 1. Downtown Parking Temporary No Parking - Parking Meters o Up to 7 days o 8-49 days o days o 99+ days o For each time the City installs and removes a meter bag $ $ Move parking related fees to the City Manager s Office since the Manager s Office is now responsible for Downtown parking. Parking meters and Valet Parking Permit fees are raised by CPI rate of 3.6%. Parking Fund: $75,000 Downtown Parking Fee o Garages Quarterly o On-Street and Off-Street Rates Premium On-Street Premium Off-Street Premium Off-Street (Lot 4, 5, 6) Value On-Street Value Off-Street Value Off-Street (Lot 1-3, 7-9, 5 th -9 th Ave on S. Railroad Ave) Value Off-Street (Lot 10 and 11) Valet Parking Permit Fee o Initial Permit Fee o Implementation Curb Marking Signs Meter Pole/Bracket Central Parking Improvement District Per Space In-Lieu Fee $ $0.50/hr for hrs 1 & 2, $1.00 for hrs 3 & 4 $0.25/hr 10 hr max $0.50/hr for hrs 1 & 2, $ $76.00 $ $37.00 $9, per space Monthly permit $0.50 minimum for credit cards at paystations $1.00/hr 3hr max $1.00/hr 3 hr max (street level) $0.50/hr 3 hr max (other levels) $0.50/hr 3 hr max $0.50/hr 3 hr max (street level) $0.50/hr 3 hr max (other levels) $0.25 per hour $ $79.00 $ $38.00 $12,000 per space On-Street and Off-Street Downtown Parking fee will be reviewed separately per Downtown Parking Municipal Code Changes at March 16, 2015 Council Meeting. The changes approved at the subsequent meeting will be reflected in the fee manual. Central Parking Improvement District Per Space In-Lieu fee is being increased above CPI rate since it has not increased since 1989, and to better align to current construction costs. Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Att 3 - Summary Table.docx 3

13 Item Current Fee Proposed Fee/Deposit Cost Methodology Annual Revenue Estimate Community Development 1. Below Market Rate Housing In Lieu Fee.1 housing unit $13,850.2 housing unit 27,700.3 housing unit 41,550.4 housing unit 55,400 5 unit project 69,250 6 unit project 83,100 7 unit project 96,950 8 unit project 110,800 9 unit project 124, unit project 138, % increase for housing unit $15,170.2 housing unit 30,340.3 housing unit 45,510.4 housing unit 60,680 5 unit project 75,850 6 unit project 91,020 7 unit project 106,190 8 unit project 121,360 9 unit project 136, unit project 151,700 Based on formula in the Nexus Based Affordable Housing Fee Analysis done by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) on 10/5/11. The increase is based on updated changes in construction costs and change in BMR sales prices. Housing Fund: $50,000 Library 1. Reserves (Holds) for Titles $1 per item Delete Remove due to the fee eliminated by the Peninsula Library System effective July 1, General Fund $0 2. Library Children s Birthday Parties: Resident Non-Resident Security/Damage deposit $155 per use $185 per use $200 per use Delete Delete Delete Remove because the service was never implemented due to capacity and logistical challenges. General Fund: $0 Parks and Recreation 1. Special Event Fee Alcohol Fee $ per event depending on tier None $25 per hour, minimum two hours $250 per use Revise fee structure to create consistency around special event fees, and to improve the ease of administration and calculation. General Fund: $1,750 Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Att 3 - Summary Table.docx 4

14 Item Current Fee Proposed Fee/Deposit Cost Methodology Annual Revenue Estimate Police 1. Prevailing State, Federal, and County Fees for fingerprinting: DOJ Prevailing Fee FBI Prevailing Fee County Prevailing Fee None None None $33 $25 $19 2. Outside Detail Rates None Category A, B, C, per hour per staff classification. Add back fees that were inadvertently removed last year. Fees are set by each jurisdiction. Add back fees that were inadvertently removed last year. The rates based on top step prevailing OT rate to cover actual staff costs. General Fund: $0 General Fund: $0 Public Works 1. Final Map-Plan Check/Processing Parcel Map Subdivisions Lot Line Adjustment Certificate of Compliance $1,370 per map $1,596 per map $1,533 each $113 per hour $2,000 deposit $2,500 deposit $1,500 deposit $500 deposit each Change from initial fee to a deposit to cover actual staff costs. General Fund: $0 Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Att 3 - Summary Table.docx 5

15 Attachment 4 NEW FEES DEPARTMENT: City Manager s Office A REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Use of Public Parking Spaces for Valet Stations (After 5pm) 2.2 D Per space $1.00 per Space per Days of Operation x 52 wks JUSTIFICATION: To recuperate one hour of lost parking meter revenue since valet service usually begins at 5pm. The annual fee will be deposited back in to the Parking Fund 28. (INCLUDE this revenue in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $ Special Fund $1,000 Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\City Manager\Form A - Valet Station.docx

16 NEW USER FEES DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department A REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Planning Application Archive Fee 5.2 IV Per Planning Application and per Plan Sheet $25 universal fee per Planning Application, plus $4 per Plan Sheet JUSTIFICATION: The Planning Division operates on a cost-recovery basis in the sense that planning applicants are charged for staff time and direct costs during the period when there is an active planning application. Currently, records for planning applications are stored by the city and are not charged to project applicants. The 2014 Zucker Report recommends the addition of an Archive Fee for planning applications to allow the city to begin off-setting the cost of this planning application associated expense (refer to recommendation #162). Preliminary research shows that vendor cost is approximately $50 per file, plus transportation costs and cost for data storage on external hard drive/flash drive/disk. Research of other jurisdictions show that similar fees are collected for planning application records. The research is summarized in the attached table and includes a cost comparison for typical planning applications in San Mateo such as Single-family type projects, formal Pre-Applications, and a recent Multi-family project. The table shows that there is a range in how fees are calculated. For the new Planning Application Archive Fee, a two-step fee formula is recommended: a universal fee per planning application, plus a fee for each Plan Sheet. This approach provides a consistent formula for all planning applications, while allowing for differences based on the scale of the planning application project. Smaller, less complex projects, such as single-family projects that typically do not generate a large number of plans, would be expected to pay a smaller fee. With larger projects that are typically more complex, as evidenced by a higher number of plan sheets, the two-step formula ensures that the total Archive Fee collected accounts for the higher number of plan sheets that are submitted by the applicants. The Planning Application Archive Fee will be subject to CPI adjustments consistent with other fees in the city s Comprehensive Fee Schedule. The above FEES generate ADDITIONAL REVENUE in (INCLUDE this revenue in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund:. Special Fund: $ 10,000. Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\CDD\User Fee-Form A_new fee - Plng Archival Fee - FINAL.docx

17 FY (or latest available as of Aug. 2014) Planning Application Archive Fee City Description Fee Single Family Dwelling Design Review (SFDDR) Planning Application Recent Pre Applications (PA14 079, , ) Recent Multi Family Planning Application (PA14 009) Berkeley Record Management Fee $50/Application $50 $50 $50 Palo Alto Opitcal Disk Record $25/File Avg. 8 sheets per SFDDR Avg. 10 sheets. 10 sheets x 46 sheets x $4 + $25 = $209 Record Retention $4/Plan Sheet project. 8 sheets X $4 + $25 $4 + $25 = $65 = $57 Fremont Records Retention $225/Project $225 $225 $225 Alameda Record Management Fee 1.4% of Permit Fee Deposit for SFDDR is $3,750 (FY ). $3,750 x 1.4% = $52.50 Vacaville Records Maintenance Fee $67 for Minor App, $136 for Major App Cost Comparison for Sample Types of Projects Fee Deposit for Pre Applications is $14,000. $14,000 x 1.4% = $196 $67 $136 $136 Average: $90.30 $ $ Total Fee Deposit for PA is $31,725. $31,725 x 1.4% = $ Recommendation: $25 fee per Planning Application, plus $4 per Plan Sheet

18 NEW FEES DEPARTMENT: Library A REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Obituary Search Service 9.5 III. C. (3) $20.00/ search for non-san Mateo County residents JUSTIFICATION: Adding this fee brings the San Mateo Library into alignment with other libraries in the Peninsula Library System who offer this service at no charge to patrons within the County (and PLS jurisdiction), but charge a $20 fee for those who are not San Mateo County residents. It allows us to recoup the cost of this research for non-county residents. (INCLUDE this revenue in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $ Special Fund $ Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\Library\Form A - Obit Search Svc.docx

19 NEW FEES DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation A REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Picnic Reservation Fees: Paddock Park 10.5 II.A Use $50.00 JUSTIFICATION: Paddock Park picnic area added to list of those available for reservation for patron convenience and at the request of patrons. The picnic area will remain available for free drop-in use when not reserved and the park has an additional picnic table that is drop-in only and not reservable. (INCLUDE this revenue in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund: $ 750 Special Fund: $ Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\Parks & Rec\User Fee-FormA_Paddock Picnic Reservation.docx

20 Attachment 5 FEE REVISIONS IN EXCESS OF THE CPI DEPARTMENT: Library B REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Music Recitals (rental of Oak Meeting Room with piano) 9.2 II (E) 1 g Per use (up to 3 hours) $ JUSTIFICATION: This fee will increase in excess of the 3.6% CPI from $75 per use (up to 3 hours) to $120 per use. It was introduced in FY to enhance cultural programming in the Library by creating a favorable rate for members of the non-profit California Music Teachers Association to use the donated Bosendorfer piano in the Oak Room for recitals. The venue has proved extremely popular, with multiple applicants competing for available recital dates. Additional staff and janitorial time are needed to coordinate and manage the bookings and to prepare the piano and room for use before and after the recitals. The proposed fee increase for aligns the recital fee with what other non-profit groups pay for Oak Room rentals. (INCLUDE this revenue in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $2, Special Fund $ Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\Library\Form B - Music Recitals.docx

21 FEE REVISIONS IN EXCESS OF THE CPI DEPARTMENT: Library B REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Piano Tuning (special request) 9.3 E (5) d $ JUSTIFICATION: Although in excess of the CPI, the new rate for piano tuning reflects what is currently charged for this service and is the actual cost of doing business. (INCLUDE this revenue in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $0 Special Fund $ Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\Library\Form B - Piano Tuning.docx

22 FEE REVISIONS IN EXCESS OF THE CPI DEPARTMENT: Library B REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Passport Processing Services USPS Express Mail (up to 8 oz.) FedEx (up to 8 oz.) 9.4 H (9) a H (9) b Per family/ mailing unit $19.99 $24.42 Notary Services USPS Express Mail (up to 8 oz.) FedEx (up to 8 oz.) 9.4 I (2) a I (2) b Per family/ mailing unit $19.99 $24.42 Research Service Document Delivery 1 st class mail 9.6 E (2) Up to 5 oz. $1.82 JUSTIFICATION: Although in excess of the CPI, the new rates reflect what is currently charged for express mailing services and are the actual cost of doing business. (INCLUDE this revenue in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $0.00 Special Fund $ Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\Library\Form B - Passport-Notary-Research Services.docx

23 FEE REVISIONS IN EXCESS OF THE CPI DEPARTMENT: PARKS AND RECREATION B REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Park In-Lieu Fee / Park Impact Fee for Residential Planning Application projects involving and parcel map(s), subdivision(s), and other multi-family residential projects VII.B Per Dwelling Unit Type: Single Family Multi- Family 2-4 units Multi- Family 5 + units Mobile Homes $19,105 $19,392 $13,882 $27,798 JUSTIFICATION: The calculation of this revised fee = Land Dedication requirement of 2 acres per 1,000 population per Muni Code Section x the Median Land Value which staff has determined increased from the fee manual value in FY14-15 of $3,172,649 to $3,577,796 per acre x population factor per dwelling unit type based on the 2010 Census. The determination of the land value is based on applying the percentage of fluctuation in the sales price of residential property in San Mateo over the past year to the FY14-15 determination of the median land value. The population factors per dwelling unit type based on the 2010 Census are as follows: Dwelling Unit Type Population Per Unit Single Family 2.67 Multi-Family 2-4 units 2.71 Multi-Family +5 units 1.94 Mobile Homes 3.91 (INCLUDE this revenue in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $ NA Special Fund $ Varies based on the amount of residential development that takes place Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\Parks & Rec\User Fee-Form B_higher than CPI ILF.docx

24 FEE REVISIONS IN EXCESS OF THE CPI DEPARTMENT: Police B REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Biyearly renewal permit fees for Massage Establishment 11.1 B-1 B-2 $ JUSTIFICATION: Bring biyearly renewal fee of current $78.00 in line with biyearly renewal fee under Section C (Massage Practitioner) of $ to keep consistent. The process involved to renew the permits are the same for the massage establishments and for the practitioners. (INCLUDE this revenue in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $ Special Fund $ Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\Police\Form B - Police Renewal Fees.docx

25 OTHER CHANGES DEPARTMENT: City Manager s Office C REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Temporary No Parking: Parking Meters* Up to 7 days 8-49 days days 99+ days For each time the City installs and removes a meter bag *The rates are on a cumulative basis unless there is a 30 day break between rentals per Code II. A Per day/ per meter Per install ation $8.00 $43.60 $85.20 $ $69.80 Downtown Parking Fee Garages Quarterly Parking Passes Garages & Lots Daily Rate (Change to On-Street and Off-Street rates) 2.1 II. B Quarter ly Time Limit $ See Attached Valet Parking Permit Fee Initial Permit Fee Implementation/Replacement Costs Curb Marking Signs Meter Pole/Bracket Central Parking Improvement District Per Space In-Lieu Fee II. C II. E Permit Location Per Sign Per Pole/Bra cket Per Space $ $79.00 $ $38.00 $12,000 JUSTIFICATION: Move parking related fees to the City Manager s Office because the Manager s Office is currently responsible for the implementation of the Downtown Parking Management Plan. Temporary No Parking: parking meters and Valet Parking Permit fees are raised by CPI rate of 3.6%. Central Parking Improvement District Per Space In-Lieu fee is being increased above CPI rate since it has not increased since 1989, so the change is to bring the fee closer to market rate. On-Street and Off-Street Downtown Parking fee will be reviewed separately per Downtown Parking Municipal Code Changes at April 6, 2015 Council Meeting. The changes approved at the subsequent meeting will be reflected in the fee manual. (INCLUDE all the changes in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $ 75,000 Special Fund $ Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\City Manager\Form C - City Managers Parking.docx

26 F. HOODED PARKING METERS Change Title to Temporary No Parking Meters Up to 7 days per day per meter $8.00 (This is at the $1.00 per hour rate x 8 hours=$8.) Remainder of Section at CPI to existing rates. K. DOWNTOWN PARKING FEE ON-STREET AND OFF-STREET RATES ($0.50 minimum for credit cards at paystations) Two areas: Premium and Value Premium On-Street Spaces 3 hours $1.00 per hour Premium Off-Street Facilities 3 hours $1.00 per hour (street level) Premium Off-Street Facilities no limit $.50 per hour (other levels) (Central Garage Lots 4, 5 6) Value On-Street Spaces 3 hours $.50 per hour Value Off-Street Facilities 3 hours $.50 per hour (street level) Value Off-Street Facilities no limit $.50 per hour (other levels) (Main Street Garage Lot 1, Second and ECR Garage Lot 2, Tennis Court Garage Lot 3, Ravioli Lot Lot 7 Talbot s Lot Lot 8 Transit Center Lot 9 5 th to 9 th Avenue on South Railroad Avenue) Kinko s Lot Lot 10 and no limit $ 0.25 per hour Worker s Resource Lot Lot 11 Garages Quarterly Parking Passes remain the same L. VALET PARKING PERMIT FEE Add CPI to rates. Remove Annual Renewal Fee. N. CENTRAL PARKING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PER SPACE IN-LIEU FEE Current Per Space $9, Proposed: July 1, 2015: $12,000 per space July 1, 2016: $18,000 per space July 1, 2017: $25,000 per space July 1, 2018: Amount plus CPI Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\City Manager\Form C - City Managers Parking.docx

27 OTHER CHANGES DEPARTMENT: Community Development C REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Below Market Rate Housing Fee 5.3 XIV. A fee in lieu of constructing affordable housing units onsite per Below Market Rate program: A. Fractional required units for projects consisting of 11 or more residential units. B. Requirement for projects consisting of 5 to 10 residential units..1 housing unit.2 housing unit.3 housing unit.4 housing unit 5 unit project 6 unit project 7 unit project 8 unit project 9 unit project 10 unit project 15,170 30,340 45,510 60,680 75,850 91, , , , ,700 JUSTIFICATION: The City s economic consultant, Economic &Planning Systems, provided multifamily rental development cost analysis as part of the Nexus Based Affordable Housing Fee Analysis dated 10/5/11. Table 2 Affordability Gap Analysis in that report calculates the cost of affordable units for various income scenarios. This fee assumes the Low Income scenario, assuming a 2 bedroom unit occupied by a household of 3 at 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). The nexus study is based on construction costs/land values in EPS has provided a formula to use to update these fees for subsequent years, based on change in construction costs and change in BMR sales prices since CPI will not be an appropriate index. See attached worksheet. In lieu fees collected will be deposited into Fund 30 City Housing. (INCLUDE all the changes in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $ Special Fund $50, Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\CDD\User Fee-Form C_other BMR15-16.doc

28 OTHER CHANGES DEPARTMENT: Library C REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Fees to be eliminated: Reserves (holds) for Titles 8.1 II (C) Per Item $1.00 Library Children s Birthday Parties a. Resident b. Non-Resident c. Security/damage deposit 8.3 II (F) 5 Per use Per use Per use $ $ $ JUSTIFICATION: The holds fee is being removed as it was eliminated by the Peninsula Library System effective July 1, The fees for Library Children s Birthday Parties are being removed because the service was never implemented due to capacity and logistical challenges. (INCLUDE all the changes in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $0 Special Fund $ Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\Library\Form C - Holds and Birthday Parties.docx

29 OTHER CHANGES DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation C REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Special Event Fee Special Event Alcohol Fee II.B II.B Hour Use $25.00 $ JUSTIFICATION: Two years ago, the Department added new fees for the reservation of outdoor facilities and park space for special events, as outlined in the fee schedule under Special Park Permits. Given the increase in special events in our parks, staff developed these new fees to create consistency around special event fees. During the time that these fees have been in effect, there has been improved consistently in the application of fees towards special events. However, these additional fees did not improve the ease of administration and in the end made the calculation of special event fees more complicated for both staff and event holders. After some additional research on special event fees and their impact on ongoing events in the parks, the Department developed a new fee structure for special events. One fee is now recommended for all special events in outdoor facilities and park spaces. This creates a consistent fee for all special events, an easier administrative process for City staff and a fee structure that better reimburses the City for the impacts created by events in our parks. The new recommended fee charges $25/hour for the use of a park location. This fee applies to all events and all organizations and requires a minimum two hour booking. In addition, a flat fee of $250 per user for an alcohol permit has been added. (INCLUDE this revenue in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund: $ 1,750 Special Fund: $ Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\Parks & Rec\Form C - Special Event Permit Fee.doc

30 OTHER CHANGES DEPARTMENT: Police C REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Add back in plus prevailing states, federal and county fees for fingerprinting of applicants that are at the following costs (goes back as footnote #1) 11.1 Footnote #1 DOJ Prevailing Fee FBI Prevailing Fee County Prevailing Fee $ JUSTIFICATION: It was inadvertently removed from last year s fee schedule and needs to be put back in for this year s schedule. (INCLUDE all the changes in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $0 Special Fund $ Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\Police\Form C - Fingerprint.docx

31 OTHER CHANGES DEPARTMENT: Police C REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Outside Detail Rates: Category A City organized, conducted, sponsored, or co-sponsored events, or nonprofit sponsored events that benefit city programs. Category B Fund raising events organized, conducted and sponsored by registered nonprofit organizations. Police Officer Police Sergeant Community Service Officer Sr. Dispatcher Police Reserve Officer Police Cadet Parking Enforcement Rep Category C Events sponsored by for-profit business or non-tax-exempt organizations. Police Officer Police Sergeant Community Service Officer Sr. Dispatcher Police Reserve Officer Police Cadet Parking Enforcement Rep 11.4 XII Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour $0.00 $ $ JUSTIFICATION: The rates are being put back because it was inadvertently removed last year from the Special Community Events Permit section and it is used to calculate Outside Detail Rates. It s going to be listed in Police section. (INCLUDE all the changes in your projections for ) (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $ 0.00 Special Fund $ Q:\finance\Fee Manuals\fee manual \Submission from Dept\Police\Form C - Outside Detail Rates.docx

32

33 Attachment 7 CITY OF SAN MATEO City Hall 330 W. 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA Administrative Report Agenda Number: 2., Status: New Business TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: Park and Recreation Commission Sheila Canzian, Director, Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation Department MEETING DATE: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule: FY RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed FY fee schedule for Parks and Recreation facilities and miscellaneous fees. BACKGROUND year the City reviews and adjusts fees. Generally fees are adjusted by the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for the previous year. The COLA has been identified as 3.6% for this year. The recommended fee changes for the Parks and Recreation Department are detailed in Attachment 1 and outlined below. In all areas, the fee adjustments are above the 3.6% COLA. Typically fee increase recommendations are based on information gathered from market surveys and user meetings. Below is a summary of recommended fee changes. Recreation Programs (Page 10.1): Program fees are set administratively, consistent with the Cost Recovery and Pricing Policy outlined in the fee schedule. Picnic Reservations (Page 10.5): It is recommended that picnic fees remain the same for FY Fees were last increased in FY A study of fees in the local area conducted in October 2014 indicates that our fees are within the typical range for each of the different size picnic areas. Picnic fees generated $106,365 in FY One change to note for picnic reservations is a new picnic fee for Paddock Park. Based on public feedback, City staff designated the small picnic area as available for reservation in Paddock Park starting January 1, This picnic area will still be available for free on a drop-in basis, but will be available for reservation for those that are interested. In addition, one picnic table still remains at the park for drop-in. The standard small picnic fee of $50 applies. Special Park Permits (Page 10.5): Two years ago, the Department added new fees for the reservation of outdoor facilities and park space for special events, as outlined in the fee schedule under Special Park Permits. Given the increase in special events in our parks, staff developed these new fees to create consistency around special event fees. During the time that these fees have been in effect, there has been improved consistently in the application of fees towards special events. However, these additional fees did not improve the ease of administration and in the end made the calculation of special event fees more complicated. Recently, staff conducted some CITY OF SAN MATEO Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/25/2014 powered by Legistar

34 Agenda Number: 2., Status: New Business additional research on special event fees and their impact on ongoing events in the parks. As a result staff is recommending a new fee structure going forward. Staff recommends that we implement one fee for the reservation of outdoor facilities and park space for special events. This change will create a consistent fee for all special events, an easier administrative process for City staff and a fee structure that better reimburses the City for the impacts created by events in our parks. The new recommended fee charges $25/hour for the use of a park location. This fee applies to all events and all organizations and requires a minimum two hour booking. In addition, staff recommends a flat fee of $250 per event for an alcohol permit. As in the past, staff will assess separate fees as necessary to reimburse for any custodial, maintenance or park ranger staff working an event. Athletics (Page 10.6): Youth field fees are on a program of modest incremental increases each year. This increment is earmarked for a trust account dedicated to augmenting field maintenance activities. Fees are recommended to increase by $0.25 per half day use (4%). Adult and private field use is also recommended to be increased by $1.00 hour. For adult use, this is an increase from $21.00 to $22.00 per hour. For non-profit fund-raising tournaments, this is an increase from $9.00 to $10.00 per hour. Light charges approximate the actual cost of use, and are not recommended for increase this year. Other outdoor athletic facility fees generate immaterial revenue due to modest use (approximately $6,000) and are recommended to remain at current rates (these fees were raised in FY14-15). San Mateo High School Gymnasium Rentals (10.6) San Mateo High School Gym fees are recommended to remain unchanged again for FY In FY13-14 fees were increased by 20% for the gym, and 9% for the ancillary rooms (dance room, lobby and multipurpose room). Rental fees were $27,000+ in FY The number of users who pay a rental fee is low, 8 organizations in FY13-14; but a few of these tend to be heavy users. In fact, one summer camp accounts for 41% of booking revenue. We need to be cautious about fees to ensure that we retain our current users, while we try to expand the numbers of users. Among the Athletics Section work plan items for FY14-15 is expanding our marketing of the gym rentals. Community Center Rentals (Page 10.7): Community Center rental fees were not increased for FY14-15 and they are recommended to remain unchanged for FY It is staff s observation that we have pushed fees beyond the value point for renters and have lost revenue while increasing fees. Rental revenues come largely from private social events and we have increased fees for those by approximately 28% since FY Below is a table showing gross revenue derived from rentals over that same period. Year Gross Revenue FY07-08 $81,585 FY08-09 $80,039 FY09-10 $98,187 FY10-11 $88,431 FY11-12 $87,645 FY12-13 $74,095 FY13-14 $81,031 Although we have increased from our very low FY12-13 numbers, revenues remain at the low end for this CITY OF SAN MATEO Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/25/2014 powered by Legistar

35 Agenda Number: 2., Status: New Business span of years. In addition, we had only 4 additional private social event rentals compared to last year. Staff recommends holding the line on community center rental fees so that we can catch up to our value point. The other significant source of rental revenue is for staff charges for non-profit use during non-business hours. Staff fees recover the full staff wage/benefit cost. Swimming Pool Rentals (Page 10.10): No fee changes are recommended for swimming pool rentals. Nearly all summer time is scheduled for lessons and recreation swim, so rentals are and will be rare. Any off-season rentals are by negotiation to cover 100% of costs to make the pool available. Lagoon Access/Boating Fees (Page 10.10): No fee changes are recommended for boating use fees this year. Golf Course (Page 10.11) No fee changes are recommended this year. Park and Landscape Resources (Page 10.12) No fee changes are recommended this year. Miscellaneous Fees: A number of other fees are included in Attachment 1, but none of these fees are proposed to be increased. Staff can provide additional information about the remaining fees at the meeting if desired. BUDGET IMPACT The limited changes to the FY15-16 fees will lead to only small increases in revenue for most areas. The area with the most expected budget impact is the park in-lieu fees. The park in-lieu fees have increased substantially since last year, mostly due to the improved housing market. The in-lieu fee increases may result in greater park in-lieu revenues depending upon which development projects are required to pay their fees in FY NOTICE PROVIDED All meeting noticing requirements were met. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Proposed FY15-16 Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule Please note that Attachment 1 is a copy of the FY14-15 fee schedule with handwritten notes indicating proposed changes for F Also please note that NC means no change. STAFF CONTACT S. Abby Veeser, Sr. Management Analyst aveeser@cityofsanmateo.org <mailto:aveeser@cityofsanmateo.org> (650) Sheila Canzian, Director, Parks and Recreation scanzian@cityofsanmateo.org <mailto:scanzian@cityofsanmateo.org> (650) CITY OF SAN MATEO Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/25/2014 powered by Legistar

36 ATTACHMENT 1

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51 City of San Mateo Parks and Recreation Memorandum To: Park and Recreation Commission cc: Sheila Canzian, Director of Parks and Recreation From: Dennis Frank, Landscape Architect Re: In Lieu Fee Follow Up Date: 22 December 2014 San Mateo Parks and Recreation 330 W. 20 th Avenue San Mateo, CA T F #2 Commissioners: I understand that several Commissioners raised questions at the December 3 Park and Recreation Commission meeting regarding the proposed Park In Lieu fees. Based upon my understanding of the questions, I have provided responses below. Just a reminder to Commissioners that the Park In Lieu fee is intended as the alternative to the dedication of actual land and represents the market value of purchasing land were the city to elect to do so for park purposes. Clarify whether the phrase adopted by City Council resolution relates to the generic formula or the specific dollar amount shown in the fee schedule. All fees are adopted by City Council resolution. The current land value figure of $3,172,649/acre was approved by the City Council in February Has the City Council approved the proposed $3,577,796/acre median land value? No. Provide the specific method for establishing the median land value Two years ago we established the per acre/median land value by identifying the sales price of parcels that had been acquired for development projects over a three year period and calculated the median per acre land value. Since establishing the per acre value two years ago, staff uses data from Trulia (real estate web site) that shows the median sales price of all properties sold in San Mateo and identifies the percentage increase from year to year. Clarify whether the method of determining the median land value is codified or administratively determined It is administratively determined. The code authorizes the Director of Parks and Recreation or designee to determine the value of land in the City that includes the method as well. If administratively determined, is there flexibility in selecting a method? There is flexibility as long as the method chosen reasonably determines land value without incurring a lot of staff time. We believe that the method we are presently using (which established an initial land value based on property sales) and then applying the increase/decrease in annual median sales prices from the Trulia website is an appropriate one. Does the code provide any flexibility in waiving or reducing a calculated increase? No. For the process to retain its integrity and to treat all projects fairly, regardless of when the fee is being calculated, staff would not support the practice of waiving or reducing fees. Just as a reminder to Commissioners, projects can receive credits, i.e. a reduction in their overall fee based upon the number and type of on-site recreational amenities that are being provided, up to a maximum 50% reduction. The rationale being that the more on-site recreational amenities provided, the lesser the impact by residents on the public park system.

52 How do San Mateo fees compare to those in surrounding communities? When we modified the ordinance in 2008 we realized that trying to compare fees from city to city is no easy task. Cities utilize different methodologies for calculating land value, i.e. some cities include the value of park improvements to the actual land value, many cities require the dedication of 3 acres of parkland/per 1000 residents (San Mateo only requires 2), some cities minimize the amount of credit given, etc. For cities immediately adjacent to San Mateo, Burlingame has no ordinance implementing the Quimby Act (the legislation enabling the dedication of land/fees for park purposes); Belmont s existing per dwelling type fees are $30,450 for single family (proposed San Mateo is $19,105), $22,787 for multi-family housing (proposed San Mateo is $13,882); and Foster City had not responded to the request for current fees at the time of preparing this memo.

53 FEE REVISIONS IN EXCESS OF THE CPI DEPARTMENT: PARKS AND RECREATION B REFERENCE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES PAGE # ITEM # UNIT FEE Park In-Lieu Fee / Park Impact Fee for Residential Planning Application projects involving and parcel map(s), subdivision(s), and other multi-family residential projects VII.B Per Dwelling Unit Type: Single Family $19,105 Multi- Family 2-4 units $19,392 Multi- Family 5 + units $13,882 Mobile Homes $27,798 JUSTIFICATION: The calculation of this revised fee = Land Dedication requirement of 2 acres per 1,000 population per Muni Code Section x the Median Land Value which staff has determined increased from the fee manual value in FY14-15 of $3,172,649 to $3,577,796 per acre x population factor per dwelling unit type based on the 2010 Census. The determination of the land value is based on applying the percentage of fluctuation in the sales price of residential property in San Mateo over the past year to the FY14-15 determination of the median land value. The population factors per dwelling unit type based on the 2010 Census are as follows: Dwelling Unit Type Population Per Unit Single Family 2.67 Multi-Family 2-4 units 2.71 Multi-Family +5 units 1.94 Mobile Homes (include CPI adjustment) General Fund $ NA (INCLUDE this revenue in your projections for ) Special Fund $ Varies based on the amount of residential development that takes place

54 Attachment 8 ANNUAL REVIEW AND FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES INCLUDING PROPOSED FEE INCREASES AND SEWR CONNECTION CHARGE I. WASTEWATER PHASE II EXPANSION CITY OF SAN MATEO DECEMBER 2014 Imposed on all development that requires a planning application or project that result in a change of use and that add more sewage to the City s sewage treatment system. A. Purpose of Fee: Sewage treatment. Fee pays for capacity of plant in accordance with General Plan population projections through the year Fee collection to continue until developer cost recovered. B. Use of Fee: Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Plant per the General Plan Land Use section 4.5 and the City s Capital Improvement Program Project. C. Relationship Between Need For/Use of Fee and Type of Development: All development which adds sewage to the City's sewage treatment system should pay for the portion of the plant expanded to accommodate their loading. The Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Phase II will provide an increase in capacity to treat the biological oxygen demand and solids that will be contributed to the plant from new development and connections. The City of San Mateo share of the current treatment capacity is 9.9 MGD, the upgraded system will provide for the treatment of 11.4 MGD. San Mateo future (2010) capacity for the plant was projected at 11.4 MGD. Therefore, the 1.5 MGD capacity will be projected as the amount provided by the plant expansion. The cost of this capacity increase should be paid by the new connections. D. Determination of the amount of fee attributable to a particular development -- $2.34 per gallon of average daily flow. Final projected cost of the 2005 expansion is $36.12 million. This is based on the 2005 Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion. Construction began April 2005 and was substantially complete in the spring of The Treatment Plant is partially owned by the Estero Municipal Improvement District. Under a JPA with that agency, San Mateo s share of the expansion cost is 75 % of $36.12 million total cost or $27.09 million. Page 1 of 8 P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\December 2014 Exhibit E(for FY15-16Fees)v.1.docx

55 The portion of the project attributed to increase Loading Capacity Expansion (rather than replacing existing capacity) = 13% of cost. Therefore, development pays 13% of San Mateo's share (13% of $27.09 million) = $3.52 million. Enlarged capacity of treatment plant = 1.5 million gallons per day. Fee rate equals total cost to developers ($3,520,000) divided by expansion (1,500,000 gpd) = $2.34/gpd. Average use for particular users determined by reference to site sewer study or engineering standards. Example: Estimated average use for a new 20,000 square foot office building = 2,000 gpd. Developer contribution is 2,000 gpd x $2.34/gpd = $4, E. Account/Fund Accounting for the Waste Water Treatment Plant Expansion Fee FEE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT OF FEE FEE TERM PROPOSED FEE AMOUNT The Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion fee is imposed on all development that requires a planning application and which adds sewage to the City sewage treatment system. See item D above. Collect $3.52 million is raised from the fee. $2.34 per gallons of average daily flow BEGINNING ACCOUNT BALANCE JULY 1, 2013 $-0- FEES COLLECTED FISCAL YEAR $481, INTEREST EARNED FISCAL YEAR $-0- ENDING ACCOUNT BALANCE JUNE 30, 2014 FEES EXPENDED/USE OF FEES Fees FY06-07 $ 21, Fees FY07-08 $ 6, Fees FY08-09 $ 77, Fees FY09-10 $ 19, Fees FY10-11 $ 10, Fees FY11-12 $ 72, Fees FY12-13 $332, Fess FY13-14 $481, CONSTRUCTION START DATE April 2005 CONSTRUCTION ACCEPT WORK/SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE NO FEE INCREASE PROPOSED $481, (Fees collected are transferred annually to the fund balance of the Sewer Enterprise Fund). The sewer fund received $481, in Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II fees in FY Fees received are a repayment of the loan from the Sewer Fund. Funds loaned were used to pay for the WWTP Expansion Phase II project costs. The fee is to continue until the developer cost of $3.52 million is recovered. Collection of fee began July 1, 2006 (i.e. FY06-07). As of June 30, 2014 the City has only collected $1,021, of the expansion fee, which represents 29.0% of the developer contribution. April 6, 2009 City has elected to review the fee annually instead of once every five years per state law. Page 2 of 8 P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\December 2014 Exhibit E(for FY15-16Fees)v.1.docx

56 II. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FEE: San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter establishes a transportation improvement fee for new development to fund City-wide traffic improvements needed to accommodate development. A. Purpose of Fee: Transportation Improvements. B. Use of Fee: To complete the transportation improvement projects specified in the 2008 Traffic Mitigation Report and Fee Update prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultant, Inc., dated June 8, 2009 as may be updated, or amended in Section D following, or to reimburse the City for such construction; reimburse developers who have been required or permitted to install improvements; and pay costs for the administration of this ordinance. The update revises the list of projects to be funded (see attachment 1). This change is not expected to result in a change in the cost per trip, but the cost of the overall program did increase and was approved with the General Plan update. See City s General Plan Circulation sections C2.4 and C2.5. C. Relationship Between Need For/Use of Fee and Type of Development: Development will pay only for improvements where there is a reasonable relationship between the road improvements and the traffic generated by the new development. Types of development subject to the fee: Pursuant to (SMMC) Section The fee shall be applicable to new development projects which require a planning application pursuant to Section , expansion of floor area of existing uses which require a planning application pursuant to Section , new single family and duplex dwelling units, and change of use permit as follows: 1. Residential Construction. The fee applies for each NEW dwelling unit. 2. Non-Residential Construction. The fee applies to the new square footage for all commercial and institutional uses, including both additions and new buildings. 3. Changes of Use Requiring a Special Use Permit. Fees are required for changes of use only when a special use permit is needed. 4. City facilities are exempt. 5. Refer to (SMMC) Chapter for further details. D. Determination of the Amount of Fee Attributable to a Particular Development: Fee = fee per land use unit x number of land use units in subject application. For special uses not specifically addressed by the land use categories, Fee = average PM peak hour trips anticipated for the development average cost per trip. Page 3 of 8 P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\December 2014 Exhibit E(for FY15-16Fees)v.1.docx

57 COST PER TRIP CALCULATION METHODOLOGY: Net added P.M. peak hour trips: 9,301 (1) Fee funded: $34,998, Cost per trip: $3, (1) Based on San Mateo Model forecasts updated to reflect approved development. PROPOSED TRAFFIC FEES Based on P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates (3), (4) TYPE OF LAND USE TRIP RATE (1) TRAFFIC FEE MEASURING FACTOR Residential Single Family (2) /DU $3,422 per DU Multi-Family /DU $2,101 per DU Commercial and Industrial Retail 2.04/ksf $5,893 per 1,000 sq.ft. Office 1.09/ksf $3,135 per 1,000 sq.ft Industrial 0.71/ksf $2,042 per 1,000 sq. ft. (1) Based on ITE PM Peak Hour Trip Generation with a 27% reduction for intracity trips. (2) All residential growth is assumed to be multi-family (for determining total added trips). Thus the fee per trip is calculated as such. However any singlefamily homes will be charged in accordance with their corresponding trip rate. (3) Credits are available for existing on-site uses as described in (SMMC) Chapter and as show in the 2008 Traffic Mitigation Report Updated dated June 8, (4) Fee for uses not shown in the established categories will be based on a per trip fee calculation for further details see the 2008 Traffic Mitigation Report Update dated June 8, Page 4 of 8 P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\December 2014 Exhibit E(for FY15-16Fees)v.1.docx

58 E. Account/Fund Accounting for the Transportation Improvement Fee FEE DESCRIPTION PROPOSED FEE AMOUNT BEGINNING ACCOUNT BALANCE JULY 1, 2013 FEES COLLECTED FISCAL YEAR The Transportation Improvement Impact Fee is imposed on new development to fund Citywide traffic improvements needed to accommodate development as specified in the 2008 Traffic Mitigation Report dated June 8, Based on calculation in D above. $2,909, $ 1,391, INTEREST ALLOCATION $ 30, LESS FEES TRANSFERRED TO CAPITAL PROJECTS $65, ENDING ACCOUNT BALANCE JUNE 30, 2014 $4,265, TH Ave Grade Separation $ USE OF FEES FY Freeway Impr-SR92 $ Bike Master Plan $ Ped Master Plan $ Citywide Traffic Signals $ Citywide Traffic Calming $ Traffic Model Update $ 2, th Ave/ECR SB Right Turn Lane $62, Street Widening 3 rd /4 th Ave $ 0.00 Expenditure Report See Attachment 2, 2A, Approximate Date Designated on See Attachment 2B which funding is expected NO FEE INCREASE PROPOSED City has elected to review annually instead of once every five years as per state law. Page 5 of 8 P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\December 2014 Exhibit E(for FY15-16Fees)v.1.docx

59 III. SOUTH TRUNK AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENT FEE The San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 3.54 Sewer Service Charges and Connection Fees authorize the imposition of development impact fees for the South Trunk area sewer improvements. The fee is imposed on all development and redevelopment contributing to the South Trunk line and became effective on March 1, A. Purpose of Fee: To pay for improvements to increase the capacity of the South Trunk line to serve the new development and redevelopment. B. Use of Fee: To complete the capacity improvement projects needed to serve new development and redevelopment in the South Trunk area of the City as specified in the Technical Memorandum prepared by RMC Water and Environment in October C. Relationship Between Need For/Use of Fee and Type of Development: The existing trunk sewer system serving the South Trunk area has insufficient capacity to handle existing and future peak wastewater flows. In order for development and redevelopment to proceed in the South Trunk Area, capacity needs to be added to the system to handle the additional wastewater flows that would be generated by that development. The anticipated additional wastewater flows have been calculated by applying a unit flow factor to growth estimates of population, employment, and hotel/motel rooms between 2000 and 2020 based on the land uses provided for in the City s existing General Plan and the development proposed under Corridor Plan A for the San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development Plan. The following projects are required to provide capacity for development and redevelopment: Project ID Description Estimated Capital Cost SAT -1 Dale Avenue PS Easement Parallel $ 622,100 SST -1 Alt. Lower Dale/Delaware Trunk Relief 8,453,200 SST -2A South Delaware Parallel Phase I 5,152,900 SST -2B South Delaware Parallel Phase II 785,300, Total Estimate Cost $15,013,500 Note: Costs are estimated in 2009 dollars and increased annually to reflect the change in the CPI as of October of each year. The City s cost are estimated to increase in portion to any CPI increase. There was a 3.0% CIP increase for The CPI for 2016 is 3.6% and is reflected in the Estimated Capital Cost shown in table above and for the Impact Fee shown in the table below. Also see Attachment 3 for project locations South Trunk Projects for New Development Map Figure 2. Page 6 of 8 P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\December 2014 Exhibit E(for FY15-16Fees)v.1.docx

60 D. Determination of the Amount of Fee Attributable to a Particular Development: To calculate the required fees, the estimated residential population growth in the South Trunk area was converted to the estimated number of new single- and multi-family dwelling units; and the estimated employment (jobs) was converted to an estimated number of fixture units. unit was then converted to equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) based on the equivalencies in the City s sewer capacity charge schedule. A total of 3,237 EDUs would be served by the South Trunk improvement projects. Based on the total capital improvement cost of $15,013,500, the required impact fee would be $4,638 per EDU. The proposed fee for each type of connection is summarized below (supporting Technical Memorandum on file in Public Works Department). Development Type Unit Impact Fee Single-family dwelling Per dwelling unit $4, Multi-family dwelling, 1 bedroom Per dwelling unit $2, Multi-family dwelling, 2 bedroom Per dwelling unit $3, Multi-family dwelling, 3 bedroom Per dwelling unit $4, Hotels or motels Room $2, Non-residential Fixture unit $ E. Account/Fund Accounting for the South Trunk Sewer Relief Development FEE DESCRIPTION PROPOSED FEE AMOUNT South Trunk Sewer Relief Development Impact Fee is imposed on all development and redevelopment contributing to the South Trunk line. Assessed based on equivalent dwelling units or fixture units as described in item D above. BEGINNING ACCOUNT BALANCE JULY 1, 2013 $1,330, FEES COLLECTED FISCAL YEAR $609, INTEREST ALLOCATION $13, FEES TRANSFERRED TO CAPITAL PROJECTS $145, ` ENDING ACCOUNT BALANCE JUNE 30, 2014 $1,806, PROPOSED FEE AMOUNT Based on calculation in D above. Page 7 of 8 P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\December 2014 Exhibit E(for FY15-16Fees)v.1.docx

61 USE OF FEES To complete the capacity improvement projects needed to serve new development and redevelopment in the South Trunk area of the City as specified in the Technical Memorandum prepared by RMC Water and Environment in October Previous development in the South Trunk Area was charged the Sanitary Sewer Undercossing of US 101 fee. The US 101 crossing is one of the segments in the current South Trunk Sewer Relief project. The Sanitary Sewer Undercossing of US 101 fee ended June 30, The account balance/unexpended US 101 fee is $32, To date $839,648 was used for project related expenditures (see South Trunk System Upgrade. Unspent fees will be used to fund the remaining South Trunk System Upgrade project work as discussed above. Page 8 of 8 P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\December 2014 Exhibit E(for FY15-16Fees)v.1.docx

62 Page 15.9

63 Attachment 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE EXPENDITURES THROUGH FY13-14 ALLOCATION TIF TIF PRIOR TO 07- EXPENDITURES 08 PRIOR TO TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO ALLOCATION TIF TIF EXPENDITURES TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES ALLOCATION TIF TIF EXPENDITURES TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES ALLOCATION TIF TIF EXPENDITURES PROJECT NAME PROJECT # FY07-08 FY07-08 FY07-08 FY08-09 FY08-09 FY08-09 FY09-10 FY th Ave/Rail Corridor Grade Separation CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE xx N/A $0 $0 $141,954 $0 $0 $0 $1,210,000 $24,370 $225 $1,508,000 $0 Freeway Impr-SR92 Widening CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE N/A N/A $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Bike Master Plan CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE N/A N/A $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pedestrian Master Plan CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE Citywide Traffic Signals CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE Citywide Traffic Calming CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE Traffic Model Update CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE Steet Widening-3rd/4th Ave CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE 20th Ave/ECR SB Right Turn CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE N/A N/A $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ Varies Varies $1,172,411 $248,066 $809,062 $138,500 $114,149 $95,617 ($700,000) $161,175 $361,173 $100,000 $29, N/A N/A $998,896 $788,093 $788,093 $0.00 $107,942 $107,942 $0 $59,015 $59,015 $50,000 $108, N/A N/A $569,475 $414,475 $415,083 $0.00 $106, $105,666 $75,000 $25,920 $25,970 $100,000 $3, N/A N/A $0 $0 $78,663 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ N/A N/A TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES $2,740,782 $1,450,634 $2,232,854 $138,500 $328,365 $309,225 $585,000 $270,480 $446,383 $1,758,000 $141,835 P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\TIF-Fee Schedule Report FY13-14 Report Page 1 of 3

64 Attachment 2 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # 25th Ave/Rail Corridor Grade Separation CONSTRUC START DATE xx ACCEPT WORK DATE N/A Freeway Impr-SR92 Widening CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE N/A N/A Bike Master Plan CONSTRUC START DATE N/A ACCEPT WORK DATE N/A Pedestrian Master Plan CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE Citywide Traffic Signals CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE Citywide Traffic Calming CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE Traffic Model Update CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE Steet Widening-3rd/4th Ave CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE 20th Ave/ECR SB Right Turn CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES N/A N/A Varies Varies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES ALLOCATION TIF TIF EXPENDITURES TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES ALLOCATION TIF TIF EXPENDITURES TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES ALLOCATION TIF TIF EXPENDITURES TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES ALLOCATION TIF FY09-10 FY10-11 FY10-11 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY11-12 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY12-13 FY12-13 FY13-14 $49,773 ($1,007,032) $78,806 $145,033 $0 $64,219 $64,219 ($280,000) $18,415 $18,415 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,499 $280,000 $0 $8,925 $280,000 $38,109 $0 $0 $51,927 $0 $0 $61,429 $0 $0 $17,668 $0 $3,028 $0 $0 $142,405 $0 $0 $212,648 $0 $0 $29,004 $0 $503,381 $0 $0 $134,745 ($158,079) $0 $354,085 $0 $0 $137,085 $0 $108,865 $0 $22,578 $22,578 $95,018 $1,798 $1,798 $0 $10,848 $10,848 $0 $3,478 $0 $4,998 $4,998 ($94,278) $0 $0 $0 $35,675 $35,675 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $0 $0 $0 $706,635 ($1,007,032) $106,382 $501,686 ($157,339) $66,018 $710,679 $70,000 $64,938 $257,620 $280,000 P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\TIF-Fee Schedule Report FY13-14 Report Page 2 of 3

65 Attachment 2 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # 25th Ave/Rail Corridor Grade Separation CONSTRUC START DATE xx ACCEPT WORK DATE N/A Freeway Impr-SR92 Widening CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE N/A N/A Bike Master Plan CONSTRUC START DATE N/A ACCEPT WORK DATE N/A Pedestrian Master Plan CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE Citywide Traffic Signals CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE Citywide Traffic Calming CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE Traffic Model Update CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE Steet Widening-3rd/4th Ave CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE 20th Ave/ECR SB Right Turn CONSTRUC START DATE ACCEPT WORK DATE TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES N/A N/A Varies Varies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TIF EXPENDITURES TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES TOTAL TIF ALLOCATION TOTAL TIF EXP AS OF TOTAL PROJECT EXP AS OF PERCENT TIF EXP FY13-14 FY /30/14 06/30/14 06/30/14 06/30/14 $28 $28 $1,430,968 $185,837 $419, % $0 $660,992 $560,000 $0 $686, % $0 $0 $0 $0 $169, % $0 $138,403 $0 $0 $525, % $0 $124,422 $552,831 $552,831 $2,519, % $0 $0 $1,143,914 $1,099,139 $1,099, % $2,814 $2,814 $650,197 $593,685 $593, % $0 $0 $0 $0 $78, % $62,408 $62,408 $70,000 $62,408 $62,408 $65,249 $989,067 $4,407,911 $2,493,900 $6,154, % P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\TIF-Fee Schedule Report FY13-14 Report Page 3 of 3

66 Traffic Improvement Impact Fee Expenditure Report FY Attachement 2A Road Developer Funding, SM Cnty Trans Community Total Improvement Traffic Impact Funds County, State, Total Funding Traffic Federal Authority Implementation Fees & Total Total Traffic % Funded Project Date Project Fees Required Per & Fed Grant Required Per Impact Fee Grant Grant MSR A Gas Tax General Charges Project Expenditures Impact Fees by Impact Complete Funding # Project Name Per Model Model Per Model Model Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Fund / Misc Allocation as of 6/30/14 In Project Fee Yes/No Expected Rail Corridor Grade Separation (formerly Grade Separations - 25 & 28th & 31st Ave) 12,000, ,000, ,000,000 1,430, ,000 52, ,378 66,000 1,898, , , % No See Note Citywide Traffic Signals 5,000,000 5,000, ,831 64, ,187 2,600,400 3,495,660 2,519, , % No See Note Citywide Traffic Calming 2,500,000 2,500,000 1,143,914 1,143,914 1,099,139 1,099, % No See Note Traffic Model Update 75,000 75, , , , , % No See Note 6 Freeway Impr- SR Widening 11,448, ,851, ,300, , , , ,000 2,585, , % No See Note 7 Street Widening - 3rd/4th Ave 1,660,000 1,660, ,511 6, ,511 78, % No See Note and th Avenue Widening 50,000 50, , No See Note 9 Bike & Ped Master Plan Development 250, ,000 1,339,924 16, , ,000 2,138, , % No See Note 10 Intersection Improvements 1,965, ,000 35,000 2,100,000 70,000 70, No See Note 11 Total 34,948, , ,936, ,985,000 4,407,911 2,384,165 1,313,187 16, ,946 3,446, ,378 72,000 12,493,498 6,091,740 2,431, % Franklin Reimbursement Agreement 80,000 See Note12 Notes: 1. Total unexpended TIFs as of 6/30/14 is $4,265, The purpose to which the fee is to be put and the relationship between the fee and the purpose is explained in Exhibit E Section II. Currently the fees collected are far less than the $34.9 million needed to complete all project work. 2. Improvements are shown in column number 1 through 4 in the chart above. 3. The Rail Corridor Grade Separations project (formerly the Grade Separations -25th, 28th and 31st Ave project) is a project for which sufficient funding has not been obtained. 4. The Citywide Traffic Signals project is a project that includes multiple projects and spans multiple years and is a subprogram of the Traffic Mitigation Program. The City of San Mateo generally adds between one and three new traffic signals per year. In FY13-14 no signals were added. Additional traffic signals are generally needed because of increases in traffic due to new or intensified existing development. Due to the uncertainty of traffic model forecasts at the intersection level, it is not advisable to identify the precise locations warranting signalization in the future based on traffic forecasts derived from the model. It is therefore recommended that the traffic fee reflect historical trends without specifying the exact intersections to be included in the fee program. The program is funded assuming the installation of 20 new traffic signals to satisfy the needs created by new development. Traffic impact fees funded 23% of project cost. Additional funding sources include Federal and County grant money and Gas Tax. In addition to the funding of new signals, the program funds studies to identify the needs for traffic signal improvements. A list of projects funded from this program over the past five years follows: Design of 20th Avenue/ECR SB Right Turn Lane started end of FY2013 Design of Bridgepointe Parkway/Bridgepointe Circle Signal Improvements is complete and completion of construction estimated by the end of fiscal year 2012 DeAnza Lane Reduction Safety Improvements - FY09-10 Hillsdale Lane Reduction Safety Improvements - FY rd Avenue Lane Reduction Safety Improvements - FY The Citywide Traffic Calming project is a project that includes multiple projects and spans multiple years and is a sub program under the Traffic Mitigation Program. As a subprogram it includes a component to protect residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of cut-through traffic and excessive traffic speeds. Increased traffic on the City s arterials and collector streets as a result of future development may increase traffic on residential streets as drivers seek ways to avoid congestion. Often this cut-through traffic includes vehicles exceeding the safe speeds for residential streets. The Traffic Mitigation Program provides funding for improvements on arterial and collector streets to reduce congestion and for residential traffic calming measures. The arterial and collector improvements will reduce the potential for cut-through traffic. The traffic calming measures will reduce the impacts in neighborhoods where the problem persists, even after the collector and arterial improvements have been provided. The program, which is 100% funded through the Traffic Mitigation Program, also funds improvements on local streets to mitigate speeding in residential neighborhoods. A list of projects funded from this program over the past five years is as follows: Revision of Traffic Calming Document to Neighborhood Traffic Management Program - FY08-09 Development of City Driver Feedback Sign Guidelines - FY09-10 Evaluation of Traffic Calming Requests for entire neighborhood Central, College Park - FY08-09 Tilton Avenue RR Traffic Analysis - FY09-10 Hillsdale & Countryside Striping Improvements - Completed FY09-10 Development of Pedestrian Safety Guidelines - FY10-11 Implementation of Step 1 Traffic Calming improvements in speed limit signs, street markings, legends, striping. Analysis of traffic calming requests - Ongoing Deployment of Radar Trailer throughout City - Ongoing Stop Sign Warrant Study Evaluations for various locations - Ongoing 6. The Traffic Model Update program is also a subprogram of the Traffic Mitigation Program. This subprogram requires the evaluation of future development using the City s traffic model. This model must be consistent with the P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\TIF Report Page 1 of 2

67 Attachement 2A Traffic Improvement Impact Fee Expenditure Report FY requirements outlined in the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. To meet these requirements, the model must be updated periodically to reflect changes in land use forecasts or anticipated road improvements. The model updates are 100% funded using traffic mitigation fees since the model s primary function is the analysis of cumulative traffic impacts. Recent traffic modeling projects include: 2008 Traffic Model Update SB US 101 Ramp Feasibility Study and Traffic Modeling for Peninsula Interchange 25th Avenue Grade Separation Modeling 7. The Freeway Improvement -SR 92 Widening is a project for which sufficient funding has not been obtained. 8. The Street Widening - 3rd/4th Avenue Project is a project for which sufficient funding has not been obtained. 9. The 20th Avenue Widening project is a project for which sufficient funding has not be obtained. 10. The Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Development projects ( and ) are projects that are development projects leading to future project for which funding has not been achieved. 11. Intersection Improvement - Work to be completed at signalized intersections and may inclue capacity enhancements based on level of service need or safety improvements. Currently sufficient funding has not been obtained. 12. Franklin Reimbursement Agreement is a separate agreement related to the Concar/Delaware Intersection Improvements. The work was completed by the developer and City agreed to repay developer with Traffic Impact Fees for the work if the fee collected in any calendar year were greater than $200,000. P:\FEEMAN\Fee Manuel 15-16\TIF Report Page 2 of 2

68 Attachment 2B PROJECT Freeway & Interchange Improvements Transportation Improvement Fee Projected Program Expenditures IMPROVEMEN T TOTAL TIF Expected 1,2 - $950k TIF Expected 1,2,3 - $1.425MTIF Expected 1,2,3,4 - $1.635MTIF Expected 1,2,4 - $1.160MTIF Expected 1,2,4 - $1.160MTIF Expected 1,2,4 - $1.160MTIF Expected 1,2,4 - $1.160MTIF Expected 1,2,4 - $1.160M PROJECT COST TIF OTHER TIF OTHER TIF OTHER TIF OTHER TIF OTHER TIF OTHER TIF OTHER TIF OTHER TIF OTHER US 101 Aux. Lane $166,340,000 $166,340,000 TOTAL CONTRIBUTION FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 SR92 Aux Lane & ECR Interchange Mods. $137,300,000 $11,448,434 $125,851,566 Major Street Imps. - CEQA/NEPA $200,000 - PS&E $200,000 - Construction $910,000 $300,000 $300,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 3rd/4th Ave. Widening $1,660,000 $1,660,000 - CEQA $100,000 - PS&E $100,000 - Construction $500,000 $500,000 $460,000 20th Ave. Widening $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 - CEQA/PS&E $5,000 $5,000 - Construction $45,000 $45,000 Grade Separations 25th/28th/31st $250,000,000 $12,000,000 $238,000,000 Signal Modifications Intersection Imps. - CEQA/NEPA $180,000 - PS&E $70,000 $200,000 - Construction $515,000 $355,000 $145,000 $225,000 $685,000 New Signals & Signal Upgrades $5,000,000 $5,000,000 - Misc. Locations $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Intersection Mods. & Safety Imps. $750,000 $750,000 - Misc. Locations $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 ECR/Crystal Springs SB Rt- Turn Lane $250,000 $235,000 $15,000 - PS&E $20,000 - CEQA $10,000 - Construction $220,000 $15,000 ECR/20th Ave SB Rt-Turn Lane $100,000 $80,000 $20,000 - PS&E $10,000 - CEQA $5,000 - Construction $65,000 $20,000 Amphlett/Poplar $1,000,000 $900,000 $100,000 - PS&E $15,000 - CEQA $5,000 - Construction $685,000 $100,000

69 Attachment 2B Transportation Improvement Fee Projected Program Expenditures TOTAL CONTRIBUTION FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 Street Extension Delaware Street $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,000,000 $850,000 Neighborhood Traffic Management TIF Expected 1,2 - $950k TIF Expected 1,2,3 - $1.425MTIF Expected 1,2,3,4 - $1.635MTIF Expected 1,2,4 - $1.160MTIF Expected 1,2,4 - $1.160MTIF Expected 1,2,4 - $1.160MTIF Expected 1,2,4 - $1.160MTIF Expected 1,2,4 - $1.160M NTMP Analysis &- Various Improvements $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Locations $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Bike/Ped Improvements Various $250,000 $250,000 Traffic Model Maintenance & Upgrade - Bicycle Imps. $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 - Pedestrian Imps. $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Forecasts & Updates $75,000 $75,000 - Model Update $40,000 $35,000 1 $150k/year TIF expected based on historic contributions (Continuous) 2 $800k/year TIF expected from Bay Meadows Phase II Development (15 years ) 4 $210k/year TIF expected from SPG Development (8 years ) 3 $475k/year TIF expected from Hines Development (2 years ) Q:\pw\pweng\heap\traffic mitigation fee program\projected program expendituresb

70 Legend Attachment 3 South Trunk Service Area City Limits South Trunk Relief Project $T Dale Ave. Pump Station %U Wastewater Treatment Plant Third Ave. $T %U South Trunk Sanitary Sewer Relief Project S. Delaware St. U.S. 101 Highway 92 Alameda de las Pulgas El Camino Real Bay Meadows Development Highway 92 Hillsdale Blvd. N Location Map

71 COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE PROPOSED July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016