HomeMy WebLinkAboutD.1 - Staff Report - Development Impact Fee AdoptionSCHEDULED ITEM
D-1
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
VIA: SERGIO GONZALEZ, CITY MANAGER
FROM: TALIKA M. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DATE: AUGUST 18, 2025
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY AND FEE APPROVAL
BACKGROUND:
As new development projects are incorporated within the City of Azusa, the City must expand its public
facilities and infrastructure to adequately serve the growing community. To fund this expansion, many
local government agencies, including Azusa, impose Development Impact Fees (referred to as “Impact
Fees”) and water and sewer system-related Capacity Fees (collectively referred to as the “Development
Impact Fees,” or “DIF”).
Impact Fees are assessed on new development to fund the infrastructure and facility improvements
needed to support additional demand. These fees are typically imposed during the development
application process—most commonly at the time of building permit issuance or certificate of occupancy
for residential projects.
Capacity Fees are assessed when a developer or applicant applies to connect to the City’s water and sewer
systems. These fees ensure that system capacity is expanded proportionately to accommodate the new
connections.
Revenue generated from both Impact Fees and Capacity Fees is restricted for the purpose of expanding
public infrastructure and services to offset the impacts of growth. To ensure that the fees are fair, equitable,
and legally defensible, the City has engaged a consultant to prepare a Development Impact Fee Nexus
Study. This study will determine the maximum justified fees that the City may impose based on the cost
of infrastructure improvements required to support new development.
Although Staff is presenting the DIF in it’s entirety, Staff is not requesting the City Council to approve
the water capacity fee at this time. The Azusa Light & Water Utility Board will review and potentially
adopt the water capacity fee separately at its’ next regularly schedule Utility Board meeting in September
2025.
APPROVED WITH
AMENDMENTS
CITY COUNCIL
8/18/2025
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fee Approval
August 18, 2025
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1)Receive the proposed Development Impact Fee Nexus Study from Willdan Financial Services;
and
2)Open the Public Hearings for the adoption of the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and the
DIF, receive public comments, close the Public Hearing; and
3)Approve and adopt Resolution No. 2025-37, regarding Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and
DIF, to be effective 60 days after adoption.
ANALYSIS:
The City hired Willdan Financial Services to perform a comprehensive analysis and prepare the
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) which calculates the maximum legally justified
Impact Fees for general government and park facilities, as well as Capacity Fees for the City’s water and
sewer systems. The analysis follows industry-standard methodologies and incorporates the latest growth
projections aligned with the City’s adopted Housing Element. It also utilizes current City facility asset
data and cost estimates for future improvements to establish a fee schedule that complies with State law,
including the requirements of AB 602.
The Nexus Study demonstrates a clear and reasonable relationship between the fees charged to new
residential and nonresidential development and the proportional impacts such development will have on
City infrastructure. It is important to note that while the Nexus Study establishes the maximum
justified fees, the City Council retains full discretion to adopt fees at any level up to, but not
exceeding those amounts – this means the City Council can adopt lower fees if desired.
Following is an overview of the development Impacts Fees currently recouped for parks and Capacity
Fees recouped by the City’s water and sewer systems vs. what could be recouped through the maximum
legally justified fees by development type:
Single-Family Unit (2,000 sq ft)
•Current Fee: $2,988
•Maximum Justified Fee: $21,557
•Potential Change: $18,569
20 Apartment Unit Development (1,000 sq ft each)
•Current Fee: $53,760
•Maximum Justified Fee: $290,140
•Potential Change: $236,380
Commercial Building (10,000 sq ft)
•Current Fee: $11,300
•Maximum Justified Fee: $53,500
•Potential Change: $42,200
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fee Approval
August 18, 2025
Page 3
Industrial Building (50,000 sq ft)
•Current Fee: $23,300
•Maximum Justified Fee: $163,500
•Potential Change: $140,500
To aid the Council in the policy-making process, the City’s consultant, Willdan, has provided a
comparison of Azusa’s maximum justified fee levels with those currently charged by neighboring
jurisdictions. While the Nexus Study establishes the maximum legally justified Development Impact Fees
(DIF), again the City may adopt the recommended DIF or adopt fees below the maximum levels.
Willdan’s comparison evaluated six common development prototypes across five surrounding
jurisdictions: Covina, Glendora, Irwindale, Pomona, and West Covina. The results show that Azusa’s
current fees are well below those currently charged by these neighboring cities and the maximum justified
fees will remain competitive in the region. An overview of the comparison is as follows:
•Single-Family Unit (2,000 sq ft.): Azusa’s maximum fee is $21,557, with surrounding cities range
from $4,811 to $40,807.
•Apartment Development (20 - 1,000 sq ft units): Azusa’s maximum fee is $290,140, with
surrounding cities range from $82,580 to $435,544.
•Commercial Building (10,000 sq ft): Azusa’s maximum fee is $53,500, with surrounding cities
range from $17,500 to $377,350.
•Industrial Building (50,000 sq ft): Azusa’s maximum fee is $163,500, with surrounding cities
range from $54,000 to $382,050.
The final Nexus Study provides a balanced approach and ensures Azusa continues to recover a fair share
of infrastructure costs from new development while remaining an attractive and competitive location for
residential, commercial, and industrial investment.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and approve the
maximum legally justified Development Impact Fees (DIF) (or less if desired), including authorization
for staff to adjust the fees annually based on changes in the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI).
This annual adjustment mechanism will ensure that the adopted fees remain aligned with the actual costs
of constructing and expanding the facilities and infrastructure necessary to support future development.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Development Impact Fees (DIF) are essential to ensuring that new development contributes its fair share
toward the cost of expanding City infrastructure and facilities. Adoption of the Nexus Study and associated
DIF schedule will provide the necessary revenue to fund infrastructure improvements needed to mitigate
the impacts of growth and to maintain citywide service standards for:
•General government facilities
•Park facilities
•Water system capacity
•Sewer system capacity
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fee Approval
August 18, 2025
Page 4
The DIF cannot be used for: existing infrastructure improvements, maintenance or replacement of
facilities, transportation or planning studies, or improvements outside the City’s capital improvement plan.
While the Nexus Study establishes the maximum legally justified fees, the actual timing and amount of
DIF revenue is highly dependent on the volume and pace of future development, which is inherently
unpredictable. As such, revenue estimates cannot be projected with certainty at this time.
The City Council has the discretion to set the DIF at any amounts up to and including the maximum legally
justified calculated rates. If the City Council approves the maximum calculated fees, the following will
take effect:
Table 1: Impact Fees
Effective 60 days following adoption
Table 2: Water And Sewer Capacity Fees
Effective 60 days following adoption
Sewer Capacity Fees must be adopted by the City Council.
Water Capacity Fees must be adopted by the Utility Board.
***Water Capacity fees will be considered and potentially adopted by the Azusa Light & Water Utility Board at it ’s
Regularly Scheduled Meeting on September 22, 2025.
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fee Approval
August 18, 2025
Page 5
Additionally, if approved as recommended, beginning July 1, 2026, and each July 1 thereafter, the full
DIF schedule will be automatically adjusted based on the annual percentage change in the California
Construction Cost Index (CCCI). This adjustment will help ensure that the fees keep pace with inflation
and actual construction costs over time.
Pursuant to State law, the City must also maintain separate accounting for all DIF revenues collected.
These funds must be used exclusively for the purposes for which they are collected, and the City is
required to report and track these revenues in accordance with California Government Code Section
66006.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved:
Richard T. Lam Talika M. Johnson
Budget & Revenue Administrator Director of Administrative Services
Reviewed and Approved:
Sergio Gonzalez
City Manager
Attachments:
1)Resolution No. 2025-C37 Approve and Adopt the Development Impact fee nexus study and DIF,
including annual adjustments to the DIF based on the construction cost index
2)Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
3)DIF comparisons with neighboring cities
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS
STUDY, THE FINDINGS CONTAINED THEREIN, INCREASING THE
AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND CAPACITY FEES,
AND TAKING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, the City of Azusa (the “City”) City Council (the “City Council”) recognizes
the need to adequately finance certain government facilities, parks, and water and sewer facilities
(collectively, the “Facilities”) made necessary by the impacts from new residential, commercial,
office, and industrial development occurring within the City and desires to ensure that new
development mitigates its impacts on such Facilities; and
WHEREAS, it is the City’s policy that future new development should pay its fair share
of the Facilities in accordance with good fiscal management as determined by the City Council,
including the current costs for providing the Facilities in direct proportion to the demand generated
by new development; and
WHEREAS, the City had previously caused to be imposed certain development impact
fees (the “Impact Fees”) and water and sewer capacity fees (the “Capacity Fees”) to finance the
Facilities (collectively, the Impact Fees and Capacity Fees are referred to herein as the “DIF”) in
compliance with Chapter 5 and Chapter 7, of Division 1, of Title 7, of the California Government
Code commencing with section 66000 et seq. known as the Mitigation Fee Act (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, the City desires to update the Impact Fees for the Facilities to ensure new
development continues to pay its share of the Facilities required to serve such new development
and in order to maintain the existing level of service, and to update the Capacity Fees to ensure all
applicants seeking to connect to the water and sewer systems pay their share of the costs of the
required Facilities to serve the property; and
WHEREAS, the City retained an independent consultant to prepare the “City of Azusa
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study” (the “Study”) dated July 15, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Study provides the legal basis and support regarding the nexus between
the planned public improvements and the benefiting land uses that would pay the Impact Fees at
the time of issuance of a building permit, and in the case of the Capacity Fees at the time of
connection to the water and sewer systems is requested; and
WHEREAS, the Study also provides the City with the findings necessary to impose the
proposed increased Impact Fees in accordance with section 66001 and the required findings to
increase the Capacity Fees pursuant to section 66013 of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the City has provided the required published notice and written notice to
interested parties for the Impact Fees and Capacity Fees as required by the Act; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
the adoption of the proposed Study and DIF and provided an opportunity for the public to be heard
pursuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Study has been made available for public review and comment pursuant
to the Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the Study and the findings contained therein
as the findings of the City Council, which Study is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and by this
reference incorporated herein, and to adopt the DIF schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and
by this reference incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Azusa,
California does hereby find, determine and declare as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated and made an operative part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that the Study complies
with the Act by establishing the basis for the imposition of the Impact Fees on new development.
The City Council hereby adopts the Study and the findings contained therein attached hereto as
Exhibit “A” as the findings of the City Council, which contain the following findings with respect
to the Impact Fees, and which are by this reference incorporated herein as if fully stated herein.
The Study:
(a) Identifies the purpose of the fee;
(b) Identifies the use to which the fee will be put;
(c) Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed;
(d) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities
and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; and
(e) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost
of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the
development on which the fee is imposed.
SECTION 3. Use of DIF Proceeds. The City Council hereby determines that the DIF
collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the Facilities described or identified
in the Study or such other facilities as may from time to time be adopted by the City Council.
SECTION 4. Projects and Cost Estimates. The City Council has considered the specific
project descriptions and the cost estimates identified in the Study and hereby approves such project
descriptions and cost estimates and finds them reasonable as the basis for calculating and imposing
the DIF.
SECTION 5. Adoption of the DIF Schedule. The City Council hereby approves the
schedule of DIF contained in and attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. The Impact Fees shall be imposed
upon property owners or developers when applying for a building permit or due at final inspection
or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and the Capacity Fees shall be imposed when the
applicant applies to connect to the water and sewer systems, as provided in the Act.
SECTION 6. Annual Inflation Adjustment. The City Council further finds that an annual
inflation adjustment is a necessary component of the ongoing DIF to ensure the revenue collected
keeps pace with the costs of constructing the Facilities defined in the Study. Keeping pace with
inflation ensures projects can be timely completed as needed to accommodate new development.
Timely completion of projects also ensures those who have paid the DIF receive the benefit of
their contributions towards the Facilities while at the same time mitigating the expected impacts
to the existing community. Without an annual inflationary adjustment projects could become
delayed, underfunded, and potentially not able to be completed at all due to insufficient funds
available to complete such projects. As such, the DIF shall be annually adjusted pursuant to the
following provisions:
(a) Commencing July 1, 2026, and each July 1 thereafter, the DIF schedule shall be
increased by the percentage increase in the California Construction Cost Index
(“CCCI”) calculated by the year-over-year annual change in the CCCI, or a
comparable index if such ENR Index is discontinued or is otherwise not available.
In the event the calculated percentage change in the ENR Index is negative for any
year, the DIF schedule from the immediate preceding year shall serve as the current
year’s DIF schedule without adjustment;
(b) The annual inflation adjustments shall be imposed each July 1 without further
action of the City Council or need for future public hearings, until such time as a
new impact fee nexus study and DIF are adopted pursuant to the Act, or this
authorization is revoked in writing by the City Council; and
(c) The City Manager, or their designee, is authorized to apply the annual inflation
adjustment to the DIF schedule each year.
SECTION 7. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity
shall not affect the other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution
are declared to be severable.
SECTION 8. CEQA. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”) the City Council has determined that the activity is not a “project” as
defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical
change in the environment. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the activity is not a project subject to CEQA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it has
also been determined that the activity qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3)
of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Therefore, no environmental review
is required.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this Resolution.
The new Impact Fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit “B” shall become effective sixty (60)
days following the adoption of this Resolution. The Capacity Fees schedule included in Exhibit
“B” shall become effective sixty (60) days after adoption of this Resolution with the exception of
the Water Capacity Fees. The Light & Water Utility Board will review and potentially adopt the
Water Capacity Fees at it it’s next regularly scheduled Utility Board Meeting on September 22,
2025.
PASSED, ADOPTED and ADOPTED this 18th day of August, 2025.
________________________________
Robert Gonzales
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Jeffrey Lawrence Cornejo, Jr.
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF AZUSA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-37 was duly adopted by
the City Council of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof on the 18th day of August
2025, by the following vote of City Council Members.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________
Jeffrey Cornejo, Jr.
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
City Attorney, Casso & Sparks, LLP.
EXHIBIT “A”
CITY OF AZUSA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY
JULY 15, 2025
[REPORT ATTACHED]
EXHIBIT “B”
CITY OF AZUSA FACILITIES DIF SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
Table 1: Impact Fees
Effective 60 days following adoption
Table 2: Water And Sewer Capacity Fees
Effective 60 days following adoption
Sewer Capacity Fees must be adopted by the City Council.
Water Capacity Fees must be adopted by the Utility Board.
***Water Capacity fees will be considered and potentially adopted by the Azusa Light & Water Utility
Board at it’s Regularly Scheduled Meeting on September 22, 2025.
CITY OF AZUSA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS
STUDY
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
JULY 15, 2025
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
This page intentionally left blank.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 3
Background and Study Objectives 3
Facility Standards and Costs 3
Use of Fee Revenues 4
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 4
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 7
Public Facilities Financing in California 7
Study Objectives 7
Fee Program Maintenance 8
Study Methodology 8
Types of Facility Standards 9
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 9
Organization of the Report 10
2. GROWTH FORECASTS ............................................................... 12
Land Use Types 12
Existing and Future Development 13
Occupant Densities 14
3. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES............................................ 16
Service Population 16
Existing Facility Inventory 17
Planned Facilities 18
Cost Allocation 19
Existing Level of Service 19
Use of Fee Revenue 19
Fee Revenue Projection 19
Fee Schedule 20
4. PARK FACILITIES ....................................................................... 22
Service Population 22
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory 22
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 23
Parkland and Park Facility Standards 24
Mitigation Fee Act 24
Quimby Act 24
City of Azusa Parkland and Park Facilities Standards 24
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 25
Park Facilities Cost per Capita 26
Use of Fee Revenue 27
Fee Schedule 27
5. WATER CAPACITY FEES ............................................................ 29
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
ii
Water Demand 29
Facility Needs and Costs 31
Cost per EDU 36
Water System Development Fee Schedule 36
Water Annexation Fees 37
Current Water System Asset Valuation 37
Adjusted System Valuation 43
Fee per EDU 43
Water Rights 44
Water Annexation Fee Schedule 45
6. SEWER CAPACITY ..................................................................... 46
Sewer Demand 46
Current Sewer System Asset Valuation 47
Fee per Gallon per Day 47
Sewer Capacity Fee Schedule 48
7. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 50
Compliance with AB 602 50
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 50
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 50
66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot 50
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 50
8. IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................... 51
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 51
Inflation Adjustment 51
Reporting Requirements 51
9. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS .................................................. 54
Purpose of Fee 54
Use of Fee Revenues 54
Benefit Relationship 54
Burden Relationship 55
Proportionality 55
10. APPENDIX ................................................................................ 56
3
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future
development in the City of Azusa through 2045. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing
future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that
development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The
public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories
listed below:
• General Government Facilities
• Parks
• Water Capacity Fees (System
Development and Water Annexation
Fees)
• Sewer Capacity
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new
development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is
to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as
new development creates increases in service demands. Two types of fees are identified in this
report:
1. This study identifies the maximum justified development impact fees for general
government facilities and parks fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act
(the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. Chapter 9
provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of these facility
categories.
2. The water capacity (including system development fees, and annexation fees) and sewer
capacity fees calculated in this report are subject to the requirements of Government
Code Section 66013, which defines a capacity charge as “a charge for public facilities in
existence at the time a charge is imposed or charges for new public facilities to be
acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or
property being charged, including supply or capacity contracts for rights or entitlements,
real property interests, and entitlements and other rights of the local agency involving
capital expense relating to its use of existing or new public facilities. A “capacity charge”
does not include a commodity charge.” Capacity charges based on the buy-in method are
a reimbursement for past capital costs. Capacity charges are not subject to the nexus
findings required for impact fees, and are typically triggered by a new or upsized
connection to the utility.
The City will program development impact fee-funded capital projects through its Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its revenue to public
facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific
capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development
and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Facility Standards and Costs
There are several approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the
costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act
requirements.
The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve
new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
4
appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified,
or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples
include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to
a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the water capacity fees in this report.
The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City’s existing
level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies
attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long -range plan for new
facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee
study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s annual capital
improvement plan and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This
approach is used to calculate the general government facilities and park fees in this report.
The buy-in method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve
new development now and into the future. Under the buy -in methodology, new development
“buys” a proportionate share of existing capacity at the current value of the existing facilities. This
approach is typically used for utility fees, where existing facilities are built with excess capacity to
serve future development. This approach is used for the water capacity fees and sewer capacity
fees in this report.
The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where the needed
facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned
facilities across existing and new development to determine new development’s fair share of
facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new
facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing
facility standards, so the City must find non-impact fee revenue sources to fund existing
development’s fair share of planned facilities. This approach is not used in this report.
Use of Fee Revenues
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that this analysis “Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If
the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but
need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or
66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in
other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged.”1 Each
chapter in this report identifies the appropriate use of impact fee revenues for each particular
impact fee category.
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new
development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life
greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new
development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, infrastructure,
the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and
equipment.
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Tables E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City’s identified needs and
comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Table E.2 summarizes the maximum justified water and sewer capacity fees. These fees are
charged per dwelling unit, as opposed to per square foot, for residential land uses.
1 California Government Code §66001 (a) (2).
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
5
E.1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
General
Government
Parks
(Subdivisions)1
Parks (Non-
Subdivisions)2
Total
(Subdivisions)
Total (Non-
Subdivisions)
Residential - per Square Foot 2.25$ 6.16$ 4.80$ 8.41$ 7.05$
Nonresidential - per Square Foot
Commercial (Restaurant)0.72$ -$ -$ 0.72$ 0.72$
Commercial (Non-Restaurant)0.72 - - 0.72 0.72
Office 1.11 - - 1.11 1.11
Industrial 0.40 - - 0.40 0.40
1 Includes parkland improvement fee and fee in-lieu of land dedication charged under the Quimby Act.
2 Includes parkland improvement fee and fee for land acquisition charged under the Mitigation Fee Act.
Sources: Tables 3.6 and 4.7.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
6
E.2: Maximum Justified Capacity Fee Schedule
Land Use
Water
Capacity1
Sewer
Capacity2 Total
Residential - per Dwelling Unit 6,037$ 1,420$ 7,457$
Nonresidential - per Square Foot
Commercial (Restaurant)2.78$ 6.17$ 8.95$
Commercial (Non-Restaurant)2.78 1.85 4.63
Office 2.78 1.54 4.32
Industrial 1.33 1.54 2.87
1 Applicable within ALW service area.
2 Applicable within City of Azusa.
Sources: Tables 5.6 and 6.4.
Note: Annexation capacity fees are shown in Table 5.16, but not shown in this summary table
since they would be applied to development outside of the ALW service area when annexing into
the service area.
7
1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new
development in the City of Azusa. This chapter provides background for the study and explains
the study approach under the following sections:
• Public Facilities Financing in California;
• Study Objectives;
• Fee Program Maintenance;
• Study Methodology; and,
• Organization of the Report.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 45 years has steadily undercut the
financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in
1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;
• Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next
generation of residents and businesses;
• Unfunded state and federal mandates; and,
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its
own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing
ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished
primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also
known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property
owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing
property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for
facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a
majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development
pays the capital costs associated with growth. Goal 7 of the City’s General Plan states “Ensure
that public and institutional uses such as government and administrative offices, recreation
facilities, cultural centers and educational uses adequately support the existing and future
population.” Goal 9 states “Ensure that land use development is adequately served by supporting
infrastructure and public services.” The primary purpose of this report is to establish impact fees
for the City based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The
proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development
leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan goals stated above.
The City can impose development impact fees for general government facilities and parks under
authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code
Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act to
demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and the impact fees needed to
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
8
support that development. The findings demonstrate that the fees are proportional to demand for
facilities from new development and are necessary to allow the City to adopt the fee schedules
presented in this report.
Azusa is forecast to have moderate growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2045. This
growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver
them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Azusa has decided to use a development
impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated
with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and capital
facilities planning documents to establish the City’s fee program to ensure that the fee program
accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.
Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue
collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting
inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be
updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of
established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, building s, and equipment),
such as the California Construction Cost Index, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure
that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to
conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study)
when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further
detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 9.
Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate
growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:
1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for
existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public
facilities;
2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new
and expanded facilities;
3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total
amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new
development;
4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the
total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate
new development;
5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to
calculate the development impact fee schedule; and
6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is
required to complete projects.
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility
standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new
development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not
fund deficiencies associated with existing development.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
9
Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate
growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space
per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of
service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning.
Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected
demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure
for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of
an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our
approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility
design standards.
Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities
required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost
standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the
facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be
analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different
facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per
capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new developmen t.
This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new
development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned
facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing
inventory method. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages
of each method is summarized below:
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand
from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard
currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no
facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long -
range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are
identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital
improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.
This approach is used to calculate the general government facilities and park fees in this report.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to
demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand = $/unit of demand
= $/unit of demand
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
10
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a
fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the
former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the
latter is a portion of a roadway that has been identified as necessary to mitigate the impact from
new development through traffic modeling analysis . Under this method new development will fund
the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This
approach is used for the water system development fees in this report.
Buy-In Method
The buy-in method is based on the value of the existing system’s capacity. This method is
typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now
and into the future. Under the buy-in methodology, new development “buys” a proportionate
share of existing capacity at the current value of the existing facilities.
The buy-in fee is determined by taking the current value of assets (replacement cost new, less
depreciation) divided by the current capacity provided by the system. Responsibility for new
capital improvements is then shared equally by all customers. A simplified version of the
calculation equation is:
Present Value of Existing Facilities
Existing System Capacity
This approach is typically used for utility fees, where existing facilities are built with excess
capacity to serve future development. This approach is used for the water capacity and sewer
capacity fees in this report.
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned
facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities
Existing + New Development Demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that
benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire
station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system
of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than
the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency
required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must
secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to
ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This
approach is not used in this report.
Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and
development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used
throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.
Chapters 3 through 6 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned
facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate
development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
= cost per unit of demand
= $/unit of demand
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
11
• General Government Facilities
• Parks
• Water Capacity Fees (System
Development and Water Annexation
Fees)
• Sewer Capacity
Chapter 7 describes how this study complies with the requirements of AB 602 for fees charged
under the Act.
Chapter 8 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development
impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government
Code Sections 66016 through 66018.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in
accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 9.
12
2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate
those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the
growth projections used in this study based on a 2024 base year and a planning horizon of 2045.
Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used
throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2024 is used as an indicator of existing facility
demand and to determine existing facility standards.
• The estimate of total development in 2045 is used as an indicator of future demand to
determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth versus those needed to remedy
existing facility deficiencies, if any. Facilities needed to remedy existing deficiencies
cannot be funded with impact fee revenue.
• Estimates of growth from 2024 through 2045 are used to (1) allocate facility costs
between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee
revenues.
The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or
nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the
fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that
impact fees have been calculated for are defined below.
• Residential: All residential dwelling units. Development impact fees charged per
square foot of living space. Fees can also be charged for net new living space
associated with a residential remodeling project. Water and sewer capacity fees
are charged per dwelling unit.
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Pursuant to Government Code, section
66324(c)(1) a local agency cannot impose any development impact fees upon an
ADU less than 750 square feet. Furthermore, all impact fees charged on ADUs of
750 square feet or greater must be charged proportionately in relation to the
square footage of the primary dwelling unit.
Regarding water and sewer capacity fees - Article 2, Chapter 13, Division 1, Title
7 of the Government Code (commencing with section 66314) governs imposing
fees on ADUs - specifically sections 66323 and 66324. In short, the City can only
consider an ADU a new residential unit for purposes of requiring separate
connection to the utility and imposing connection/capacity fees if the ADU:
(1) Does not comply with the requirements of Section 66323(a)(1); or
(2) Is constructed with a new single-family dwelling or upon separate
conveyance of the ADU pursuant to section 66342, even if the ADU is
constructed in compliance with section 66323(a)(1).
Otherwise, all ADUs constructed in conformance with section 66323(a)(1), which
are not constructed with a new single-family dwelling or separate conveyance of
the ADU, are prohibited from paying connection/capacity fees.
Government Code section 66324(e) provides guidance for assessing capacity
fees to ADUs greater than 750 square feet. When applicable, the capacity fee for
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
13
ADUs greater than 750 square feet shall be proportionate to the burden of the
proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its square feet or the
number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform
Plumbing Code adopted and published by the International Association of
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. This fee or charge shall not exceed the
reasonable cost of providing this service. In this case, ALW and the City are
choosing to charge fees to ADUs when applicable based on the square footage
of the ADU compared to the square footage of the primary unit. For example, if
the ADU is 800 square feet and the primary unit is 1,600 square feet, then the
capacity fee for the ADU will be half of the fee for the primary unit.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development.
• Commercial (Restaurant): All restaurant development. Fees for this land use
category are the same as the commercial fees for all fee categories except for
sewer capacity fees.
• Office: All general and medical office development.
• Industrial: All manufacturing, warehouses and other industrial development.
• Schools: Water capacity fees are calculated for schools.
• Parks: Water capacity fees are calculated for parks, per acre of parkland.
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use
development with both residential and commercial uses. Another similar situation would be a
warehousing facility that contains office space. In those cases, the facilities fee would be
calculated separately for each land use type included within the building.
The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development
project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or
unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use.
Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building
square feet in Azusa, both in 2024 and in 2045. The base year estimates of residents and
dwelling units come from the California Department of Finance. The increase of dwelling units in
is identified in the City’s Housing Element. The increase of dwelling units to 2045 is then used to
estimate the increase in population by multiplying the count of units by the occupant densities of
3.30 residents per single family unit and 2.87 residents per multifamily unit, based on data for
Azusa from the American Community Survey.
Base year employees were estimated based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s
OnTheMap Application. Projected employees in 2045 were identified in the SCAG Connect SoCal
Growth Forecast, and assume that the current proportion of employees, by type will be content to
2045. Estimated building square feet in 2024 and 2045 was calculated based on the employment
counts and density factors in Table 2.2.
Note that these development assumptions do not apply to the water capacity fees. The demand
projections for the water capacity fees include existing and projected development within the
Azusa Light and Water (ALW) service area, which includes the City of Azusa, plus portions of
Covina, Glendora, Irwindale, West Covina, and Los Angeles County unincorporated areas.
Demand projections for the water capacity fees are detailed in Chapter 5.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
14
Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions
2024 2045 Increase
Residents 1 49,420 57,591 8,171
Dwelling Units 2
Single Family 9,265 10,846 1,581
Multifamily 6,275 7,345 1,070
Total 15,540 18,191 2,651
Employment 3
Commercial 6,701 10,414 3,713
Office 2,219 3,448 1,229
Industrial 4,593 7,138 2,545
Total 13,513 21,000 7,487
Building Square Feet (000s)4
Commercial 3,161 4,912 1,751
Office 681 1,058 377
Industrial 3,959 6,153 2,194
Total 7,801 12,123 4,322
1 Current population from California Department of Finance. Projection
based on increase in dwelling units identified in Housing Element, multiplied
by assumption of residents per single family (3.30) and multifamily (2.87)
unit calculated from American Community Survey data.
2 Current values from California Department of Finance. Projection based
on increase in dwelling units identified in Housing Element.
4 Estimated building square feet calculated based on increase of employees
and density factors in Table 2.2.
3 Current estimates of primary jobs from the US Census' OnTheMap.
Projection identified in SCAG Growth Forecast.
Sources: Azusa Housing for All Housing Element 2021-2029; California
Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2024; Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Connect SoCal 2024 Growth Forecast by
Jurisdiction; OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov;
American Community Survey, 2021; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.
Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant
density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project,
the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. The
densities ensure that the fee per unit of new development is roughly proportional to the demand
for facilities from various types of development.
Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 building square feet) are the
most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based
on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the
development.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
15
The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential
density factor was calculated using the most recent data from the American Community Survey
specifically for the City of Azusa. This factor is the weighted average factor across all existing
dwelling units, as opposed to the factors used to estimate total population in Table 2.1, which are
specific to the type of dwelling unit. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data
from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential - All Units 3.11 Residents per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 3.26 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition;
Willdan Financial Services.
16
3. General Government Facilities
The purpose of the general government facilities impact fee is to fund the general government
facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the
existing facilities standard of general government facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this
facility category is between the demand for new general government facilities from the projected
increase in service population and the additional general government facilities needed to meet
those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that
new development will pay no more on a per capita basis than existing development has paid to
date to fund the facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are
scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs
associated with nonresidential land uses.
Service Population
General government facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for
services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents
and workers.
Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for general government
facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to
demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for
these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential
buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a
worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and
nonresidential land uses. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek
divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which
nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and
consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
17
Table 3.1: General Government Facilities Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2024)49,420 1.00 49,420
New Development 8,171 1.00 8,171
Total (2045)57,591 57,591
Workers
Existing (2024)13,513 0.31 4,189
New Development 7,487 0.31 2,321
Total (2045)21,000 6,510
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2024)53,609
New Development 10,492
Total (2045)64,101
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour work week out of a possible
128 non-work hours in a week (40/128 = 0.31)
Existing Facility Inventory
The City’s general government facility inventory consists of several public buildings including City
Hall, corporate yard, police station, and various recreation and community center buildings . Table
3.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of public land, buildings and vehicles. The assumed
cost of land acquisition of $540,700 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the
previous five years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value
land acquisition for each impact fee category. No value is shown for certain land parcels, as those
pieces of land are captured in the park facilities fee. I n total, the City owns $57.9 million worth of
general government facilities.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
18
Table 3.2: Existing General Government Facilities Inventory
Facility Address / Description Quantity Units Unit Cost
Replacement
Cost
Land (acres)
Azusa Transit Center 190 E 9th St 1.75 acres 540,700$ 946,225$
Boy Scout House 0.58 acres 540,700 312,802
City Corporate Yard 809 North Angeleno Avenue 5.30 acres 540,700 2,865,710
Civic Center Complex 213 East Foothill Boulevard 6.00 acres 540,700 3,244,200
Library 729 North Dalton Avenue 0.17 acres 540,700 93,096
Memorial Park Building1 - acres 540,700 -
North Recreation Center1 - acres 540,700 -
Police Station 725 Alameda 1.46 acres 540,700 790,693
Senior Center1 740 North Dalton Avenue - acres 540,700 -
Woman's Club 1003 North Azusa Avenue 0.48 acres 540,700 260,668
Subtotal - Land 14.00 acres 8,513,393$
Buildings (square feet)
Boy Scout Building Boy Scout Building 4,091 sq. ft.251$ 1,025,100$
City Corporate Yard Storage Building 2 1,280 sq. ft.69 87,704
City Corporate Yard Storage Building 1 1,140 sq. ft.81 92,208
City Corporate Yard Corp Yard Carport 5,150 sq. ft.84 432,000
City Corporate Yard Public Works Administrative Building 2,780 sq. ft.341 948,387
City Corporate Yard Engineering, Maintenance Garage 9,400 sq. ft.150 1,410,000
City Corporate Yard Trans Street Facilities 6,560 sq. ft.154 1,008,000
Civic Center Complex Library 18,500 sq. ft.318 5,876,000
Civic Center Complex City Hall 6,632 sq. ft.433 2,871,000
Civic Center Complex Barnes House 786 sq. ft.248 194,963
Civic Center Complex Durrell House 3,695 sq. ft.219 810,668
Civic Center Complex City Hall West Wing 9,282 sq. ft.308 2,860,000
Civic Center Complex Auditorium 4,574 sq. ft.469 2,147,000
Memorial Park Building Memorial Park Building 22,639 sq. ft.319 7,224,500
Memorial Park North Recreation Center 10,664 sq. ft.291 3,102,000
Police Department Police - Car Shelter 2,691 sq. ft.37 100,385
Police Department Police Department 23,746 sq. ft.504 11,958,779
Police Department Carport - Weight Room 2,737 sq. ft.153 418,371
Senior Center Senior Center 13,488 sq. ft.351 4,734,400
Woman's Club Woman's Club 7,950 sq. ft.267 2,120,700
Subtotal - Buildings 157,785 49,422,165$
Total Value - Existing Facilities 57,935,558$
1 Land for these facilities is excluded here, as it is captured in the park facilities impact fee.
Sources: City of Azusa Property Statement of Value, May 1, 2024; CoStar; Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 3.3 summarizes the planned general government facilities to be partially funded through
this impact fee. More details regarding these projects can be found in Appendix Table A.1. Note
that the cost of the planned facilities does not drive the fee calculation. Rather, the list of planned
facilities is included to demonstrate the facilities that could be funded with fee revenue.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
19
Table 3.3: Planned General Government Facilities
Project Title Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
Police Vehicles 20 Vehicles 95,086$ 1,901,730$
Expand Police Parking Lot 1 Acres 2,000,000 2,000,000
Expand Capacity at Existing Buildings 20,000 Sq. Ft.500 10,000,000
General City Vehicles 10 Vehicles 49,838 498,375
Finance Enterprise System (ERP) Expansion 1 Software Package 200,000 200,000
Human Resources Enterprise System (ERP) Expansion 1 Software Package 150,000 150,000
Total 14,750,105$
Source: City of Azusa.
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.4 expresses the City’s current general government facilities level of service in terms of an
existing cost per capita. This cost per capita drives the fee calculation. Fees imposed at this level
of service will allow the City to maintain its current level of service for general government
facilities as new development adds demand for facilities.
Table 3.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 57,935,558$
Existing Service Population 53,609
Cost per Capita 1,081$
Facility Standard per Resident 1,081$
Facility Standard per Worker1 335
1 Based on a weighing factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use general government facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of
buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of general government facilities serving
new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 3.3 and detailed in Appendix
Table A.1.
Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use general government facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add
to the system of general government facilities that serve new development. The list of facilities to
be partially funded by the fee is detailed above in Table 3.3. Table 3.5 details a projection of fee
revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 3.1. The projected
fee revenue is not sufficient to fund all the planned facilities. However, so long as the City spends
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
20
the revenue on capacity expanding facilities it will have been spent appropriately . Additional
funding will be needed if the City is to fully fund all the identified planned facilities through the
planning horizon.
Table 3.5: Projected Fee Revenue
Cost per Capita 1,081$
Growth in Service Population (2024 to 2045)10,492
Fee Revenue 11,341,852$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 14,750,105$
Unfunded (3,408,253)$
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4.
Fee Schedule
Table 3.6 shows the maximum justified general government facilities fee schedule. The cost per
capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment
densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building
space). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing
the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1)
legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative
costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and
fee justification analyses. Two percent is used in this case based on Willdan’s experience with
impact fee programs in California, as the City does not currently have its own program to draw on
for actual data. Future updates to the fees should calibrate the administrative charge with the
City’s actual experience
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
21
Table 3.6: General Government Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 1,081$ 3.11 3,362$ 67$ 3,429$ 2.25$
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 335$ 2.12 710$ 14$ 724$ 0.72$
Office 335 3.26 1,092 22 1,114 1.11
Industrial 335 1.16 389 8 397 0.40
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.4.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee
program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting,
and fee justification analyses.
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space.
3 Assumes an average of 1,525 square feet per dwelling unit in the Los Angeles-Long Beach MSA per the 2021
American Housing Survey.
22
4. Park Facilities
The purpose of the park facilities impact fee is to fund the park facilities needed to serve new
development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of
park facilities per capita. Fee revenue would be used to expand the provision of parks to meet
demand from future development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the
demand for City parks from the projected increase in residents and the additional parks needed to
meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure
that new development can maintain the City’s existing ratio of park acres to residents, and the
fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit. A fee in-lieu of
parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act is also included in this chapter.
Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in Azusa primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services
and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 4.1 shows the
existing and future projected service population for park facilities.
Table 4.1: Park Facilities Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2024)49,420
New Development 8,171
Total (2045)57,591
Source: Table 2.1.
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory
The City of Azusa maintains several parks throughout the city. Table 4.2 summarizes the City’s
existing parkland inventory in 2024. All facilities are owned by the City. In total, the inventory
includes a total of 88.46 acres of City-owned parkland.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
23
Table 4.2: Park Land Inventory
Park
Acres
Alisal Park 1.60
Arroyo North 7.00
Arroyo South 12.00
Azusa Bike Trial Head 0.90
Canyon Park 1.00
Citrus Grove Park 0.56
Craftsman Park 0.75
Edwards Park 0.20
Gladstone Park 4.60
Memorial Park 13.40
Northside Park 15.09
Oak Hill Park 0.60
Olive Hill Park 0.60
Pioneer Park 4.10
Rancho Park 1.00
Ridgeview Park 1.31
San Gabriel Canyon Gateway Center 2.75
Sierra Madre Park 1.38
Slauson Park 5.50
Summit Park 0.88
Veteran's Freedom Park 6.24
Zacatecas Park 7.00
Total 88.46
Source: City of Azusa.
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 4.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Azusa. The cost of improving
an acre of parkland with standard park improvements is based on Willdan’s experience with other
clients in Southern California. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $540,700 per acre is
based on land sales comparisons from the previous five years, as reported by CoStar and is used
consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category . In total, this
analysis assumes that it costs $1,290,700 to acquire and develop an acre of parkland in Azusa.
Table 4.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre
Share of
Total Costs
Standard Park Improvements 750,000$ 58%
Land Acquisition 540,700 42%
Total Cost per Acre 1,290,700$ 100%
Sources: CoStar; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
24
Parkland and Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the
need for expanded parkland and park facilities. Information regarding the City’s existing inventory
of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.
The most common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of
park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act
(using a city’s existing inventory of parkland and park facilities), or an adopted policy standard
contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land
dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.2 In this case, the City will use the Mitigation
Fee Act to impose park impact fees for development not occurring in subdivisions and will use the
Quimby Act for development occurring in subdivisions.
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for
public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must
not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to
existing development.3 In this case, the fees will be set to maintain the City’s existing parkland
standard of acres per 1,000 residents.
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a
maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to
dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction’s existing park standard at the time it
adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).
The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction’s adopted general or specific plan
standards.
The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential
development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and
other multifamily development.
The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund
the acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated.
The Quimby Act allows use of in-lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.
Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements, and rehabilitation of
existing parks.
City of Azusa Parkland and Park Facilities Standards
Table 4.4 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on
the type of parkland. The City has an existing parkland standard of 1.79 acres per 1,000
residents, which is less than the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The
impact fee analysis in this report will be based on maintaining the City’s 1.79 acre per 1,000
resident standard as new development adds demand for parks in Azusa. Fees in-lieu of land
2 California Government Code §66477.
3 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Chapter 9.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
25
dedication for subdivisions are calculated at the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres of
developed parkland per 1,000 residents.
Table 4.4: Park Standards
Developed Park Acreage 88.46
Service Population (2024)49,420
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)1.79
Quimby Act Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)3.00
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2.
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 4.5 shows the park land acquisition and improvements needed to accommodate new
development at the existing standard and Quimby standard. To achieve the standard by the
planning horizon, depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, new
development must fund the acquisition of between 14.63 and 24.51 parkland acres, at a total cost
ranging between $18.9 and $24.2 million.
The facility standards and resulting fees under the Quimby Act are higher because development
will be charged to provide 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 1.79 acres of
improvements, whereas development not subject to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide
only 1.79 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 1.79 acres of improvements. Since the exact
amount of development that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 4.5
presents the range of total land costs that may be incurred depending on the amount of
development subject to the Quimby Act.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
26
Table 4.5: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development
Calculation Parkland Improvements Total Range 1
Parkland (Quimby Act), Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act)2
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita)A 3.00 1.79
Growth in Service Population (2024 to 2045)B 8,171 8,171
Facility Needs (acres)C = A x B/1000 24.51 14.63
Average Unit Cost (per acre)D $ 540,700 $ 750,000
Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $ 13,253,000 $ 10,973,000 $ 24,226,000
Parkland and Improvements - Mitigation Fee Act 3
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita)A 1.79 1.79
Growth in Service Population (2024 to 2045)B 8,171 8,171
Facility Needs (acres)C = A x B/1000 14.63 14.63
Average Unit Cost (per acre)D $ 540,700 $ 750,000
Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $ 7,910,000 $ 10,973,000 $ 18,883,000
Note: Totals have been rounded to the thousands.
1 Values in this column show the range of the cost of parkland acquisition and development should all development be either subject to the
Quimby Act, or to the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively.
2 Cost of parkland to serve new development shown if all development is subject to the Quimby Act (Subdivisions of 50 units or more).
Parkland charged at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents; improvements charged at the existing standard.
3 Cost of parkland to serve new development shown if all development is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Parkland and improvements are
charged at the existing standard.
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4.
Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 4.6 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the existing
facility standard, and at the Quimby standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land
and improvements. The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of three fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication. This fee is payable by residential
development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition. This fee is payable by residential and
nonresidential development not occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for park improvements. This fee is payable by all development.
A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation
Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, not both. All development projects pay the Mitigation Fee Act
fees for park improvements.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
27
Table 4.6: Cost per Capita
Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee OR Impact Fee AND Impact Fee
Parkland Investment (per acre) A 540,700$ 540,700$ 750,000$
Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 3.00 1.79 1.79
Total Cost per 1,000 capita C = A x B 1,622,100$ 967,900$ 1,342,500$
Cost per Resident D = C / 1,000 1,622$ 968$ 1,343$
Sources: Tables 4.3 and 4.4.
Land
Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use parkland and park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct
improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may
only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed
to serve new development.
Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per capita
basis for both land acquisition and improvement. These cost factors (shown in Table 4.6) are cost
per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards. The fee per average sized
dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the
assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
Table 4.7 shows the maximum justified park fees based on the Quimby Act standard and based
on the existing park standards under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively.
The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1)
legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative
costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and
fee justification analyses. Two percent is used in this case based on Willdan’s experience with
impact fee programs in California, as the City does not currently have its own program to draw on
for actual data. Future updates to the fees should calibrate the administrative charge with the
City’s actual experience.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
28
Table 4.7: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge 1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3
Quimby Act - Subdivisions
Parkland 1,622$ 3.11 5,044$ 101$ 5,145$ 3.37$
Improvements 1,343 3.11 4,177 84 4,261 2.79
Total 2,965$ 9,221$ 185$ 9,406$ 6.16$
Mitigation Fee Act - Infill
Parkland 968$ 3.11 3,010$ 60$ 3,070$ 2.01$
Improvements 1,343 3.11 4,177 84 4,261 2.79
Total 2,311$ 7,187$ 144$ 7,331$ 4.80$
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.7.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program
administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee
justification analyses.
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space.
3 Assumes an average of 1,525 square feet per dwelling unit in the Los Angeles-Long Beach MSA per the 2021 American
Housing Survey.
29
5. Water Capacity Fees
This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a water
capacity charge to fund water facilities necessary to accommodate growth within the Azusa Light
and Water (ALW) service area. These fees are not charged under the Mitigation Fee Act, rather
they are charged under Government Code 66013. As such, Mitigation Fee Act findings are not
required, and the fees are not subject to the provisions of AB602.
Two fees are calculated in this chapter: a water system development fee which funds the
capacity-expanding facilities needed to serve new development within the ALW service area, and
a water annexation fee, through which new development outside of the service area can buy into
the excess capacity of existing ALW facilities if that development annexes into the service area.
The projects and associated costs for the water system development fees were identified in
ALW’s prior system development fee study, in ALW’s 2015 Water Master Plan (Master Plan), and
with ALW staff input. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for
water facilities from the projected increased water flow and the additional water facilities needed
to meet demand for water from new development. The fees are roughly proportional to demand
because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the
identified planned facilities needed to serve ALW through the planning horizon, and the fees are
scaled based on the amount of water flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.
Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased water demand provide the basis for
calculating the water facilities fee. The need for water facilities improvements is based on the
water demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow
generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land
use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the ALW’s system of water
improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the
system per land use designation.
Table 5.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow
generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates based on data from ALW’s Water
Master Plan and recent customer usage data. EDU factors express water flow from each land
use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate
demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the water demand
generated by each unit of new development.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
30
Table 5.1: Equivalent Dwelling Units
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation1 Density2
Average Flow
Generation per
DU, 1,000 Sq. Ft.
or Park Acre
Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
(EDU)
Residential
Residential Dwelling Unit 3 356.00 1.00
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft. or per Park Acre
Commercial 2,492 15.25 163.41 0.46
Office 2,492 15.25 163.41 0.46
Industrial 1,700 21.78 78.05 0.22
Schools 1,734 15.25 113.70 0.32
Parks 359 n/a 359.00 1.01
3 Estimate of flow generation per residential dwelling unit calculatetd based on FY2023-24 data from ALW.
1 Gallons per acre per day.
2 1,000 square feet per acre for nonresidential. Densities are based on typical densities for each land use from the
General Plan. Nonresidential densities are based on floor-area-ratios of 0.35 for commercial, office and schools and 0.50
for industrial.
Sources: Table 3-10, ALW 2015 Water Master Plan Update – Final, 2015; City of Azusa General Plan, 2004; Willdan
Financial Services.
Table 5.2 shows the existing and projected demand for water in the ALW service area in terms of
gallons of water per day, based on data from the ALW’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
Assuming flow 356 gallons per day per residential unit the projected annual flow can be
converted into an amount of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU), which represent the amount of flow
generated by one dwelling unit. The ALW service area is projected to have an increase of 3,012
EDUs between the base year and 2045.
The demand projections for the water capacity fees include existing and projected development
within the ALW service area, which includes the City of Azusa, plus portions of Covina, Glendora,
Irwindale, West Covina, and Los Angeles County unincorporated areas.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
31
Table 5.2: Current and Projected Water Demand (ALW Service
Area)
Year
Water
Demand (AF)
Water
Demand
(Gallons
per Day)EDUs1
2024 18,587 16,593,349 46,611
2045 19,788 17,665,588 49,622
New Development EDUs (2024 to 2045)3,012
New Development Share of Total EDUs 6.1%
1 Assumes 356 gallons per equivalent dwelling unit based on an analysis of ALW water demand
data from 2024.
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.12, Azusa Light & Water Urban Water Management Plan, 2020; Table 5.1,
Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 identify the planned water facilities to be funded by the fee. The projects
in Table 5.3 were identified in ALW’s prior system development fee study. The projects in Table
5.4 were identified in ALW’s Master Plan or by ALW staff. Note that only capacity expanding
projects are included here. The Master Plan includes many other water facilities projects, but they
are needed for rehabilitation and replacement of existing facilities and are thus not eligible for
system development fee funding.
Some of the identified projects will benefit both existing development and new development, so
costs are allocated to new development based on new development’s share of water demand at
the planning horizon. Other projects that are needed solely to accommodate new development
are allocated 100% to the system development fee.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
32
Table 5.3: Capacity Expanding Projects from Prior Water System Development Fee Study
Item Description
Construction
Costs (1996
Dollars)
Construction
Costs (2025
Dollars)
Allocation to
New
Development
Allocation to
Existing
Development
Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
Cost
Allocated to
Existing
Development
Phase 1
B
Construct a connecting 8-inch pipeline in Lakeview Terrace at its northerly terminus
with AVWC 16-inch pipeline paralleling the Covina ditch.29,000$ 71,400$ 6.1%93.9%4,355$ 67,045$
J
Construct 1,450 feet of connecting 16-inch pipeline from AVWC 30-inch pipeline at
11th Street and Dalton Avenue westerly in 11th Street to Alameda Avenue thence
southerly to City 18-inch pipeline at 9th Street and Alameda Avenue. Convert City
Zone II area from Angeleno Avenue and Rockvale Avenue south of 9th Street and
north of Foothill Boulevard to 776 Pressure Zone. City 4, 6, and 8-inch pipelines
north side 9th Street to remain on 830 Zone. City 8-inch and 6-inch pipeline north
side Foothill Boulevard to be converted to 776 Pressure Zone.173,000 426,000 6.1%93.9%25,986 400,014
L Construct SCADA system and MIS Interface.480,000 1,181,900 6.1%93.9%72,096 1,109,804
N Construct Canyon Treatment Plant Improvements.550,000 1,354,300 6.1%93.9%82,612 1,271,688
Subtotal 1,232,000$ 3,033,600$ 185,050$ 2,848,550$
Phase 2
A
Construct 1,600 feet of 12-inch pipeline at Rockvale Pump Station to City 10-inch
pipeline at intersection of Palm Drive and 9th Street. Pipeline to be installed in a
right-of-way westerly of the Covina Ditch.112,000$ 275,800$ 6.1%93.9%16,824$ 258,976$
B
Construct 2,600 feet of 16-inch pipeline in Citrus Avenue from Arrow Highway to
Covina Boulevard.270,000 664,800 6.1%93.9%40,553 624,247
C
Construct pump station at Dalton Reservoir site. Provide suction from AVWC 30-
inch pipeline in Sierra Madre Avenue.
Capacities:
1023 Pressure Zone 830 Pressure Zone
2 Units @ 500 gpm 2 Units @ 1,250 gpm
2 Units @ 1,000 gpm 2 Units @ 2,500 gpm
200 hp 180 hp 345,000 849,500 6.1%93.9%51,820 797,681
D Construct 2,100 feet of 16-inch pipeline in Gladstone Street from Vincent Avenue
westerly to Irwindale Avenue.242,000 595,900 6.1%93.9%36,350 559,550
Subtotal 969,000$ 2,386,000$ 145,546$ 2,240,454$
Phase 3
A
Construct 2.0 MG Beatty Reservoir (HWL 1,023 feet) north of Sierra Madre Avenue
(Post-tensioned Concrete).1,438,000$ 3,540,900$ 100%0%3,540,900$ -$
B
Construct 3 MG Nursery Expansion Reservoir (HWL 830 feet) south of Sierra Madre
Avenue (Post-tensioned Concrete).2,156,000 5,308,900 100%0%5,308,900 -
Source: Water Facility Fee Evaluation, Prepared for The City of Azusa Light & Water Department, 1996; ENR; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
33
Table 5.3: Capacity Expanding Projects from Prior Water System Development Fee Study Continued
Description
Construction
Costs (1996
Dollars)
Construction
Costs (2025
Dollars)
Allocation to
New
Development
Allocation to
Existing
Development
Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
Cost
Allocated to
Existing
Development
Construct 1,400 feet of 20-inch inlet-outlet pipe from Nursery Expansion Reservoir to
Heth Reservoir site.161,000 396,400 100%0%396,400 -
Construct 2,500 feet of 16-inch pipeline paralleling the Covina Ditch from Lakeview
Terrace to Sycamore Drive.216,000 531,900 6.1%93.9%32,446 499,454
Convert AVWC 16-inch pipeline in Jubuedly Drive from Heth Reservoir to Old Mill
Road from 776 Zone to 830 Zone. Connect pipeline to City 6-inch pipeline at
intersection of 11th Street and Old Mill Road and to 20-inch inlet-outlet pipeline to
Nursey Expansion Reservoir.29,000 71,400 6.1%93.9%4,355 67,045
Construct 1,800 feet of 16-inch inlet-outlet pipeline to Beatty Reservoir from City 10-
inch pipeline in Sierra Madre Avenue.155,000 381,700 100%0%381,700 -
Construct 1,400 feet of 12-inch pipeline below Sierra Madre Avenue east of Nursery
Expansion Reservoir above elevation 720 feet.81,000 199,500 100%0%199,500 -
Construct replacement 4 MG buried concrete at Sierra Madre Reservoir.4,025,000 9,911,100 6.1%93.9%604,577 9,306,523
Construct 3.0 MG post-tensioned East Reservoir at spreading grounds site.3,163,000 7,788,500 6.1%93.9%475,099 7,313,402
Construct 3 replacement wells with pumping equipment.600,000 1,477,400 6.1%93.9%90,121 1,387,279
Construct 8,900 feet of 33-inch pipe from North and South Reservoirs to easterly
terminus of Montoya Street alignment following a right-of-way from North and South
Reservoirs to intersection of Sierra Madre Avenue and Todd Avenue thence
southerly in Todd Avenue to its southerly terminus, thence southerly in a right-of-
way across the Foothill Freeway to easterly terminus of Montoya Street. Provide 12-
inch check valve connection to 12-inch 830 Zone pipeline at 10th Street.2,185,000 5,380,300 6.1%93.9%328,198 5,052,102
Construct 14,600 feet of 30-inch pipeline from easterly terminus of Montoya Street
to intersection of Vincent Avenue and Cypress Street. Alignment follows a right-of-
way southerly from easterly terminus of Montoya Street to 3rd Street thence
easterly in 3rd Street to northerly projection of Jackson Avenue, thence southerly in
Jackson Avenue to Gladstone Street, thence westerly to Vincent Avenue, thence
southerly in Vincent Avenue to Cypress Street. 2,829,000 6,966,100 6.1%93.9%424,932 6,541,168
Construct 8,000 feet of 24-inch pipeline in Gladstone Street from 30-inch pipeline at
Jackson Avenue to 24-inch pipeline at Pasadena Avenue.1,208,000 2,974,600 6.1%93.9%181,451 2,793,149
Construct 4,100 feet of 20-inch pipeline in Cypress Street from Azusa Avenue to
AVWC. Well No. 2 site.529,000 1,302,600 6.1%93.9%79,459 1,223,141
Source: Water Facility Fee Evaluation, Prepared for The City of Azusa Light & Water Department, 1996; ENR; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
34
Table 5.3: Capacity Expanding Projects from Prior Water System Development Fee Study Continued
Item Description
Construction
Costs (1996
Dollars)
Construction
Costs (2025
Dollars)
Allocation to
New
Development
Allocation to
Existing
Development
Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
Cost
Allocated to
Existing
Development
Q
Construct 6,400 feet of 20-inch pipeline in Azusa Avenue from 20-inch pipeline 400
feet south of Gladstone Street to Cypress Street.828,000 2,038,900 6.1%93.9%124,373 1,914,527
R
Construct 2,700 feet of 16-inch pipeline in Cypress Street from Vincent Avenue to
Irwindale Avenue.293,000 721,500 6.1%93.9%44,012 677,489
S
Construct 1,500 feet of 16-inch pipeline in Cypress Street from AVWC Well No. 2
site to Lark Ellen Avenue.161,000 396,400 6.1%93.9%24,180 372,220
T
Construct 1,100 feet of 12-inch pipeline in Irwindale Avenue from Cypress Street to
Lark Ellen Avenue.79,000 194,500 6.1%93.9%11,865 182,636
U
Construct 2,700 feet of 12-inch pipeline in Lark Ellen Avenue from Cypress Street to
San Bernardino Road.189,000 465,400 6.1%93.9%28,389 437,011
V
Demolish and salvage equipment at Wilson Reservoir and Griffith Reservoir and
pump station (Booster I).173,000 426,000 6.1%93.9%25,986 400,014
W Re-equip Well No. 10 (AVWC 8).100,000 246,200 6.1%93.9%15,018 231,182
X
Construct 3,600 feet of 30-inch pipeline in San Gabriel Canyon Road from Canyon
Treatment Plant to Sierra Madre Avenue.698,000 1,718,700 6.1%93.9%104,841 1,613,859
Total 23,497,000$ 57,858,500$ 12,757,297$ 45,101,203$
Source: Water Facility Fee Evaluation, Prepared for The City of Azusa Light & Water Department, 1996; ENR; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
35
Table 5.4: New Projects and Allocation to New Development
Project
No.Description Diameter Length
Total Cost
(2015)
Total Cost
(2025)
Allocation to
New
Development
Allocation to
Existing
Development
Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
Cost Allocated
to Existing
Development
2015 Water Master Plan Projects
PF2A
Install new 8-inch PRV to transfer water from
830 Zone to 715 Zone 8-inch 32 30,000$ 41,400$ 100%0%41,400$ -$
PF2B
Install new 8-inch PRV to transfer water from
830 Zone to 715 Zone 8-inch 34 30,000 41,400 100%0%41,400 -
PF3
Proposed 14-inch pipeline to improve flow
and pressure to the southeast portion of the
system 14-inch 1,600 504,000 695,000 100%0%695,000 -
Subtotal 564,000$ 777,800$ 777,800$ -$
Additional Capacity Expanding Projects
Water Treatment Plant 47,000,000$ 6.1%93.9%2,867,000$ 44,133,000$
South Reservoir Design and Build 11,350,000 6.1%93.9%692,350 10,657,650
Advanced Meter Infrastructure - Water 12,000,000 6.1%93.9%732,000 11,268,000
Subtotal 70,350,000$ 4,291,350$ 66,058,650$
Total 5,069,150$ 66,058,650$
Source: ALW; Table 9-12, ALW 2015 Water Master Plan Update; ENR; Willdan Financial Services
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
36
Cost per EDU
Every capacity fee consists of a dollar amount, representing the value of facilities, divided by a
measure of demand. In this case, the fees are calculated as the allocated cost of future
improvements identified to serve new development through 2045 in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 per EDU.
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development is divided by the total growth in EDUs
to determine a cost per EDU. Table 5.5 displays this calculation.
Table 5.5: Cost per EDU
Water System Development Fee
1996 System Development Fee Study Projects 12,757,297$
2015 Master Plan Projects 777,800
Additional Capacity Expanding Projects 4,291,350
Total 17,826,447$
Growth in EDUs (2024 to 2045)3,012
Cost per EDU 5,919$
Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.2.
Water System Development Fee Schedule
Table 5.6 displays maximum justified the water system development fee schedule. The fees are
scaled based on the water EDU factors for each land use identified in Table 5.1. The cost per
EDU from Table 5.5 is multiplied by the EDU factor for each land use to determine the fee for a
residential dwelling unit, for 1,000 square feet of the identified nonresidential land uses , or per
park acre.
Fees for ADUs only apply in certain cases. Refer to the discussion in Chapter 2, Land Use Types
for more information regarding charging capacity fees to ADUs. Government Code section
66324(e) provides guidance for assessing capacity fees to ADUs greater than 750 square feet.
When applicable, the capacity fee for ADUs greater than 750 square feet shall be proportionate to
the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its square feet or the
number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code
adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials.
This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service. In this case,
ALW is choosing to charge fees to ADUs when applicable based on the square footage of the
ADU compared to the square footage of the primary unit. For example, if the ADU is 800 square
feet and the primary unit is 1,600 square feet, then the capacity fee for the ADU will be half of the
fee for the primary unit.
The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1)
legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative
costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and
fee justification analyses.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
37
Table 5.6: Maximum Justified Water System Development Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee 1
Admin
Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
Residential
Residential Unit 5,919$ 1.00 5,919$ 118$ 6,037$
Nonresidential
Commercial 5,919$ 0.46 2,723$ 54$ 2,777$ 2.78$
Office 5,919 0.46 2,723 54 2,777 2.78
Industrial 5,919 0.22 1,302 26 1,328 1.33
Schools 5,919 0.32 1,894 38 1,932 1.93
Parks (per Acre)5,919 1.01 5,978 120 6,098 -
1 Fee per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space or per park acre.
Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.4.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact
fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public
reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Water Annexation Fees
The following section documents a reasonable relationship between new development outside of
ALW’s service area and a water annexation charge to fund the facilities that will provide service to
that development. It uses a buy-in approach to allocating the cost of excess capacity in the
system to new development. The fee also pays for the marginal cost of water rights needed to
accommodate properties from outside the current ALW service area that annex into ALW. The
essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for water from the projected
increase in water flow generation and the excess capacity to provide water service from ALW’s
existing water system. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that
new development will buy-in to the excess capacity of the system in 2045 at no more than the
estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fees are imposed, and the fees
are scaled based on the amount of flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.
Current Water System Asset Valuation
In this case, Replacement New Cost Less Depreciation (RCNLD) is the appropriate method to
determine the current value of the water systems. RCNLD is a commonly used method, and it is
often preferred to alternative methods such as Original Cost Less Depreciation (OCLD), Original
Cost (OC), and Replacement Cost (RC) because of its better reflection of the system’s value in
today’s dollars. Unless the systems have depreciated significantly due to lack of replacement and
repair, RCNLD is more defensible because the replacement cost is inflation -adjusted to recover
the cost of replacing that capacity in current dollars. RCNLD also accounts for depreciation and
consequently address the fact that the system reflects its current condition.
Tables 5.7 though 5.11 detail the RCNLD of ALW’s water system assets. The quantity, age,
useful life, and replacement cost of the facilities was identified in the 2015 Master Plan. The
replacement cost of the facilities from the 2015 Master Plan has been adjusted into 2025 dollars
using the Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
38
Table 5.7: Pipelines
Diameter
(Inches)
Replacement
Cost per
Linear Foot
(2025)Pre-1950 1950 - 1959 1960 - 1969 1970 - 1979 1980 - 1989 1990 - 1999 2000 - 2009 2010 & Later Total Length
2 248$ 1,317 - - - - - - - 1,317
4 248 59,483 6,714 2,709 - 252 - 1,462 - 70,620
6 248 241,659 52,882 24,398 7,447 727 10,717 12,480 1,194 351,504
8 248 231,776 82,605 12,182 13,120 9,165 47,477 89,831 21,788 507,944
10 317 38,257 35,092 6,218 1,706 10,504 7,388 7,891 6,693 113,749
12 372 68,527 27,443 17,245 18,255 17,609 23,362 78,217 610 251,268
14 372 13,725 8,934 1,589 26 1,260 - 549 - 26,083
16 496 4,068 9,473 4,940 2,538 410 442 8,634 565 31,070
18 565 5,867 1,915 18 658 - 1,742 2,894 3,797 16,891
20 621 24,811 15,950 5,612 - - 3,173 2,909 - 52,455
24 745 7,537 13,376 9,102 1,019 - 8,383 - 6,469 45,886
30 938 93 - 9,422 - - - - - 9,515
36 1,117 285 - - - - - - - 285
Total Linear Feet 697,405 254,384 93,435 44,769 39,927 102,684 204,867 41,116 1,478,587
Replacement Cost New 201,976,351$ 85,572,909$ 40,285,314$ 14,831,723$ 13,068,108$ 34,884,002$ 65,262,166$ 15,293,087$ 471,173,660$
Average Years in Service 75 70 60 50 40 30 20 15
Percent Depreciated 100%93%80%67%53%40%27%20%
-$ 5,704,861$ 8,057,063$ 4,943,908$ 6,098,450$ 20,930,401$ 47,858,922$ 12,234,470$ 105,828,074$
Sources: ALW 2015 Water Master Plan Update – Final, Tables 2-9, 9-4 and 9-5; ENR Construction Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.
Replacement Cost New
Less Depreciation
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
39
Table 5.8: Storage Reservoirs
Year Built
Volume
(MG)
Replacement
Cost (2015)
Replacement
Cost (2025)
Years in
Service
Useful
Life
(Years)
Percent
Depreciated
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
Hilltop 1960 0.6 1,800,000$ 2,482,258$ 65 50 100%-$
Mountain Cove 2002 1.0 2,700,000 3,723,387 23 50 46%2,010,629
Rosedale 1023 2006 1.3 3,510,000 4,840,404 19 50 38%3,001,050
Rosedale 890 #1 2006 3.4 7,140,000 9,846,291 19 100 19%7,975,496
Rosedale 890 #2 2006 3.4 7,140,000 9,846,291 19 100 19%7,975,496
Hsu 2009 4.0 7,800,000 10,756,453 16 100 16%9,035,421
Heck 1993 4.0 7,800,000 10,756,453 32 100 32%7,314,388
Sierra Madre 1904 1.5 4,050,000 5,585,081 121 50 100%-
South 1951 2.5 5,625,000 7,757,057 74 50 100%-
North1 2022 3.0 1,200,000 1,276,737 3 50 6%1,200,133
Dalton 1989 2.0 4,500,000 6,205,646 36 50 72%1,737,581
Wilson 1899 6.5 11,700,000 16,134,679 126 50 100%-
Griffith (rectangle)1954 5.0 9,000,000 12,411,291 71 50 100%-
Total 38.2 73,965,000$ 101,622,028$ 40,250,193$
1 Original replacement cost from 2022.
Sources: ALW 2015 Water Master Plan Update – Final, Tables 9-4 and 9-7; ENR Construction Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
40
Table 5.9: Pump Stations
Booster Pump
Year
Built
Total
Replacement
Cost (2015)
Replacement
Cost New
(2025)
Years in
Service
Useful
Life
(Years)
Percent
Depreciated
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
890 Reservoir Booster 1 2006 204,000$ 281,323$ 19 20 95%14,066$
890 Reservoir Booster 2 2006 204,000 281,323 19 20 95%14,066
Dalton Booster 1 1989 225,000 310,282 36 20 100%-
Dalton Booster 2 1989 225,000 310,282 36 20 100%-
Dalton Booster 3 1989 282,000 388,887 36 20 100%-
Dalton Booster 4 1989 282,000 388,887 36 20 100%-
Dalton Booster 51 2018 282,000 388,887 7 20 35%252,777
D Electric Booster 1989 188,000 259,258 36 20 100%-
Griffith Booster 1 1954 225,000 310,282 71 20 100%-
Griffith Booster 2 1954 225,000 310,282 71 20 100%-
Griffith Booster 3 1954 225,000 310,282 71 20 100%-
Griffith Booster 4 1954 225,000 310,282 71 20 100%-
Griffith Booster 5 1954 225,000 310,282 71 20 100%-
Heck Booster 1 1993 185,000 255,121 32 20 100%-
Heck Booster 2 1993 185,000 255,121 32 20 100%-
Rockvale Booster 1 1980 194,000 267,532 45 20 100%-
Rockvale Booster 21 2022 135,000 186,169 3 20 15%158,244
Sierra Madre Booster 1 1904 278,000 383,371 121 20 100%-
Sierra Madre Booster 2 1904 278,000 383,371 121 20 100%-
Sierra Madre 102 31 2018 271,000 373,718 7 20 35%242,917
Vernon Booster 1995 225,000 310,282 30 20 100%-
WTP Finished Booster 11 2021 84,000 115,839 4 20 20%92,671
WTP Finished Booster 21 2024 188,000 259,258 1 20 5%246,295
WTP Finished Booster 3 2009 188,000 259,258 16 20 80%51,852
Total 5,228,000$ 7,209,579$ 1,072,887$
1 "Year Built" refects most recent date of rehabilitation.
Sources: ALW 2015 Water Master Plan Update – Final, Tables 9-4 and 9-6; ENR Construction Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
41
Table 5.10: Wells and Treatment Plant
Well
No.Location Year Built
Design
Flow
(MGD)
Replacement
Cost1
Replacement
Cost New
(2025)
Years in
Service
Useful
Life
(Years)
Percent
Depreciated
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
Wells
1 Spreading Grounds2 2020 3.93 4,714,000$ 6,500,759$ 5 25 20%5,200,607$
2 Spreading Grounds2 2019 2.05 2,462,000 3,395,178 6 25 24%2,580,335
3 Spreading Grounds 1982 3.85 4,615,000 6,364,234 43 25 100%-
4 Spreading Grounds2 2007 3.62 4,346,000 5,993,275 18 25 72%1,678,117
5 Hermitage Lane South of Sierra Madre Blvd2 2018 0.93 1,111,000 1,532,105 7 25 28%1,103,116
6 12th St., near Northside Park 2 2018 3.51 4,215,000 5,812,622 7 25 28%4,185,088
7 11th St./McKeever Ave.2 2021 1.16 1,396,000 1,925,129 4 25 16%1,617,108
8 11th St./Orange Ave.1918 2.52 3,029,000 4,177,089 107 25 100%-
9 710 W. Gladstone Inactive - - - N/A 25 100%-
10 710 W. Gladstone 1987 3.21 3,848,000 5,306,517 38 25 100%-
11 Spreading Grounds 2002 2.63 3,155,000 4,350,847 23 25 92%348,068
12 Spreading Grounds 2002 2.26 2,706,000 3,731,662 23 25 92%298,533
New MCC Well - 4, 5, 7 2020 80,708 97,411 5 25 20%77,929
Total - Wells 29.67 35,677,708$ 49,186,828$ 17,088,901$
Water Treatment Plant
Hsu Canyon Filtration Treatment Plant 2007 54,850,000$ 95,285,797$ 18 50 36%75,539,797$
1 Replacement cost as of 2015 for wells as identifed in Water Master Plan Update. Replacement cost as of 2007 for water treatment plan. Replacement cost as of 2020 for new MCC well.
2 "Year Built" refects most recent date of rehabilitation.
Sources: ALW 2015 Water Master Plan Update – Final, Tables 9-4 and 9-8; ENR Construction Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
42
Table 5.11: Pressure Reducing Valves
Quantity
Replacement
Cost (2015)
Replacement
Cost (2025)
Years in
Service 1
Useful
Life
(Years)
Percent
Depreciated
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
Pressure Reducing Values 30 660,000$ 910,161$ 37.5 75 50%455,081$
Sources: ALW 2015 Water Master Plan Update – Final, Tables 9-4 and 9-9; ENR Construction Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Water Master Plan does not identify age of pressure reducing values. Analysis assumes 50% depreciated. Only includes active pressure
reducing valves.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
43
Table 5.12 summarizes ALW’s current water system asset valuation based on the detail provided
above in Table 5.7 through Table 5.11.
Table 5.12: Water System Asset Valuation Summary
Asset
Replacement Cost
New
Accumulated
Depreciation
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
Pipelines 471,173,660$ 365,345,586$ 105,828,074$
Reserviors 101,622,028 61,371,835 40,250,193
Pump Stations 7,209,579 6,136,692 1,072,887
Pressure Reducing Valves 910,161 455,080 455,081
Wells 49,186,828 32,097,927 17,088,901
Water Treatment Plant 95,285,797 19,746,000 75,539,797
Total 725,388,053$ 485,153,120$ 240,234,933$
Sources: Tables 5.7 through 5.11.
Adjusted System Valuation
ALW has over $35 million in outstanding debt principal related to the water treatment plan. This
amount represents debt that ratepayers will pay back through monthly service charges on an
ongoing basis, so this amount is subtracted from total asset value in calculating the total to be
recovered as a buy-in component. Subtracting the outstanding debt principal from the current
asset valuation yields the total adjusted system value. This calculation is shown below in Table
5.13
Table 5.13: Adjusted System Valuation
Asset Valuation (RCNLD)240,234,933$
Outstanding Debt Principal 35,230,000
Net Valuation 205,004,933$
Sources: ALW; Table 5.12, Willdan Financial Services.
Fee per EDU
Every capacity fee consists of a dollar amount, representing the value of facilities, divided by a
measure of demand. In this case, the fees are calculated as the adjusted system value plus the
cost of future improvements identified to serve ALW through 2045 in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 per
gallon per day (GPD) which will be achieved by 2045. Then these amounts are translated into
fees per housing unit (fee per unit) and employment space (fee per 1,000 square feet) by
multiplying the cost per GPD by the flow generation rate for each land use category. These
amounts become the fee schedule.
The calculation of the buy-in fee per GPD for water facilities is shown in Table 5.14. The water
system’s usable water production capacity in 2045, totaling 42 MGD was identified by ALW. The
total system value in 2045 divided by the total capacity of the system in 2045 yields the capacity
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
44
fee per gallon per day of $4.47. This amount is multiplied by the assumption of 356 gallons per
day per EDU to determine the capacity fee buy-in component per EDU.
Table 5.14: Buy-In Cost per EDU
Adjusted System Value 205,004,933$
1996 System Development Fee Study Projects 57,858,500
2015 Master Plan Projects 777,800
Additional Capacity Expanding Projects 70,350,000
Total System Value in 2045 333,991,233$
System Production Capacity at Buildout (Gallons per Day)42,000,000
Cost per GPD 4.88
GPD per EDU 356
Cost per EDU 1,737$
Sources: Table 5.1 and 5.13.
Water Rights
ALW also purchases water rights to serve its customers, which are partially funded through rates.
The water rates do not fully fund the cost of the water rights, so new development outside of the
ALW service area will fund its proportional share of these water rights through this capacity fee.
Table 5.15 displays the calculation of the cost per EDU for water rights that are not recovered by
ongoing water rates. ALW identified the marginal cost of water rights not funded through rates in
2025 dollars for use in this analysis. This cost is divided by the EDUs that can be served by the
water rights. The resulting cost per EDU summed with the cost per EDU from Table 5.14 drives
the annexation capacity fee calculation.
Table 5.15: Marginal Cost of Water Rights per EDU
Calculation
Marginal Cost of Water Rights in Perpetuity A 8,639,162$
CCF per Year B 6,342,472
Gallons per Day C = B x 748 / 365 12,997,723
Gallons per Day per EDU D 356
EDUs E = C / D 36,510
Cost per EDU F = A / E 237$
Sources: ALW; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
45
Water Annexation Fee Schedule
Table 5.16 displays the water annexation fee schedule. The fees are scaled based on the water
EDU factors for each land use identified in Table 5.1. The cost per EDU from Table 5.14 is added
to the cost per EDU from Table 5.15, and the result is multiplied by the EDU factor for each land
use to determine the fee for are residential dwelling unit, for 1,000 square feet of the identified
nonresidential land uses or per park acre.
Fees for ADUs only apply in certain cases. Refer to the discussion in Chapter 2, Land Use Types
for more information regarding charging capacity fees to ADUs. Government Code section
66324(e) provides guidance for assessing capacity fees to ADUs greater than 750 square feet.
When applicable, the capacity fee for ADUs greater than 750 square feet shall be proportionate to
the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its square feet or the
number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code
adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials.
This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service. In this case,
ALW is choosing to charge fees to ADUs when applicable based on the square footage of the
ADU compared to the square footage of the primary unit. For example, if the ADU is 800 square
feet and the primary unit is 1,600 square feet, then the capacity fee for the ADU will be half of the
fee for the primary unit.
The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1)
legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative
costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and
fee justification analyses.
Table 5.16: Water Annexation Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee 1
Admin
Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
Residential
Residential Unit 1,974$ 1.00 1,974$ 39$ 2,013$
Nonresidential
Commercial 1,974$ 0.46 908$ 18$ 926$ 0.93$
Office 1,974 0.46 908 18 926 0.93
Industrial 1,974 0.22 434 9 443 0.44
Schools 1,974 0.32 632 13 645 0.65
Parks (per Acre)1,974 1.01 1,994 40 2,034 -
1 Fee per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space or per park acre.
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.14 and 5.15.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee
program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting,
and fee justification analyses.
46
6. Sewer Capacity
This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a sewer
capacity charge to fund sewer facilities that serve new development. It uses a buy -in approach to
allocating the cost of excess capacity in the system to new development. These fees are not
charged under the Mitigation Fee Act, rather they are charged under Government Code 66013.
As such, Mitigation Fee Act findings are not required, and the fees are not subject to the
provisions of AB602.
The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for sewer conveyance from
the projected increase in sewer flow and the excess capacity to convey wastewater flow to the
Los Angeles County’s treatment facilities. Note that this fee does not fund wastewater treatment,
which is funded by a Los Angeles County connection fee. The fees are roughly proportional to
demand because they ensure that new development will buy-in to the excess capacity of the
wastewater treatment plant at no more than the estimated reasonable cost of providing the
service for which the fees are imposed, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of flow
generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.
Sewer Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased sewer demand provide the basis for
calculating the sewer facilities fee. The need for sewer facilities improvements is based on the
sewer demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow
generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land
use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of sewer
improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the
system per land use designation. Table 6.1 displays the flow generation factors used in this
analysis as identified in the City’s Sewer System Master Plan.
Table 6.1: Sewer Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Average Flow
Generation
per DU or
1,000 Sq. Ft.1
Residential Dwelling Unit 2 230
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial (Restaurant)1,000
Commercial (Other)300
Office 250
Industrial 250
1 Gallons per day of wastewater flow.
2 Weighted average of single family and multifamily land uses per unit based
on projected future dwelling units.
Sources: City of Azusa Sewer System Master Plan, 2010, Table 4.6; Willdan
Financial Services.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
47
Current Sewer System Asset Valuation
This study uses Replacement New Cost Less Depreciation (RCNLD) to determine the current
value of the City’s sewer system. RCNLD is a commonly used method, and it is often preferred to
alternative methods such as Original Cost Less Depreciation (OCLD), Original Cost (OC), and
Replacement Cost (RC) because of its better reflection of the system’s value in today ’s dollars.
Unless the systems have depreciated significantly due to lack of replacement and repair, RCNLD
is more defensible because the replacement cost is inflation -adjusted to recover the cost of
replacing that capacity in current dollars. RCNLD also accounts for depreciation and
consequently address the fact that the system reflects its current condition.
Table 6.2 summarizes the City’s current sewer system asset valuation . Data from the City’s
Sewer System Mast Plan was used to quantify the quantity and age of the City’s sewer system.
Once adjusted for deprecation, the RCNLD of the City’s sewer system is nearly $49 million.
Table 6.2: Current Sewer System Asset Valuation
Decade Length (Feet)
Assumed
Replacement
Cost per Linear
Foot1
Replacement
Cost New
Assumed
Useful
Lifespan
(Years)
Average
Years in
Service 2
Percent
Depreciated
Accumulated
Depreciation
Replacement
Cost New
Less
Depreciation
Unknown3 59,667 400$ 23,866,800$ 75 89 100%23,866,800$ -$
1940 8,023 400 3,209,200 75 79 100%3,209,200 -
1950 113,850 400 45,540,000 75 69 92%41,896,800 3,643,200
1960 60,063 400 24,025,200 75 59 79%18,899,824 5,125,376
1970 60,234 400 24,093,600 75 49 65%15,741,152 8,352,448
1980 12,571 400 5,028,400 75 39 52%2,614,768 2,413,632
1990 51,584 400 20,633,600 75 29 39%7,978,325 12,655,275
2000 and After 56,206 400 22,482,400 75 19 25%5,695,541 16,786,859
Total 422,198 168,879,200$ 119,902,411$ 48,976,789$
2 Calculated using the mid point of the decade.
3 Analysis assumes these facilities were built before 1940.
Sources: City of Azusa Sewer System Master Plan (2010); Willdan Financial Services.
1 85% of the City's sewer lines are 8" in diameter. 99% of the City's sewer lines are 8" or greater in diameter. To be conservative, this analysis uses the assumed
replacement cost of an 8" sewer line to estimated the replacement cost new of the City's sewer lines.
Fee per Gallon per Day
Every capacity fee consists of a dollar amount, representing the value of facilities, divided by a
measure of demand. In this case, buy-in fees are first calculated as the system value per gallon
per day (GPD). Then these amounts are translated into fees per housing unit (fee per unit) and
employment space (fee per 1,000 square feet) by multiplying the cost per GPD by the flow
generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.
The calculation of the buy -in fee per GPD for sewer facilities is shown in Table 6.3. The City
provided the sewer system’s conveyance capacity, which is 8.1 million gallons per day. The
system value divided by the total capacity of the system yields the sewer capacity fee per gallon
per day of $6.05.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
48
Table 6.3: Fee per GPD
Total System Value (RCNLD)48,976,789$
System Flow Capacity (Gallons per Day)8,100,000
Fee per GPD 6.05$
Sources: City of Azusa Sewer System Master Plan (2010); Table 6.2, Willdan
Financial Services.
Sewer Capacity Fee Schedule
Table 6.4 displays the sewer capacity fee schedule. The fees are scaled based on the average
flow generation factors for each land use identified in Table 6.1. The cost per GPD is multiplied by
the assumed GPD for each land use to determine the fee for the average sized dwelling unit, and
for 1,000 square feet of the identified nonresidential land uses. Note that fees for ADUs only
apply in certain cases.
Fees for ADUs only apply in certain cases. Refer to the discussion in Chapter 2, Land Use Types
for more information regarding charging capacity fees to ADUs. Government Code section
66324(e) provides guidance for assessing capacity fees to ADUs greater than 750 square feet.
When applicable, the capacity fee for ADUs greater than 750 square feet shall be proportionate to
the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its square feet or the
number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code
adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials.
This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service. In this case, the
City is choosing to charge fees to ADUs when applicable based on the square footage of the
ADU compared to the square footage of the primary unit. For example, if the ADU is 800 square
feet and the primary unit is 1,600 square feet, then the capacity fee for the ADU will be half of the
fee for the primary unit.
The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1)
legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative
costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and
fee justification analyses. Two percent of the rates is used in this case based on Willdan’s
experience with impact fee programs in California, as the City does not currently have its own
program to draw on for actual data.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
49
Table 6.4: Sewer Capacity Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per
GPD GPD
Base
Fee 1
Admin
Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per Sq.
Ft.
Residential per Dwelling Unit 6.05$ 230 1,392$ 28$ 1,420$
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial (Restaurant)6.05$ 1,000 6,050$ 121$ 6,171$ 6.17$
Commercial (Other)6.05 300 1,815 36 1,851 1.85
Office 6.05 250 1,513 30 1,543 1.54
Industrial 6.05 250 1,513 30 1,543 1.54
Note: GPD = Gallons per Day.
Sources: City of Azusa; Tables 6.1 and 6.3, Willdan Financial Services.
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program
administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
50
7. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing
impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code,
which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which
concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for
each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why
the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall
review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of
fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a
housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the
development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the
proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a
reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus
study.
Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study’s compliance with the new requirements of AB 602.
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service
The general government facilities and park fees, which are calculated under the existing standard
methodology, are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of
service. The existing level service in terms of the existing facility cost per capita is shown in Table
3.4 and Table 4.6, respectively.
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions
The City does not currently charge any development impact fees, so there are no original fee
assumptions to review.
66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot for all fee categories and
comply with AB 602.
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities
in Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities
identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study.
51
8. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code sections
66004, 66016.5, 66018, and 66019. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council
to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. The impact fee nexus study must
first be adopted at a public hearing to comply with AB 602. That public hearing must be noticed at
least 30 days in advance. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 1 4
days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should be consulted for any other
procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a
resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into
effect.
Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.
Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund
its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI)
be used for adjusting fees for inflation.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee
revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct
more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when
significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. Per Government
Code section 66016.5(a)(8) nexus studies must be updated every eight years , effective January
1, 2022.
Reporting Requirements
The City will comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee
Act found in Government Code sections 66006(b) and 66001(d) and summarized below in Table
8.1. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification
of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of
receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.
The water and sewer capacity fees calculated in this report are not imposed under the Mitigation
Fee Act, and therefore not subject to the Mitigation Fee Act reporting requirements.
There is no time limit by which impact fee revenue must be spent. However, if the C ity is accruing
impact fee revenue to fund new development’s share of a project, then it must make certain
findings with respect to unexpended impact fee fund balances after five years. Among other
requirements, the five-year report requires the City to “Identify all sources and amounts of funding
anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements,” and to “Designate the
approximate dates on which supplemental funding is expected to be deposited into the
appropriate account or fund.”4
On October 13, 2023 AB 516 was signed into law by the Governor of California, and went into
effect on January 1, 2024. This bill requires local agencies to:
4 California Government Code § 66001(d).
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
52
• Include information on projects noted in prior reports and whether construction began on
the approximate date noted in the previous report.
• Explain the reason for any delay in the start of the project and provide a new approximate
date construction will begin.
• Identify the number of people or entities that receive refunds of Mitigation Fee Act fees.
The bill also requires local agencies to inform people paying mitigation fees that they:
• Can request an audit to determine if the fees charged by a local agency are more than
the amount of money needed to cover the cost of the public improvements.
• Can receive information by mail about when the local agency will meet to review its
annual Mitigation Fee Act report.
• Can access and review mitigation fee information on the local agency’s website, and how
to do so.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
53
Table 8.1: Mitigation Fee Act - Annual and Five-year Administrative Requirements
CA Gov't Code
Section Timing Reporting Requirements1
Recommended
Fee Adjustment
66001.(d)
The fifth fiscal year following the
first deposit into the account or
fund, and every five years
thereafter
(A) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.
(B) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and thepurpose
for which it is charged.
(C) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated tocomplete
financing in incomplete improvements.
(D) Designate the approximate dates on which supplemental funding is
expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
Comprehensive
Update
66006. (b) Within 180 days after the last
day of each fiscal year
(A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.
(B) The amount of the fee.
(C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.
(D) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned.
(E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended
including share funded by fees.
(F) (i) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of
the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines
that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an
incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains
incomplete.
(ii) An identification of each public improvement identified in a previous report
pursuant to clause (i) and whether construction began on the approximate
date noted in the previous report.
(iii) For a project identified pursuant to clause (ii) for which construction did
not commence by the approximate date provided in the previous report, the
reason for the delay and a revised approximate date that the local agency will
commence construction.
(G) A description of any potential interfund transfers.
(H) The amount of refunds made (if any).
Inflationary
Adjustment
1 Edited for brevity. Refer to the government code for full description.
Sources: California Government Code §66001 and §66006.
54
9. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and
imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities
and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature
adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent
amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025,
establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.
The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.
The Mitigation Fee Act findings required to implement impact fees in California demonstrate the
essential nexus between new development and a fee to fund facilities needed to serve that
development. The term essential nexus refers to the relationship between new development and
the need for facilities (and corresponding impact fees) to serve that development. The findings
also require that this study demonstrates rough proportionality of the fees- meaning that the
amount of the exaction must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government,
resulting from the proposed development project. To ensure that fees are roughly proportional to
from new development, this study first allocates facilities costs to new development using the
allocation methods described in the preceding chapters, then to individual units of new
development based on the demand characteristics of each unit.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this
report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All
statutory references are to the Act.
Purpose of Fee
Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).
Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the
existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The
purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development
for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest
by enabling the City to provide public facilities to serve new development.
Use of Fee Revenues
Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities
shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital
improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or
specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the
facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).
Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to
serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the
City limits. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to
funding the following facility categories: general government facilities and parks.
Benefit Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of
development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).
The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities , infrastructure
and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to
serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
55
of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development.
Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing
deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and
the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.
Burden Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and
the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).
Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new
development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single
facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationsh ip to
the type of development. For most facility categories service population standards are calculated
based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of
workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard,
one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand
between residential and non-residential development.
The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will
partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach
ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and
that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with
serving the existing service population.
Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth
forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of
each facility category chapter.
Proportionality
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the
cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which
the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).
The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project
and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new
development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the
project’s size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting
in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees
ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the
facilities attributable to that project.
See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category
chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different
types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a
presentation of the proposed facilities fees.
56
10. Appendix
Table A.1: General Government Facilities Capital Improvement Plan
Project Name
Approximate
Quantity Units Description
Approximate
Location
Total
Estimated
Cost
Anticipated Funding
Sources
Estimated Project
Timeframe
Police Vehicles 20 Vehicles 2026 Ford Explorer Patrol Vehicles-Based on Bankcorp Estimate at
$95,086.48 per patrol vehicle
725 N. Alameda Ave.,
Azusa CA 1,901,730$ General Government DIF,
General Fund
Annual Purchases
through 2045
Expand Police
Parking Lot 1 Acres Through land acquisition or parking lot expansion 725 N. Alameda Ave.,
Azusa CA 2,000,000 General Government DIF,
General Fund 2027 to 2037
Expand Capacity at
Existing Buildings 20,000 Sq. Ft.
Police, City Hall, West Wing, recreation facilities, library, and/or
senior center building expansion. Prioritized based on staff
increases and space needs. Assumes $500 per square foot of new
building space
Citywide 10,000,000 General Government DIF,
General Fund By 2030
General City Vehicles 10 Vehicles
Expansion of city vehicle fleet for expansion of services including:
code enforcement, city clerk, maintenance, recreation, etc. Used
Bankcorp estimate for estimates at $49,837.50 per vehicle.
213 E. Foothill Blvd.,
Azusa CA 498,375 General Government DIF,
General Fund 2027 to 2037
Finance Enterprise
System (ERP)
Expansion
Acquire capacity enhancing finance software system 213 E. Foothill Blvd.,
Azusa CA 200,000
General Government DIF,
General Fund By 2030
Human Resources
Enterprise System
(ERP) Expansion
Acquire capacity enhancing human resources software system 213 E. Foothill Blvd.,
Azusa CA 150,000
General Government DIF,
General Fund By 2030
Total 14,750,105$
Source: City of Azusa.
City of Azusa Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
57
Table A.2: Park Facilities Capital Improvement Plan
Project Name
Approximate
Quantity Units Description Approximate Location
Total Estimated
Cost Anticipated Funding Sources
Estimated Project
Timeframe
Zacatecas Park 2.50 Acres Baseball Field Complex Improvements Parkside & Zamara 3,227,000$ Park DIF, Quimby In-lieu, General Fund 2027 to 2030
Grandview Park 0.75 Acres Vacant Land Improved into Passive Park Graandview and S. Angeleno 968,000 Park DIF, Quimby In-lieu, General Fund 2027 to 2030
Mauna Loa Project 0.71 Acres Parks needed to serve demand from Mauna Loa Project 1035 E Mauna Loa 916,000 Park DIF, Quimby In-lieu, General Fund 2026 to 2027
Mountain View School 4.00 Acres Acquire and convert fields into park Vernon & W. 2nd St.5,163,000 Park DIF, Quimby In-lieu, General Fund Beyond 2030
Slauson School Fields 4.00 Acres Acquire and convert fields into park N. Orange & W. 4th St.5,163,000 Park DIF, Quimby In-lieu, General Fund Beyond 2030
Dog Park Walking Path 0.50 Acres Acquisition and improvement Crescent Dr. & Sunset Ave.645,000 Park DIF, Quimby In-lieu, General Fund Beyond 2030
9th and Palm 0.25 Acres Acquisition and improvement SW Corner 9th and Palm 323,000 Park DIF, Quimby In-lieu, General Fund Beyond 2030
To Be Determined 1.92 Acres New Park Acquisition and Construction Citywide 2,478,000 Park DIF, Quimby In-lieu, General Fund Beyond 2030
Total 14.63 18,883,000$
Note: Costs rounded to nearest thousand dollars.
Source: City of Azusa.
Development Impact Fee Comparison Survey
Methodology
Willdan collected development impact fee schedules for one-time fees charged to new development in
five comparison cities. These comparison jurisdictions are:
• Covina
• Glendora
• Irwindale
• Pomona
• West Covina
Willdan collected data regarding one-time fees and charges charged by the cities used to fund
infrastructure and facilities related to new development. Impact fees are not standardized and are
assessed by various units of development by different jurisdictions. To create a meaningful comparison
of impact fees, Willdan calculated the fees for six prototype projects. Table 1 presents the project
prototype assumptions used in this analysis.
Results
Tables 2 through 6 display the fee companions for each prototype, respectively. Figures 1 through 5
accompany the tables and illustrate the results in bar graphs.
Table 1: Prototype Assumptions
Product Type
Unit
Count
Square
Feet
Bedroom
Count per
Unit
Single Family Unit 1 2,000 3
Apartments 20 1,000 1
Total 20,000
Commercial N/A 10,000
Office N/A 10,000
Industrial N/A 50,000
Table 2: Single Family Dwelling Unit - 2,000 Square Feet
Fee Category
Current
Azusa
Maximum
Justified
Azusa 1 Covina Glendora Irwindale Pomona 2
West
Covina 2
Administrative Fee -$ -$ 181$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Community/Rec Centers - - 1,503 - - - -
Development Tax - - - - - 3,347 -
General Government - 4,500 1,839 - 6,390 - 226
Fire - - 445 - - - 1,043
Library - - 2,051 - 1,148 - -
Parks 450 9,600 9,741 2,273 17,519 11,475 2,571
Police - - 429 - 8,466 - 856
Public Safety - - - - - 500 -
Sewer - 1,420 - - 31 5,135 -
Storm Drain - - - - 723 77 -
Transportation/Traffic - - 14,312 - 3,992 96 -
Water3 2,538 6,037 2,538 2,538 2,538 5,129 2,538
Total 2,988$ 21,557$ 33,039$ 4,811$ 40,807$ 25,759$ 7,234$
3 Water capacity fees for Covina, Glendora, Irwindale and West Covina assume water service from ALW.
1 Park infill (Mitigation Act) fees shown. The majority of Azusa is expected to be infill, and not subject to subdivision (Quimby)
park fees.
2 Fee comparison excludes art in public places fee and inclusionary housing fee in-lieu fees, which are assumed to be
provided on-site.
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Current
Azusa
Glendora West Covina Max. Justified
Azusa
Pomona Covina Irwindale
Figure 1 -Single Family Dwelling Unit
Table 3: 20 Apartments, 1,000 Square Feet per Unit
Fee Category
Current
Azusa
Maximum
Justified
Azusa 1 Covina Glendora Irwindale Pomona 2
West
Covina 2
Administrative Fee -$ -$ 2,140$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Community/Rec Centers - - 14,240 - - - -
Development Tax - - - - - 62,380 -
General Government - 45,000 17,420 - 60,380 - 3,220
Fire - - 6,040 - - - 14,881
Library - - 19,420 - 10,840 - -
Parks 3,000 96,000 92,300 31,820 165,520 192,980 36,698
Police - - 7,780 - 79,980 - 12,219
Public Safety - - - - - 5,000 -
Sewer - 28,400 - - 300 86,520 -
Storm Drain - - - - 9,520 900 -
Transportation/Traffic - - 202,400 - 55,740 1,344 -
Water3 50,760 120,740 50,760 50,760 50,760 86,420 50,760
Total 53,760$ 290,140$ 412,500$ 82,580$ 433,040$ 435,544$ 117,778$
3 Water capacity fees for Covina, Glendora, Irwindale and West Covina assume water service from ALW.
1 Park infill (Mitigation Act) fees shown. The majority of Azusa is expected to be infill, and not subject to subdivision (Quimby)
park fees.
2 Fee comparison excludes art in public places fee and inclusionary housing fee in-lieu fees, which are assumed to be
provided on-site.
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
$500,000
Current
Azusa
Glendora West Covina Max. Justified
Azusa
Covina Irwindale Pomona
Figure 2 -Apartment Building, 20 Units
Table 4: Commercial Building, 10,000 Square Feet
Fee Category
Current
Azusa
Maximum
Justified
Azusa Covina Glendora Irwindale Pomona 1
West
Covina 1
Administrative Fee -$ -$ 2,180$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Community/Rec Centers - - - - - - -
Development Tax - - - - - 17,182 -
General Government - 7,200 8,590 - 14,520 - 800
Fire - - 4,980 - - - 3,900
Library - - - - 2,100 - -
Parks - - - 6,200 34,680 - 9,800
Police - - 19,830 - 19,240 - 3,300
Public Safety - - - - - 2,500 -
Sewer - 18,500 - - 270 4,050 -
Storm Drain - - - - 5,420 4,050 -
Transportation/Traffic - - 330,470 - 70,960 8,630 -
Water2 11,300 27,800 11,300 11,300 11,300 4,050 11,300
Total 11,300$ 53,500$ 377,350$ 17,500$ 158,490$ 40,462$ 29,100$
2 Water capacity fees for Covina, Glendora, Irwindale and West Covina assume water service from ALW.
1 Fee comparison excludes art in public places fee which is assumed to be provided on-site.
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
Current
Azusa
Glendora West Covina Pomona Max. Justified
Azusa
Irwindale Covina
Figure 3 -Commercial Building, 10,000 Square Feet
Table 5: Office, 10,000 Square Feet
Fee Category
Current
Azusa
Maximum
Justified
Azusa Covina Glendora Irwindale Pomona 1
West
Covina 1
Administrative Fee -$ -$ 1,050$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Community/Rec Centers - - - - - - -
Development Tax - - - - - 26,046 -
General Government - 11,100 6,270 - 18,970 - 800
Fire - - 1,780 - - - 3,900
Library - - - - 2,750 - -
Parks - - - 6,200 45,270 - 9,800
Police - - 1,600 - 25,120 - 3,300
Public Safety - - - - - 2,500 -
Sewer - 15,400 - - 230 17,580 -
Storm Drain - - - - 1,660 17,580 -
Transportation/Traffic - - 166,240 - 50,840 1,102 -
Water2 11,300 27,800 11,300 11,300 11,300 17,580 11,300
Total 11,300$ 54,300$ 188,240$ 17,500$ 156,140$ 82,388$ 29,100$
2 Water capacity fees for Covina, Glendora, Irwindale and West Covina assume water service from ALW.
1 Fee comparison excludes art in public places fee which is assumed to be provided on-site.
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
$200,000
Current
Azusa
Glendora West Covina Max. Justified
Azusa
Pomona Irwindale Covina
Figure 4 -Office Buiding, 10,000 Square Feet
Table 6: Industrial, 50,000 Square Feet
Fee Category
Current
Azusa
Maximum
Justified
Azusa Covina Glendora Irwindale Pomona 2
West
Covina 2
Administrative Fee -$ -$ 1,900$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Community/Rec Centers - - - - - - -
Development Tax - - - - - 62,095 -
General Government - 20,000 11,400 - 35,250 - 4,000
Fire - - 6,200 - - - 19,500
Library - - - - 5,100 - -
Parks 1 - - - 31,000 84,200 - 49,000
Police - - 4,150 - 46,700 - 16,500
Public Safety - - - - - 12,500 -
Sewer - 77,000 - - 150 26,350 -
Storm Drain - - - - 19,150 26,350 -
Transportation/Traffic - - 296,350 - 168,500 1,646 -
Water 23,000 66,500 23,000 23,000 23,000 26,350 23,000
Total 23,000$ 163,500$ 343,000$ 54,000$ 382,050$ 155,291$ 112,000$
2 Water capacity fees for Covina, Glendora, Irwindale and West Covina assume water service from ALW.
1 Fee comparison excludes art in public places fee which is assumed to be provided on-site.
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
Current
Azusa
Glendora West Covina Pomona Max. Justified
Azusa
Covina Irwindale
Figure 5 -Industrial Building, 50,000 Square Feet