Madera County Impact Fee and CIP Update

MADERA COUNTY

COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

FEE UPDATE STUDY AND LONG RANGE

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FINAL

SEPTEMBER 13, 2018

Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices

1700 Broadway 27368 Via Industria Lancaster, CA 6th Floor Suite 110 Memphis, TN Oakland, CA 94612 Temecula, CA 92590 Orlando, FL Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6864) Phoenix, AZ Fax: (510) 832-0898 Fax: (909) 587-3510 Sacramento, CA

Seattle, WA www.willdan.com

This page intentionally left blank.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 3

Background and Study Objectives 3 Fee Categories 3 Use of Fee Revenues 3

Methodologies Used in This Study 3 Fee Schedule 4

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 6

Public Facilities Financing in California 6 Study Objectives 6

Fee Program Maintenance 7 Study Methodology 7

Types of Facility Standards 7 New Development Facility Needs and Costs 8

Organization of the Report 9

2. GROWTH FORECASTS .................................................................... 10

Use of Growth Forecasts for Impact Fees 10

Service Population 10 Land Use Types 10

Growth Forecasts for Madera County 11 Occupant Densities 12

3. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES ................................................. 14

Service Population 14

Facility Inventory 15 Existing Facility Standard 17

Fee Schedule 17 Use of Fee Revenues 18

4. COUNTYWIDE PUBLIC PROTECTION .................................................. 19

Service Population 19

Facility Inventory 20 Existing Facility Standard 21 Fee Schedule 22

Use of Fee Revenues 23

5. LIBRARY FACILITIES ....................................................................... 24

Service Population 24 Facility Inventory 24 Existing Facility Standard 25 Fee Schedule 25 Use of Fee Revenues 26

Madera County Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Update Study

ii

6. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES ............................................... 27

Service Population 27 Facility Inventories and Standards 27 Unit Costs 28

Use of Fee Revenues 30 Fee Schedule 30

7. LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES ....................................................... 32

Service Population 32 Facility Inventory 33 Existing Facility Standard 33 Fee Schedule 34 Use of Fee Revenues 35

8. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES .......................................................... 36

Service Population 36 Facility Inventory 37

Existing Facility Standard 39 Fee Schedule 39 Use of Fee Revenues 40

9. IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................... 41

Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 41

Inflation Adjustment 41 Reporting Requirements 42

10. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS..................................................... 43

Purpose of Fee 43

Use of Fee Revenues 43 Benefit Relationship 43

Burden Relationship 43 Proportionality 44

APPENDIX A: VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT INVENTORIES ........................... A-1

APPENDIX B: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ......................................... B-1

Introduction B-1 Definition of CIP Projects B-1

CIP Development Process B-1 Funding Sources and Financing Mechanisms B-2

CIP Summary B-2

3

Executive Summary This report summarizes an analysis of the need for public facilities and capital improvements to support future development within Madera County through 2035. It is the County’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of these facilities and improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee.

Background and Study Objectives The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the County to expand its inventory of public facilities – and therefore maintain its facilities standards – as new development leads to service population increases.

The County imposes public facilities fees in unincorporated areas 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 for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein. The County has existing agreements with the incorporated cities in the County to implement the impact fees.

Fee Categories

The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis of the County’s development impact fee program are divided into the fee categories listed below:

▪ General Government

▪ Countywide Public Protection

▪ Libraries

▪ Parks and Recreation

▪ Law Enforcement

▪ Fire Protection

Use of Fee Revenues

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 the following capital facilities to serve new development: land acquisition, construction of buildings, new roadways, road expansions, vehicles, information technology, library collections, software licenses and equipment.

Concurrent with the development of a public facilities fee program, this report also includes a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP – See Appendix B). The CIP covers many of the same facilities that will be funded by the proceeds from the public facilities fee program. While the CIP is not an exhaustive list of all projects that will be funded by the fee program, it does provide a comprehensive listing of the types of public investments that are currently envisioned.

Methodologies Used in This Study This study uses the existing inventory method for all fee categories to calculate a cost standard that ensures that new development contributes to facilities at the same rate that existing development has contributed to date. This methodology is not based on a master plan for facilities. Rather, this methodology uses the County’s existing inventory of facilities as of 2018 to


4

calculate the existing facility standard serving existing development. A cost standard is used to combine disparate types of facilities, such as land, buildings, and vehicles, funded by the same public facility fee. By definition this methodology results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development.

Fee Schedule Table E.1 summarizes the schedule of maximum justified development impact fees based on the analysis contained in this report.


5

Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Fees

Land Use

General

Government

Facilities

Countywide

Public

Protection

Facilities

Library

Facilities

Parks and

Recreation

Facilitites

Sheriff Patrol

and

Investigation

Facilities

Fire

Protection

Facilities Total

Incorporated

Residential per Dwelling Unit

Single Family 2,174$ 2,557$ 421$ 1,033$ n/a n/a 6,185$

Multifamily 1,644 1,935 318 782 n/a n/a 4,679

Nonresidential per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 461$ 540$ n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,001$

Office 669 784 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,453

Industrial 219 257 n/a n/a n/a n/a 476

Warehouse 175 206 n/a n/a n/a n/a 381

Unincorporated

Residential per Dwelling Unit

Single Family 2,174$ 2,557$ 421$ 1,033$ 465$ 1,979$ 8,629$

Multifamily 1,644 1,935 318 782 352 1,497 6,528

Nonresidential per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 461$ 540$ n/a n/a 99$ 932$ 2,032$

Office 669 784 n/a n/a 143 1,354 2,950

Industrial 219 257 n/a n/a 47 444 967

Warehouse 175 206 n/a n/a 38 355 774

Sources: Tables 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.7, 7.4 and 8.6.

6

1. Introduction This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in Madera County. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:

▪ Public facilities financing in California;

▪ Study objectives;

▪ Madera County development impact fee program;

▪ Study Methodology;

▪ Fee Program Maintenance; and

▪ Organization of the report.

Public Facilities Financing in California The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:

▪ The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;

▪ Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and

▪ Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.

Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.

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 County to expand its inventory of public facilities – and therefore maintain its facilities standards – as new development leads to increases in service demands.

The County imposes development impact fees in unincorporated areas 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 for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein. The County has agreements with the incorporated cities within the County to implement the County impact fees.

The County of Madera is forecast to experience substantial growth in both incorporated cities and unincorporated areas through this study’s planning horizon of 2035. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the County facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above that are common to most cities and counties in


7

California; the County 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, facility plans, and engineering studies to ensure that the County’s fee program is representative of the facility needs resulting from new development.

All fee-funded capital projects are programmed through the County’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), presented in Appendix B of this report. Use of a CIP helps the County identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the County ensures a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

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. Impact fee levels must be adjusted frequently to account for inflation. Should the cost of facilities rise more quickly than the fee amounts collected, the facilities needed to serve new development will be underfunded. 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, buildings, and equipment), such as the Engineering News Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, and step-by-step instructions for adjusting fees for inflation, see Chapter 9.

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, 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 five steps followed in a 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 and their costs: Estimate the total amount and cost of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;

4. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and

5. 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.

Types of Facility Standards

There are three separate components of facility standards:


8

Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicles-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning.

Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for county office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates current facility design standards into the fee program to reflect the increasing construction cost of public facilities.

Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), useful when disparate facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

New Development Facility Needs and Costs

A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development. Often there is a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.

There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs: the existing inventory method, the system plan method, and the planned facilities method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.

The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:

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 funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan. This method is used for all facility categories in this report. All inventories, included in this report are current as of 2018.

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

This method is appropriate when specific planned facilities can be identified that only benefit new development. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a

= $/unit of demand

= $/unit of demand


9

sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This method is appropriate when planned facilities would not serve existing development. Under this method, new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used for the master facility plan. This method is not used to calculate any fees in this report.

System Plan Method

This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:

Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities

Existing + New Development Demand

This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service. Police substations, civic centers, and regional parks provide examples of similar facilities.

The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies. Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This method is not used to calculate any of fees 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 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 8 are devoted to documenting the maximum justified public facilities fee for each of the following six facility categories:

▪ General Government

▪ Countywide Public Protection

▪ Libraries

▪ Parks and Recreation

▪ Law Enforcement

▪ Fire Protection

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (codified in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025) are summarized in Chapter 10.

Appendix A contains supplemental facility inventory tables.

Appendix B contains the County’s Long Range Capital Improvement Plan.

= $/unit of demand

10

2. Growth Forecasts Growth forecasts assist in estimating facility needs based on additional service demand. New development is estimated using a base year of 2018 and a planning horizon of 2035. The growth forecast is used throughout this study.

This chapter also presents the unit cost assumptions used throughout the study to estimate the total cost of planned facilities.

Use of Growth Forecasts for Impact Fees Estimates of the existing service population and forecasts of growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:

▪ Estimates of existing development in 2018 are used to determine the existing facility standards in the County.

▪ Estimates of total development at the 2035 planning horizon are used:

– To determine the total amount of public facilities required to accommodate growth based on the existing facility standards (see Chapter 1), and

– To estimate total fee revenues.

To measure existing service population and future growth, residential and worker population data are used for all facility categories with the exception of the parks and library fees, which only use population data. These measures are used because the amount of residents and workers is a reasonable indicator of the level of demand for public facilities. The County builds public facilities primarily to serve these populations and, typically, the greater the population the larger the facility required to provide a given level of service.

Service Population Different land use types use public facilities at different rates in relation to each other, depending on the services provided. In Chapters 3 through 8 a specific service population is identified for each facility category to reflect total demand.

A service population is a measure of all residents and workers that rely on a given set of services. The service population weights residential land use types against nonresidential land uses based on the relative demand for services between residents and workers.

Land Use Types To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth forecasts distinguish between different land use types. Where ambiguity exists, the California Building Code may be used as a reference document to identify the proper use category. The land use types used in this analysis are defined below.

▪ Single family: Single family detached and attached dwelling units.

▪ Multi-family: All attached multi-family dwellings including triplexes, high and low rise apartments, condominiums, and residential planned unit developments (excluding single family units). This category also applies to mobile home parks.

▪ Commercial: All commercial and retail, development, including but not limited to: supermarkets, drug stores, department stores, general merchandise, building materials or lumber stores, specialty retail stores, discount stores, hardware/paint stores, video arcades, new and used car sales as well as auto repair shops, fast-food


11

restaurants, sit-down restaurants, banks and Credit Unions, educational or vocational facilities, day care facilities, and gas stations.

▪ Office: Professional offices including, but not limited to, business parks, corporate headquarters, insurance sales and research centers.

▪ Industrial: The manufacture, fabrication, reduction or destruction or processing of any article, substance or commodity or any other treatment thereof in such a manner as to change the form or character thereof. Uses include, but are not limited to, heavy and light industrial, heavy industrial and industrial parks.

▪ Warehouse: Includes all warehouse and high box cube development.

Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as an industrial warehouse with living quarters (a live-work designation) or a planned unit development with both single and multi-family uses. In these cases, the development impact fee would be calculated separately for each land use type.

The County should have the discretion to impose the development impact fee based on the specific aspects of a proposed development regardless of zoning. The guideline to use is the probable occupant density of the development, either residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.

Growth Forecasts for Madera County The base year for this study is the year 2018. Base year population estimates are from California Department of Finance (DOF) January 1, 2018 data. The residential 2035 projection is based on DOF data, adjusted by the County of Madera Community and Economic Department.

Nonresidential base year estimates are from the US Census Bureau’s OnTheMap application for primary jobs. The projection of 2035 jobs comes from the Madera County 2011 Regional Transportation Plan prepared by the Madera County Transportation Commission.

Table 2.1 presents the current and future demographic estimates used in this study in terms of population and employment for residential and nonresidential development.


12

2018 2035

Net Growth

(2018 to 2035)

Countywide

Population1

Chowchilla 12,200 18,150 5,950

Madera 65,600 96,800 31,200

Unincorporated 73,200 122,000 48,800

Total 151,000 236,950 85,950

Employees2

Chowchilla 5,400 8,200 2,800

Madera 14,700 47,500 32,800

Unincorporated 21,000 38,700 17,700

Total 41,100 94,400 53,300

Unincorporated

Population 73,200 122,000 48,800

Employees 21,000 38,700 17,700

Total 94,200 160,700 66,500

Note: Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

2 Current estimates from OnTheMap application. Projection from 2011 RTP, MCTC.

Table 2.1: Population and Employment Estimates

and Projections

Source: CA Department of Finance, Table E-5 and Table P-1, 2018; County of

Madera Community and Economic Development Department; U.S. Census Bureau,

OnTheMap View er; Willdan Financial Services.

1 Household population. Excludes group quarters. 2018 estimate from DOF. 2035

projection based on Madera County CED estimates.

Occupant Densities Facility demand is estimated based on service population increases. Developers pay the development impact fee based on the number of additional housing units or building square feet of nonresidential development, so the fee schedule must convert service population estimates to these measures of project size. This conversion is done with average occupant density factors by land use type, shown in Table 2.2.


13

Table 2.2: Occupancy Density Assumptions

Residential

Single Family Unit 3.08 Persons per dwelling unit

Multi-family Unit 2.33 Persons per dwelling unit

Nonresidential

Commercial 2.10 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.

Office 3.05 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.

Industrial 1.00 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.

Warehouse 0.80 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year

Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; The Natelson Company, Inc. Employment

Density Study Summary, October 31, 2001, Tables 8-A and 10-A (Developing

suburban Riverside and San Bernardino Counties); Willdan Financial Services.

The residential occupant density factors for both the various types of dwelling units were calculated using the most recently available data from US Census’ American Community Survey specific to Madera County. Table B25033 identifies the estimated population, by type of dwelling unit. Table B25024 identifies the total amount of dwelling units, by type. The occupant densities resulting from dividing the population by the corresponding dwelling unit type are shown in Table 2.2.

The non-residential density factors are based on Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments, October 2001 by The Natelson Company. Note that the industrial density factor represents an average for light industrial and heavy industrial uses likely to occur in the County.

14

3. General Government Facilities The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of general government facilities. The fee is charged countywide. The County will use fee revenues to expand general facilities to accommodate new development. General government facilities include, but are not limited to: government administrative offices, County-owned vehicles, and County storage facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population General government facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the County’s service population including residents and workers in both unincorporated and incorporated areas.

Table 3.1 shows the estimated service population in 2018 and 2035. In calculating the service population, workers are weighted less than residents to reflect a lower per capita service demand. Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units, so it is reasonable to assume that average per-worker demand for services is less than average per-resident demand. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128).

Table 3.1: General Government Facilities Service PopulationA B A x B = C

Persons

Weighting

Factor

Service

Population

Countywide

Residents

Existing (2018) 151,000 1.00 151,000

New Development (2018-2035) 85,950 1.00 85,950

Total (2035) 236,950 236,950

Workers

Existing (2018) 41,100 0.31 12,700

New Development (2018-2035) 53,300 0.31 16,500

Total (2035) 94,400 29,200

Combined

Existing (2018) 163,700

New Development (2018-2035) 102,450

Total (2035) 266,150

Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Note: Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on the ratio of w ork hours to non-w ork

hours in a w eek (40/128).


15

Facility Inventory This study uses the existing inventory method to calculate fee schedules for general government facilities (see Introduction for further information). Table 4.2 presents an inventory of general government facilities in Madera County along with an estimated current replacement value. Replacement values for land were estimated by the Madera County Assessor’s Office and based on data the Assessor’s Office is required to maintain for property tax assessment purposes. Replacement costs for buildings and vehicles were provided by the County, based on recent assessments of their owned facility inventories. Inventories of the various types of general government vehicles can be found in Appendix Tables A.1 through A.3. An inventory of IT equipment can be found in Appendix Table A.4. The total value of existing general government facilities is approximately $113.3 million.


16

Table 3.2: General Government Land and Building Inventory

Campus Description Amount Units Unit Cost

Replacement

Cost

Land 1

A Public Works Chowchilla Road Division 1.95 Acres 179,500$ 350,000$

D Government Center2 2.61 Acres 301,900 788,000

F Public Works - Road Division Garage & Storage 8.63 Acres 127,500 1,100,000

G District Attorney, Probation, and Public Guardian3 2.44 Acres 198,000 483,000

I Public Works North Fork Road Division 1.99 Acres 30,200 60,000

J Public Works Raymond Road Division 2.62 Acres 18,300 48,000

M Ag Commission Buildings 1.74 Acres 126,400 220,000

O Bass Lake Government Campus4 1.01 Acres 109,900 111,000

U Maintenance and Grounds 6.02 Acres 116,300 700,000

V Road 28 Government Campus5 14.02 Acres 60,000 841,200

Subtotal 4,701,200$

Buildings

A Chowchilla Public Works - Roads Division Office 400 Sq. Ft. 425$ 170,000$

A Chowchilla Public Works - Roads Division Shop 2,016 Sq. Ft. 150 302,400

D General Government Offices in Government Center6 151,100 Sq. Ft. 450 67,995,000

F Public Works - Roads Office/Storage 5,586 Sq. Ft. 425 2,374,100

F Public Works - Roads Shop 14,400 Sq. Ft. 150 2,160,000

F Public Works - Roads Shop Attached Shed 1,200 Sq. Ft. 150 180,000

F Public Works - Roads Vehicle Garage & Storage 21,600 Sq. Ft. 150 3,240,000

G Public Guardian Offices 2,000 Sq. Ft. 425 850,000

G Modular for Elections Storage 4,800 Sq. Ft. 425 2,040,000

G Modular for Elections Storage 780 Sq. Ft. 425 331,500

G Modular for Elections Storage 160 Sq. Ft. 425 68,000

I North Fork Public Works - Roads Office 924 Sq. Ft. 425 392,700

I North Fork Public Works - Roads Parking #1 720 Sq. Ft. 150 108,000

I North Fork Public Works - Roads Parking #2 1,500 Sq. Ft. 150 225,000

I North Fork Public Works - Roads Shop 2,640 Sq. Ft. 150 396,000

J Raymond Public Works - Roads Office 400 Sq. Ft. 425 170,000

J Raymond Public Works - Roads Shop/Storage/Parking 2,496 Sq. Ft. 150 374,400

M Agriculture Office Testing/Storage Bldg 1 3,100 Sq. Ft. 150 465,000

M Agriculture Office Testing/Storage Bldg 2 3,100 Sq. Ft. 150 465,000

M Agriculture Commissioner Building 5,275 Sq. Ft. 425 2,241,900

M Agriculture Commissioner Modular 1,152 Sq. Ft. 425 489,600

O Bass Lake Animal Control 336 Sq. Ft. 185 62,200

O Building Permit Office 864 Sq. Ft. 425 367,200

O Law Library 1,000 Sq. Ft. 425 425,000

U Public Works Shop 5,000 Sq. Ft. 150 750,000

U General Services - Grounds Building 2,561 Sq. Ft. 150 384,200

U General Services - Grounds Equip. Storage 1,500 Sq. Ft. 150 225,000

U General Services - Grounds Shop 2,200 Sq. Ft. 150 330,000

U General Services Maintenance & Grounds Storage 1,856 Sq. Ft. 150 278,400

U General Services Maintenance & Grounds Storage 1,680 Sq. Ft. 150 252,000

U Maintenance & Grounds Parking Garage and Storage 3,600 Sq. Ft. 150 540,000

U Maintenance & Grounds Gen. Srvcs Storage 1,344 Sq. Ft. 150 201,600

V Central Garage Office and Shop 9,963 Sq. Ft. 185 1,843,200

V Animal Shelter 3,280 Sq. Ft. 185 606,800

V Animal Control Administration Trailer 1,800 Sq. Ft. 185 333,000

V Animal Adoption Center 4,000 Sq. Ft. 185 740,000

V General Government Storage Barn 4,400 Sq. Ft. 150 660,000

V Old Sheriff Facility, Retained for TI and Use by Ag Dept 9,385 Sq. Ft. 425 3,988,600

V Maintenance Storage Shed 724 Sq. Ft. 150 108,600

Subtotal 97,134,400$

Vehicles and Equipment

Public Works Heavy Vehicles (Appendix Table A.1) 3,847,100$

Public Works Light Vehicles (Appendix Table A.2) 763,000

General Government Vehicles (Appendix Table A.3) 780,400

IT Inventory (Appendix Table A.4) 4,578,600

Solar Field - 255.36 kW 1,534,000

Subtotal 11,503,100$

Total Value - General Government Facility Inventory 113,338,700$

Note: Totals rounded to the nearest hundred.

2 Excludes area used by Fire Dept.3 Excludes area used by Public Protection.4 Excludes area used by Fire, Sheriff, and Courts.5 Excludes area used by CPP and Fire.6 Does not include area for Fire Dept.

Source: Madera County.

1 Land values are current market values of land as estimated by the Madera County Assessor’s Office and based on data the Assessor’s

Office is required to maintain for property tax assessment purposes.


17

Existing Facility Standard Table 3.3 shows the calculation of the existing per capita investment in general government facilities in 2018. These values were calculated by dividing the value of existing general government facilities by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is $692.

Table 3.3: General Government Facilities Existing Standard

Value of Existing Facilities 113,338,700$

Existing Service Population 163,700

Facility Standard per Resident 692$

Cost per Worker1 215

1 Worker w eighting factor of 0.31 applied to cost per resident.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Schedule Table 3.4 shows the general government facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the dwelling unit densities from Table 2.2. The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all County programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.


18

Table 3.4: General Government Facilities Fee - Existing Standard

A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000

Cost Per Admin Fee per

Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.

Residential

Single Family Unit 692$ 3.08 2,131$ 43$ 2,174$

Multi-family Unit 692 2.33 1,612 32 1,644

Nonresidential

Commercial 215$ 2.10 452$ 9$ 461$ 0.46$

Office 215 3.05 656 13 669 0.67

Industrial 215 1.00 215 4 219 0.22

Warehouse 215 0.80 172 3 175 0.18

1 Fee per dw elling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.3; Willdan Financial Services

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 justif ication analyses.

Use of Fee Revenues The County can use general government facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of new buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that expands the capacity of the existing system to serve new development. Table 3.5 displays projected fee revenue through 2035.

See Appendix B for the County’s Capital Improvement Plan, listing projects that are eligible for impact fee revenue.

Table 3.5: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard

Cost per Capita 692$

Growth in Service Population (2018 - 2035) 102,450

Fee Revenue 70,895,400$

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.3.

19

4. Countywide Public Protection The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of Countywide public protection facilities. The fee will be charged countywide to both residential and nonresidential development. The County will use fee revenues to expand Countywide public protection facilities, including vehicles and equipment, to serve new development.

Service Population Countywide public protection facilities serve both residents and businesses and provide services equally to both incorporated and unincorporated portions of the County. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the County’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 4.1 shows the estimated service population in 2018 and 2035. The demand for countywide public protection facilities is primarily related to the demands that residents and businesses place on those 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. 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 yields a lesser demand for Countywide public protection facilities.


20

A B A x B = C

Persons

Weighting

Factor

Service

Population

Countywide

Residents

Existing (2018) 151,000 1.00 151,000

New Development (2018-2035) 85,950 1.00 85,950

Total (2035) - Countywide 236,950 236,950

Workers

Existing (2018) 41,100 0.31 12,700

New Development (2018-2035) 53,300 0.31 16,500

Total (2035) - Countywide 94,400 29,200

Combined

Existing (2018) 163,700


Total (2035) - Countywide 266,150

Note: Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a

possible 128 non-w ork hours in a w eek.

Sources Table 2.1, Willdan Financial Services.

Table 4.1: Countywide Public Protection Facilities Service

Population

Facility Inventory This study uses the existing inventory method to calculate fee schedules for Countywide public protection facilities (see Introduction for further information). Table 4.2 presents an inventory of Countywide public protection facilities in Madera County along with each facility’s estimated replacement value. Replacement values for land were estimated by the Madera County Assessor’s Office and based on data the Assessor’s Office is required to maintain for property tax assessment purposes. Replacement costs for buildings and vehicles were provided by the County, based on recent assessments of their owned facility inventories. An inventory of vehicles can be found in Appendix Table A.5. An inventory of technological assets can be found in Appendix Table A.6. The total value of Countywide public protection facilities is estimated at approximately $133.2 million.


21

Table 4.2: Countywide Public Protection Existing Inventory


Replacement

Cost

Land 1

G District Attorney and Probation Offices 0.59 Acres 198,300$ 117,000$

V Department of Corrections Jail and Admin 26.19 Acres 60,000 1,570,000

V Solar Field - 28286 Avenue 14 1/2, Madera2 10.50 Acres 60,000 630,000

Subtotal 2,317,000$

Buildings

G District Attorney Offices 9,340 Sq. Ft. 425$ 3,969,500$

G District Attorney Module 1,440 Sq. Ft. 425 612,000

G Probation Offices 9,340 Sq. Ft. 425 3,969,500

G Probation Module 1,440 Sq. Ft. 425 612,000

V D.O.C. Jail and Administrative Offices 140,000 Sq. Ft. 550 77,000,000

V Probation Adult Services Division 7,856 Sq. Ft. 550 4,320,800

V Probation Transit Center Krohn Cottage 4,971 Sq. Ft. 425 2,112,700

V Probation Juvenile Services Division 10,835 Sq. Ft. 425 4,604,900

V Juvenile Detention Facility 44,220 Sq. Ft. 550 24,321,000

Subtotal 121,522,400$

Solar Field - 1,420 kW 2 8,530,400$

Vehicles (Appendix Table A.5) 465,600$

IT Facilities (Appendix Table A.6) 335,000$

Total - Public Protection Existing Inventory 133,170,400$


2 Solar panels provide pow er to the County Jail and Juvenile Hall. Value of panels is insured value.


1 Land values are current market values of land as estimated by the Madera County Assessor’s Office and based on data the

Assessor’s Office is required to maintain for property tax assessment purposes.

Existing Facility Standard Table 4.3 shows current per capita investment in Countywide public protection facilities. This value was calculated by dividing the existing investment in Countywide public protection facilities by the current service population. The cost per resident is $814, and the cost per worker is $252. The cost per worker is determined by multiplying the cost per resident by the worker weighting factor of 0.31.


22

Existing Countywide Public Protection Facilities 133,170,400$


Facility Standard per Capita 814$

Cost per Resident 814$




Table 4.3: Countywide Public Protection Facilities

Existing Standard

Fee Schedule Table 4.5 shows the Countywide public protection facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the dwelling unit densities from Table 2.2. The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all County programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.



23

A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000

Cost Per Base Admin Total Fee per

Land Use Capita Density Fee1 Charge1, 2 Fee1 Sq. Ft.

Residential

Single Family 814$ 3.08 2,507$ 50$ 2,557$

Multifamily 814 2.33 1,897 38 1,935

Nonresidential

Commercial 252$ 2.10 529$ 11$ 540$ 0.54$

Office 252 3.05 769 15 784 0.78

Industrial 252 1.00 252 5 257 0.26

Warehouse 252 0.80 202 4 206 0.21

1 Fee per dw elling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).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 justif ication analyses.


Table 4.4: Countywide Public Protection Facilities Impact Fee -

Existing Standard

Use of Fee Revenues The County can use Countywide public protection facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of new buildings, land, vehicles, or equipment that expand the capacity of the existing system to serve new development. Fee revenues may not be used for replacement of aging facilities. The inclusion of technological assets in the facility inventory will allow fee revenue to be spent on technology related to Countywide public protection services. Table 4.5 displays projected fee revenue through 2035.



Service Population Growth in Unincorporated (2018-2035) 102,450

Projected Fee Revenue 83,394,300$


Table 4.5: Fee Revenue Projection

24

5. Library Facilities The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of library facilities. The fee will be charged countywide to all new residential development. The County will use fee revenues to expand library facilities, including collections and equipment, to serve new development.

Service Population Residents are the primary users of libraries. Therefore, demand for library facilities is based on the County’s residential population and excludes workers. Madera County provides library services countywide. Therefore, the fee is charged to new residential development countywide. Table 5.1 shows the service population for library facilities for both 2018 and 2035.

Table 5.1: Library Facilities Service Population

Residents

Existing (2018) 151,000


Total - (2035) 236,950

Source: Table 2.1.

Facility Inventory This study uses the existing inventory method to calculate fee schedules for library facilities (see Introduction for further information). Table 5.2 presents an inventory of existing library facilities, including land, buildings and technology equipment in Madera County. Replacement values for land were estimated by the Madera County Assessor’s Office and based on data the Assessor’s Office is required to maintain for property tax assessment purposes. Replacement costs for buildings and vehicles were provided by the County, based on recent assessments of their owned facility inventories. The total existing value of library facilities is approximately $20.3 million.


25

Table 5.2: Library Facilities Existing Inventory

Address Description Amount Units Unit Cost

Furnishings

and

Equipment

Total

Replacement

Cost

Land 1

32908 Road 222, North Fork North Fork Library 0.40 Acres 50,000$ -$ 20,000$

49044 Civic Circle Drive, Oakhurst Oakhurst library 3.99 Acres 175,400 - 700,000

300 Kings Ave, Chowchilla Chowchilla Library 0.56 Acres 178,600 - 100,000

121 North G Street, Madera Madera Library 1.21 Acres 173,600 - 210,000

Ranchos Library Ranchos Library 2.54 Acres 570,100 - 1,448,100

Subtotal 8.70 -$ 2,478,100$

Buildings

32908 Road 222, North Fork North Fork Library 2,600 Sq. Ft. 425$ 33,900$ 1,138,900$

49044 Civic Circle Drive, Oakhurst Oakhurst Library 6,180 Sq. Ft. 425 430,300 3,056,800

300 Kings Ave, Chowchilla Chowchilla Library 10,000 Sq. Ft. 425 - 4,250,000

121 North G Street, Madera Madera Library 19,600 Sq. Ft. 425 826,900 9,156,900

Subtotal 38,380 1,291,100$ 17,602,600$

Technology Equipment 183,000$

Total 1,291,100$ 20,263,700$


2 Replacement value. Inventory includes 93 computers, 13 laptops, 4 tablets and 41 printers.


1 Land values are current market values of land as estimated by the Madera County Assessor’s Office and based on data the Assessor’s

Office is required to maintain for property tax assessment purposes.

Existing Facility Standard Table 5.3 shows current per capita investment in library facilities. This value was calculated by dividing the existing investment in library facilities by the current service population. The cost per capita is $134.

Table 5.3: Library Facilities Existing Standard

Value of Existing Facilities 20,263,700$




Fee Schedule Table 5.5 shows the library facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the dwelling unit densities from Table 2.2. The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead


26

charge applied to all County programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.


Table 5.4: Library Facilities Fee - Existing StandardA B C=AxB D E=C+D

Cost Per Base Admin

Land Use Capita Density Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1

Residential

Single Family 134$ 3.08 413$ 8$ 421$

Multifamily 134 2.33 312 6 318

1 Fee per dw elling unit (residential).


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 justif ication analyses.

Use of Fee Revenues The County can use library facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of new buildings, land, vehicles, volumes, or equipment that expand the capacity of the existing system to serve new development. Fee revenues may not be used for replacement of aging facilities or equipment or to otherwise correct existing deficiencies unrelated to new development. The inclusion of technological assets in the facility inventory will allow fee revenue to be spent on technology related to library services. Table 5.5 shows an estimate of library impact fee revenue through 2035.


Table 5.5: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard


Growth in Service Population (2018 - 2035) 85,950

Fee Revenue 11,517,300$


27

6. Parks and Recreation Facilities The purpose of the parks and recreation facilities fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of Countywide parks and recreation facilities. The County will use fee revenues to expand park facilities to serve new development.

Service Population Residents are the primary users of parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, demand for parks and associated facilities are based on the County’s residential population and exclude workers. Table 6.1 provides estimates of the current resident population and a forecast for the year 2035.

Residents

Existing - Countywide (2018) 151,000

New Development - Countywide (2018-2035) 85,950

Total - Countywide (2035) 236,950


Table 6.1: Parks and Recreation Facilities Service

Population

Facility Inventories and Standards The County’s inventory of park facilities is summarized in Table 6.2. In total, the County owns 17.05 acres of developed parkland and 401.56 acres of undeveloped parkland.

Table 6.2: County Parkland Inventory

Park

Improved

Acreage

Unimproved

Acreage Total

Parks and Recreation Facilities

Ahwahnee Park - 401.56 401.56

Courthouse Museum Park 5.29 - 5.29

Parkwood 5.00 - 5.00

Parkdale Park 1 5.00 - 5.00

Parkdale Park 2 1.76 - 1.76

Total 17.05 401.56 418.61



28

Unit Costs Unit costs represent the land costs and level of improvements that existing development has provided to date. Using unit costs to determine a facility standard ensures that the cost of facilities to serve new development is not artificially increased, and new development unfairly burdened, compared to existing development.

The unit costs used to estimate the total investment in parkland facilities are shown in Table 6.3. Land acquisition costs are based on the weighted average of land value in the County’s inventory. Standard park improvement costs are based on Willdan’s experience with other jurisdictions.

Cost per Acre

Share of

Total Costs

Land Acquisition 106,000$ 26%

Standard Park Improvements 300,000 74%

Total 406,000$ 100%

Source: Madera County; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 6.3: Parks and Recreation Facilities Unit Costs

To calculate new development’s need for new parks, a ratio expressed in terms of developed park acres per 1,000 residents is used, known as a park standard. First, the undeveloped park acres must be converted into an equivalent amount of improved acres. This conversion is based on the cost of an unimproved acre relative to an improved acre and is displayed in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4: Unimproved Acreage - Parkland Equivalent

Improved Parkland 406,000$ Per Acre

Unimproved Parkland 106,000 Per Acre

Unimproved Parkland Land Percentage of

Improved Parkland costs 26.1%

Unimproved Parkland 401.56

Equivalent Improved Acres 104.84

Sources: Tables 6.2 and 6.3

Using the developed park acreage from Table 6.2, and the improved equivalent acreage calculated in Table 6.4, Table 6.5 shows the existing park standard per 1,000 residents for the current service population.


29

Improved Park Acreage 17.05

Equivalent Improved Acres of Unimproved Parkland 104.84

Total Equivalent Acres of Developed Parkland 121.89

Service Population (Residents) 151,000

Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 0.81

Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.

Table 6.5: County Parks - Existing Standard

Table 6.6 calculates cost of needed facilities to serve new development at the existing standard. This is done in two steps: first, the facility standard is multiplied by the projected growth to determine the acreage needed by 2035 to serve the projected growth; then the unit costs from Table 6.3 are multiplied by the needed acreage to determine the total cost of needed facilities to accommodate new development.

Table 6.6: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development

Calculation Parkland Improvements Total

Park land and Improvements

Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) A 0.81 0.81

Resident Growth (2018-2035) B 85,950 85,950

Facility Needs (acres) C = (B / 1,000) x A 69.62 69.62

Average Unit Cost (per acre) D 106,000$ 300,000$

Total Cost of Parkland E = C x D 7,379,720$ 20,886,000$ 28,265,720$

Note: Totals rounded to the thousands.

Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3, and 6.5; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 6.7 shows current per capita costs for residents. These values were calculated by multiplying the value of existing parkland and park improvements by the current facility standard, and then dividing that figure by 1,000 to reach the existing cost per capita.


30

Table 6.7: Park Facilities Investment Per Capita

Total

Calculation Land Improvements Impact Fee

Parkland Investment (per acre) A 106,000$ 300,000$ 406,000$

Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 service pop.) B 0.81 0.81 0.81

Total Investment Per 1,000 capita C = A x B 86,000$ 243,000$ 329,000$

1,000 1,000 1,000

Investment Per Capita D = C / 1,000 86$ 243$ 329$


Use of Fee Revenues The County can use park facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of new buildings, land, land improvements, vehicles, or equipment that expand the capacity of the existing parks system to serve new development. Fee revenues may not be used for replacement of aging facilities or equipment or to otherwise correct existing deficiencies unrelated to new development.

As shown in Table 6.6 above, new development’s fair share of planned parks facilities is approximately $28.3 million for parks and recreation facilities through 2035.


Fee Schedule The park facilities fee schedule is displayed in Table 6.8. The cost per capita from Table 6.7 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling unit). The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all County programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.



31

A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D

Cost Per Base Admin

Land Use Capita Density Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1

Residential

Single Family 329$ 3.08 1,013$ 20$ 1,033$

Multifamily 329 2.33 767 15 782

1 Fee per dw elling unit.

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 justif ication analyses.


Table 6.8: Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee

32

7. Law Enforcement Facilities This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the funding for proposed law enforcement facilities in the unincorporated areas of Madera County. The law enforcement fee will only be charged in the unincorporated areas of the County. Fee revenue will be spent on expanding facilities, including vehicles and equipment, to serve new development.

Service Population Both residents and workers in unincorporated portions of Madera County benefit from services provided by the sheriff department. Therefore, demand for law enforcement facilities is based on the County’s combined unincorporated residential and worker populations. 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. 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 yields a lesser demand for law enforcement facilities. Table 7.1 provides estimates of the resident and worker populations in the unincorporated areas of the County with forecasts for the year 2035.

Table 7.1: Sheriff Patrol and Investigation Service PopulationA B A x B = C

Persons

Weighting

Factor

Service

Population

Unincorporated Only

Residents

Existing (2018) 73,200 1.00 73,200

New Development (2018-2035) 48,800 1.00 48,800

Total (2035) 122,000 122,000

Workers

Existing (2018) 21,000 0.31 6,500

New Development (2018-2035) 17,700 0.31 5,500

Total (2035) 38,700 12,000

Combined

Existing (2018) 79,700


Total (2035) 134,000


Note: Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a

possible 128 non-w ork hours in a w eek.


33

Facility Inventory The law enforcement fee uses the existing standard to calculate the impact fees for law enforcement facilities. This standard is based on the current investment per capita in law enforcement facilities in Madera County. Table 7.2 presents a complete inventory of existing facilities. Replacement values for land were estimated by the Madera County Assessor’s Office and based on data the Assessor’s Office is required to maintain for property tax assessment purposes. Replacement costs for buildings and vehicles were provided by the County, based on recent assessments of their owned facility inventories. Vehicles currently owned by the Madera County Sheriff Department are listed in Appendix Table A.7.

Table 7.2: Sheriff Patrol and Investigation Existing Facility Inventory


Replacement

Cost

Land

O Sheriff Bass Lake 1.62 Acres 109,877$ 178,000$

E Sheriff NET Building 5.78 Acres 211,938 1,225,000

W Sheriff Oakhurst 5.10 Acres 106,078 541,000

Ranchos Sheriff Substation 0.40 Acres 540,000 216,000

Subtotal 12.90 2,160,000$

Buildings and Improvements

O Bass Lake Sheriff Detect. House 1,838 Sq. Ft. 185$ 340,000$

E Sheriff NET Offices and Storage 5,904 Sq. Ft. 185 1,092,200

W Oakhurst Sheriff Sub-station 9,600 Sq. Ft. 425 4,080,000

W Oakhurst Sheriff Evidence Storage 1,500 Sq. Ft. 185 277,500

Sheriff Boat Barn and Register Shed 1,536 Sq. Ft. 150 230,400

New Sheriff Facility2 na na 2,100,000

Subtotal 8,120,100$

Sheriff IT Asset Inventory 109 Computers 1,132$ 123,400$

Vehicles (Appendix Table A.7) 1,373,500$

Total 11,777,000$


2 Facility value represents the value of the lease payments made to date. Facility is being leased to ow n.


1 Land values are current market values of land as estimated by the Madera County Assessor’s Office and based on

data the Assessor’s Office is required to maintain for property tax assessment purposes.

Existing Facility Standard Table 7.3 shows current per capita investment in law enforcement facilities. This value was calculated by dividing the existing investment in law enforcement facilities by the current service population. The cost per resident is $145, and the cost per worker is $45. The cost per worker is determined by multiplying the cost per resident by the worker weighting factor of 0.31.


34

Existing Sheriff Patrol and Investigation Facilities 11,777,000$




Cost per Worker1 46



Table 7.3: Sheriff Patrol and Investigation Facilities -

Existing Standard

Fee Schedule Table 7.4 displays the law enforcement facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all County programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.



35

A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000



Residential

Single Family 148$ 3.08 456$ 9$ 465$

Multifamily 148 2.33 345 7 352

Nonresidential

Commercial 46$ 2.10 97$ 2$ 99$ 0.10$

Office 46 3.05 140 3 143 0.14

Industrial 46 1.00 46 1 47 0.05

Warehouse 46 0.80 37 1 38 0.04


Table 7.4: Sheriff Patrol and Investigation Facilities Impact Fee -

Existing Standard

2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2)




Use of Fee Revenues The County can use law enforcement facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of new buildings, land, land improvements, vehicles, or equipment that expand the capacity of the existing system to serve new development. Fee revenues may not be used for replacement of aging facilities or equipment or to otherwise correct existing deficiencies unrelated to new development. The inclusion of technological assets in the facility inventory will allow fee revenue to be spent on technology related to law enforcement services.

Table 7.5 shows an estimate of law enforcement impact fee revenue through 2035.


Table 7.5: Revenue Projection





36

8. Fire Protection Facilities The purpose of the fire impact fee is to fund the fire protection facilities needed to serve new development. Madera County provides fire protection services through a contract with the Cal Fire. A proposed fee is presented based on the existing standard of fire protection facilities per capita.

Service Population Fire protection facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses in the unincorporated areas of the County. The service population used to determine the demand for fire protection facilities includes both residents and workers. Table 8.1 shows the current fire protection facilities service population and the estimated unincorporated service population at the planning horizon of 2035.

A B A x B = C

Persons

Weighting

Factor

Service

Population

Unincorporated

Residents

Existing (2018) 73,200 1.00 73,200

New Development (2018-2035) 48,800 1.00 48,800

Total (2035) 122,000 122,000

Workers

Existing (2018) 21,000 0.69 14,500

New Development (2018-2035) 17,700 0.69 12,200

Total (2035) 38,700 26,700

Combined

Existing (2018) 87,700


Total (2035) 148,700


Table 8.1: Fire Protection Facilities Service Population

Note: Workers are w eighted at 0.69 of residents based on an survey of w orker demand on fire

services conducted in the City of Phoenix.

To calculate service population for fire protection facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. A worker is weighted at 0.69 of one resident to reflect the lower per capita need for fire services associated with businesses.

The specific 0.69 per worker weighting used here is derived from an extensive study carried out by planning staff in the County of Phoenix. Data from that study is used to calculate a per capita factor that is independent of land use patterns. It is reasonable to assume that relative demand


37

for fire service between residents and workers does not vary substantially on a per capita basis across communities, enabling the use of this data in other communities in the documentation of a fire protection facilities impact fee.

Facility Inventory This study uses the existing inventory method to calculate fee schedules for fire protection facilities (see Introduction for further information). Table 8.2 presents an inventory of existing fire protection facilities, including land, buildings, vehicles and technology equipment in Madera County. Replacement values for land were estimated by the Madera County Assessor’s Office and based on data the Assessor’s Office is required to maintain for property tax assessment purposes. Replacement costs for buildings and vehicles were provided by the County, based on recent assessments of their owned facility inventories. An inventory of vehicles and apparatus can be found in Appendix Table A.8. An inventory of technological assets can be found in Appendix Table A.9. In total, the County has invested approximately $55.2 million in fire protection facilities.


38

Table 8.2: Fire Protection Facilities Existing Inventory


Equipment

and

Furnishings

Total

Replacement

Cost

Land

C Station 4 0.58 Acres 31,034$ - 18,000$

D Government Center 0.09 Acres 300,000 - 27,000

K Station 15 1.61 Acres 18,634 - 30,000

N Station 19 1.29 Acres 271,318 - 350,000

O Station 14 1.27 Acres 110,236 - 140,000

P Station 9 1.00 Acres 30,000 - 30,000

Q Station 8 1.04 Acres 28,846 - 30,000

R Station 17 0.08 Acres - - -

S Station 12 1.50 Acres 106,000 - 159,000

V Station 1 and Fire Admin 1.57 Acres 59,873 - 94,000

Subtotal 10.03 878,000$

Buildings and Improvements

C Fire Station #4 2,470 Sq. Ft. 600 63,700$ 1,545,700$

D Fire Administration in Gov't Center 5,400 Sq. Ft. 450 - 2,430,000

K Fire Station #15 1,014 Sq. Ft. 600 26,200 634,600

K Living Quarters 2,587 Sq. Ft. 600 66,700 1,618,900

N Fire Station #19 2,920 Sq. Ft. 600 75,300 1,827,300

N Classroom 1,023 Sq. Ft. 600 26,400 640,200

N Apparatus Bay 2,091 Sq. Ft. 600 53,900 1,308,500

N Apparatus Bay 540 Sq. Ft. 600 13,900 337,900

O Fire Station #14 3,468 Sq. Ft. 600 89,500 2,170,300

P Fire Station #9 2,360 Sq. Ft. 600 60,900 1,476,900

P Living Quarters 1,128 Sq. Ft. 600 29,100 705,900

Q Fire Station #8 3,514 Sq. Ft. 600 90,700 2,199,100

Q Living Quarters 2,226 Sq. Ft. 600 57,400 1,393,000

R Fire Station #17 1,128 Sq. Ft. 600 29,100 705,900

R Apparatus Bay 1,100 Sq. Ft. 600 28,400 688,400

S Fire Station #12 5,616 Sq. Ft. 600 144,900 3,514,500

V Administration/Shop 7,240 Sq. Ft. 600 426,000 4,770,000

V Fire Station #1/Apparatus Bay 2,050 Sq. Ft. 600 105,800 1,335,800

V Living Quarters 1,209 Sq. Ft. 600 31,200 756,600

49,084 1,419,100$ 30,059,500$

Vehicles and Apparatus (Appendix Table A.8) 24,214,100$

IT Equipment (Appendix Table A.9) 74,100$

Total 55,225,700$

1 3.4% of Government Center is devoted to Fire Dept2 Land ow ned by school district, building ow ned by County



39

Existing Facility Standard Table 8.3 shows current per capita investment in fire protection facilities. This value was calculated by dividing the existing investment in fire protection facilities by the current service population. The cost per resident is $630, and the cost per worker is $435. The cost per worker is determined by multiplying the cost per resident by the worker weighting factor of 0.69.

Existing Fire Protection Facilities 55,225,700$







Table 8.3: Fire Protection Facilities Existing

Standard

Fee Schedule Table 8.4 shows the maximum justified fire protection 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 total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all County programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and Countywide administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.


40

Table 8.4: Fire Protection Facilities Impact Fee - Existing StandardA B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000



Residential

Single Family 630$ 3.08 1,940$ 39$ 1,979$

Multifamily 630 2.33 1,468 29 1,497

Nonresidential

Commercial 435$ 2.10 914$ 18$ 932$ 0.93$

Office 435 3.05 1,327 27 1,354 1.35

Industrial 435 1.00 435 9 444 0.44

Warehouse 435 0.80 348 7 355 0.36


2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2)




Use of Fee Revenues The County can use fire protection facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of new buildings, land, land improvements, vehicles, or equipment that expand the capacity of the existing system to serve new development. Fee revenues may not be used for replacement of aging facilities or equipment or to otherwise correct existing deficiencies unrelated to new development. The inclusion of technological assets in the facility inventory will allow fee revenue to be spent on technology related to fire protection services.

Table 8.5 shows an estimate of fire protection facilities impact fee revenue through 2035.


Table 8.5: Fee Revenue Projection





41

9. Implementation

Impact Fee Program Adoption Process Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the Board of Supervisors to follow certain procedures including holding a public meeting. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public meeting. The County’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 County has kept its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation. Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. To maintain consistency with other County documents, we recommend that the fees be adjusted for inflation annually.

There are no inflation indices that are specific to Madera County. We recommend that the following indices be used for adjusting fees for inflation:

Buildings, Improvements – Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index (CCI) – San Francisco, CA

Equipment – Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982-84=100 for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) – for the West Urban Region, Size B/C

Due to the highly variable nature of land costs, there is no particular index that captures fluctuations in land values. We recommend that the County adjust land values based on the latest available data.

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 County will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. Note that decreases in index value will result in decreases to fee amounts.

The steps necessary to update fees for inflation are explained below:

For all of the fee categories except the park facilities fees, the steps are as follows:

1. For each facility type (land, buildings, equipment), identify the percent change in facility value since the last update, based on changes in each inflation index or for each type of land.

2. Modify the value of each facility, existing and planned (if applicable) by the percent change identified in Step 1.

3. Depending on fee methodology for each particular fee category calculate the total value of existing facilities (existing inventory method), or the value of existing facilities plus planned facilities (system plan method) using the updated figures from Step 2.

4. Recalculate the cost per capita for each fee category by dividing the results of Step 3 by either the existing service population if the fee is calculated using the existing inventory method, or by the future service population is the fee is calculated using the system plan methodology. Both the existing and future service populations are identified in the first table of every chapter in this report.


42

5. Calculate the cost per worker (if applicable) for fee categories that are charged to nonresidential development. The cost per worker is equal to the cost per capita calculated in Step 4 multiplied by 0.31.

6. Update the fee schedule by multiplying the cost per capita and the cost per worker calculated in Step 5 by the density factors listed in Table 2.2 to determine the base fee for each land use.

To update the park facility fees for inflation, the steps are as follows:

1. For each facility type (land, improvements), identify the percent change in facility value since the last update, based on changes in each inflation index or for each type of land.

2. Modify the value of land acquisition and improvements shown in Table 6.3 by the percent change identified in Step 1.

3. Using Table 6.3 as a guide, recalculate the cost per resident using the adjusted values for land acquisition and improvements calculated in Step 2.

4. Update the fee schedule by multiplying the costs per capita calculated in Step 3 by the density factors listed in Table 2.2 to determine the base fee for each land use. The total fee for a given land use is equal to the cost per capita for land (from step three) multiplied by the occupant density, added to the cost per capita for improvements (also from step three) multiplied by the occupant density. See Table 6.7 for reference.

Once all of the fees have been inflated, multiply the sum of all the fees, per land use, by two percent (2%) to determine the administrative charge. Future updates to the fee program should review the administrative fee to ensure that it fully covers the cost of administering the fee program.

Reporting Requirements The County complies with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act found in Government Code Sections 66001 and 66006. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

43

10. Mitigation Fee Act Findings Development impact 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 development impact fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified development impact fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the report that follows. All statutory references are to the Act.

Purpose of Fee Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).

Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to implement this policy by providing a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate County interest by enabling the County to provide services to new development.

Use of Fee Revenues Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities

shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).

Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the County, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the County. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the County to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: general government, public protection, library, parks and recreation, law enforcement and fire protection facilities.

Benefit Relationship Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development

project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).

We expect that the County will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, and vehicles used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a countywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, 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


44

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 relationship to the type of development. For most facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development.

The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Existing Facility Standard 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 section in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations is determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees.

A-1

Appendix A: Vehicle and

Equipment Inventories


A-2

Appendix Table A.1: Public Works Heavy Vehicle Inventory

Unit # Make, Model Type

Replacement

Value

200R 2014 Freightliner M2106

Cummins

Truck-Heavy Equipment 145,300$

206R 2002 Sterling M-B CO Condor Striper Truck-Heavy Equipment 126,200

210R 81 Ford F700 (370) 6.1L Truck-Heavy Equipment 11,500

220R 2008 International 7400 Patch Truck-Heavy Equipment 54,500

221R 2011 International 7500 SBA Water Truck-Heavy Equipment 101,400



224R 2013 International 5900i 3 Axle Trailer-Heavy Equipment 96,300

228R 1990 International 8300 Water Truck-Heavy Equipment 32,500

234R 1975 Ford LT880 Water Truck-Heavy Equipment 9,800

237R 1980 Ford LNT 800(429)7.L Dump Truck-Heavy Equipment 29,100

238R 1980 Ford LNT 800(429)7.L Dump Truck-Heavy Equipment 9,700

243R 2017 International 4300 Patch Truck--Heavy Equipment 167,200

245R 1999 Sterling L9511(370) Dump Truck-Heavy Equipment 4,100

247R 1994 Ford F700 190HP Patch Truck--Heavy Equipment -

248R 2003 Freightliner FL70 Patch Truck--Heavy Equipment -

249R 1994 Ford F700HP 5.9L Patch Truck--Heavy Equipment 2,800

250R 1994 Ford F700HP 5.9L Patch Truck--Heavy Equipment -

254R 1999 Freightliner FL70 Patch Truck--Heavy Equipment 47,500

255R 1999 Freightliner FL70 Patch Truck--Heavy Equipment 74,900

258R 2004 Frieghtliner M2106 CAT Patch Truck--Heavy Equipment 4,000

259R 2004 Kenworth T300 Patch Truck--Heavy Equipment 45,400

260R 2008 International 7300 SBA Patch Truck--Heavy Equipment 86,000

262R 2010 Freightliner M2106 Patch Truck--Heavy Equipment 75,600

263R 2012 Freightliner M2106 Patch Truck--Heavy Equipment 100,400

268R 1975 Ford LT880 (447) Dump Truck-Heavy Equipment 22,200

269R 1975 Ford LT880 (447) Dump Truck-Heavy Equipment 14,300

273R 1992 Ford L9000(370) N14-C Dump Truck-Heavy Equipment 2,000




277R 1992 Ford L9000(370) N14-C Dump Truck-Heavy Equipment -

278R 2002 Freightliner FL70 Dump Truck-Heavy Equipment 30,900

279R 2017 International 7600 Dump Truck-Heavy Equipment 149,800





285R 2006 Peterbilt 320 Dump Truck-Heavy Equipment 119,500

286R 2008 Freightliner M2112 Dump Truck-Heavy Equipment 43,100









A-3

Appendix Table A.1: Public Works Heavy Vehicle Inventory Continued

Unit # Make, Model Type

Replacement

Value

302R 2003 Waldon-Laymore SM- Broom--Heavy Equipment 33,700

303R 2000 Walden-SWPR Broom--Heavy Equipment 27,900

304R 1983 Terex-Loader 60C Loader-Heavy Equipment 71,700

308R 1993 Broce RJ300 Broom--Heavy Equipment 26,600

309R 2016 Laymor SM 400 Broom--Heavy Equipment 62,300

321R 1980 Ford Ansei 6600/TM60C Tractor (Rotary Mower)-Heavy 4,800

323R 2000 J Deere/Tiger Tractor (Broom Mower)-Heavy 81,900

324R 2002 J Deere/Tiger Tractor (Broom Mower)-Heavy 82,100

325R 2002 J Deere/Bush 6320/SM Tractor (Broom Mower)-Heavy 48,600

326R 2004 J Deere/Rears 620 Tractor (Rotary Mower)-Heavy 59,700

412R 1985 Caterpillar 140G Grader-Heavy Equipment 80,700





560R 1993 Rosco-Pneumatic TRU- Pneumatic Roller-Heavy Equipment 44,100

561R 1993 Rosco-Pneumatic TRU- Pneumatic Roller-Heavy Equipment 47,300

564R 2003 Ingram AP 915 Pneumatic Roller-Heavy Equipment 49,100

3,847,100$



A-4

Unit # Make, Model

Replacement

Value

162 2013 Ford F250 18,000$

164 2015 Ford F250 15,900

167 2010 Ford Escape 29,200

172 2003 GMC 2500 4,300

175 2008 Chevrolet Trailblazer 8,000

182 2015 Chevrolet Equinox 13,300

184 2007 Dodge 2500 1,700

191 2004 Chevrolet 2500 2,400

198 2004 Chevrolet 2500 1,100

199 2012 Ford F250 12,700

202 2009 Dodge Ram 3,700

203 2015 Ford F250 19,800


207 2015 Ford F250 15,800

208 2013 Ford 2500 14,900

214 2016 Kia Soul 36,600

215 2008 Ford F250 4,700

216 2008 Ford F250 -

217 2014 Ford F250 13,200

219 2008 Ford F150 6,500

222 2000 Dodge Dakota 1,100

101R 93 Ford Ranger 4,400

107R 2010 Ford Escape Hybrid 22,000

110R 99 Dodge Ram -

111R 2004 Ford F-150 4.6L 6,600

112R 2003 Ford F-150 4.6L -

113R 89 Ford F-S Duty 7.3 DSL 34,900

116R 2007 Dodge 5.7l Hemi -

117R 2008 Ford F350 XL 5.4L -

118R 2015 Chevrolet Traverse AWD LS 23,800

119R 2016 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 20,800

120R 2016 Kia Soul EV+ 37,200

124R 94 GMC 3500 5.7L -

125R 2004 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD -

126R 2004 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 400

127R 2004 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 6,600

128R 2004 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 1,200

129R 2005 Dodge 5.7L Hemi -

130R 96 Dodge Ram 1500 -

131R 99 Dodge Ram 1500 -

132R 99 Dodge Ram 1500 3,100

136R 2001 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 -

137R 2008 Ford F150 1,600

138R 2008 Ford F150 4,700

139R 2008 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 8,900


Appendix Table A.2: Public Works Light

Vehicle Inventory


A-5

Unit # Make, Model

Replacement

Value

140R 2012 Ford F250 Super Duty 9,200

141R 2012 Ford F250 Super Duty 4,700

142R 2014 Ford F150 13,300

144R 97 Ford F150 -

145R 2010 Ford F250 3,700

146R 2015 Ford F250 17,700

147R 2015 Ford F250 15,700

148R 2015 Ford F250 15,800

149R 2015 Ford F250 17,900

154R 2015 Ford F250 -

155R 2015 Ford F250 1,600

158R 2003 Chevrolet C1500 -

159R 2003 Chevrolet 2500HD 500

160R 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 -

161R 2001 Dodge BR2500 -

162R 2002 Dodge BR2500 -

163R 2001 Dodge Ram 2500HD -

164R 2002 Dodge Ram 2500HD -

165R 2003 Dodge Ram 2500HD -

166R 2004 Dodge Ram 2500HD 6,800

167R 2005 Dodge Ram 2500HD -

168R 2006 Dodge Ram 2500HD 500

169R 2007 Dodge Ram 2500HD 4,400

173R 2016 Ford F250 22,800

175R 2016 Ford F250 25,100

192R 2004 Ford F-150 5.7L CNG -

193R 2005 Ford F-150 5.7L CNG 700

194R 2006 Ford F-150 5.7L CNG 5,900

195R 2007 Ford F-150 5.7L CNG 700

196R 2016 Ford F250 17,000

197R 2016 Ford F250 20,100

198R 2016 Ford F250 20,500

199R 2016 Ford F250 21,300

201R 2016 Ford F-450 100,800

212R 2001 Ford F-450 -

213R 2009 Ford F-450 -

Total - PW Light Vehicles 763,000$


Appendix Table A.2: Public Works Light

Vehicle Inventory


A-6

Unit # Make, Model

Replacement

Value

Administration

050 2015 Ford Explorer 25,600$

Ag Extension

091 2010 Ford F150 9,900$

094 2006 Dodge Ram 13,300

Subtotal 23,200$

Agriculture Commissioner

051 2007 Chevrolet Colorado 4,400$

052 2007 Chevrolet Colorado 4,200

053 2005 Ford Ranger 7,200

054 2015 Ford F150 17,000


058 2016 Dodge Ram 21,000

059 2004 Ford Ranger 5,500


061 2004 Ford Ranger 7,400



064 1999 GMC Sonoma -

065 2005 Ford Ranger 7,400

066 2015 Ford F350 26,000


068 2014 Ford F150 16,700

Subtotal 146,100$

Animal Services

111 2003 GMC Sierra 3,000$

112 2005 Dodge Ram -



116 2009 Dodge Ram 900

117 2002 Dodge Ram 9,800

118 2016 Ford F-250 Super Cab 4 25,500

Subtotal 39,200$

Building Inspections

179 2014 Ford F150 8,400$

181 2005 Chevrolet Colorado -

201 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 150 22,400

210 2004 Jeep Liberty 5,900

212 2014 Ford F150 10,900

213 2014 Ford F150 10,200

Subtotal 57,800$


Appendix Table A.3: General Government

Vehicle Inventory


A-7

Unit # Make, Model

Replacement

Value

Central Garage

001 2003 Ford Taurus 5,700$

003 1999 Dodge Ram 3,900

004 2001 Chevrolet Malibu 2,500

005 2010 Dodge Avenger 7,300

006 2014 Toyota Prius 17,000

007 2007 Chrysler Sebring 5,200

008 2017 Chevrolet Cruze 19,000



012 2016 Chevrolet Impala 18,100

013 2007 Chrysler Sebring 6,300

014 2006 Pontiac Grand Prix 7,900

015 2000 Ford Crown Victoria 6,600

016 2010 Ford F150 16,800




020 1997 Ford F150 5,200

022 2001 Dodge Dakota -

023 2008 Chevrolet Uplander 8,900

024 2005 Chevrolet Express 3500 2,500


026 2016 Dodge Ram 21,200


028 2003 Ford F150 11,100



033 2017 Chevrolet Sonic 15,900

034 1997 Ford Taurus 2,100

Subtotal 241,200$

Central Services Mail Van

049 2015 Ford Everest E7E0 22,800$

Environmental Health

246 2005 Chevrolet Silverado 600$

248 2004 Dodge Stratus 7,200


251 1997 Ford F150 700


253 2003 Chevrolet Silverado 3,300


Subtotal 52,300$



Vehicle Inventory Continued


A-8

Unit # Make, Model

Replacement

Value

General Services

163 2003 Chevrolet 2500 -$

165 2002 Chevrolet 3500 8,000

166 2004 Chevrolet 2500 -

169 2010 Ford F250 12,400

170 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 150 22,900

174 2001 Dodge 2500 1,700

177 1984 Dodge 350 3,100

186 2004 GMC 1500 4,800

192 1995 GMC 3500 100

193 2001 Dodge 1500 11,300

194 2005 Dodge Ram 5,800

205 2008 Ford F250 -

209 2002 Dodge 2500 7,600

220 2008 Chevrolet 11,200

221 2010 Ford F250 15,100

Subtotal 104,000$

Internet Technology

239 2003 Ford E350 -$

Planning

291 2009 Chevrolet Malibu 17,800$


293 2001 Dodge Durango -

294 2016 Dodge Durango 27,100

295 2007 Ford F150 2,500

Subtotal 68,200$

Total 780,400$



Vehicle Inventory


A-9

Appendix Table A.4: General Government IT Inventory

Item Quantity Unit Price

Total

Replacement

Cost

311 Customer Service Center

Personal Computer 4 817$ 3,268$

HP Monitors 8 174 1,393

Adobe Acrobat Pro 1 273 273

Subtotal 4,934$

County Administration Office


Laptop 1 1,092 1,092

Tablet/iPad 3 600 1,800


Printers 6 1,250 7,500


Subtotal 18,202$

Agriculture Commissioner

Technology Equipment


Laptop 1 1,092 1,092


Cell Phones (flip phones) 8 - -

Arc View 10 2 634 1,268

Adobe Acrobat Standard 2 200 400


Subtotal 20,904$

Animal Services Department


Laptops 3 300 900

Cell Phones 6 40 240

Monitors 12 17415% 208980%

Subtotal 13,850$

Assessor


Laptop 9 800 7,200

Tablet/iPad 2 2,200 4,400

Monitors 46 174 8,011

AutoCAD 2018 2 2,383 4,766

POSSE 7 110 770

Imageport 1 750 750

SiteKiosk 4 596 2,384

QuickField 1 15,299 15,299

Megabyte Property Tax System 1 20,000 20,000

Subtotal 77,840$



A-10

Appendix Table A.4: General Government IT Inventory Continued


Total

Replacement

Cost

Auditor-Controller


Laptop 13 930 12,090

Cell Phone 2 250 500

HP Server 1 4,533 4,533

Samsung Smart TV 1 2,168 2,168


HP Printers 7 2,000 14,000

Barco CSE-200 1 1,705 1,705

BNA Software 3 581 1,743

Engagement Software 10 475 4,750

Subtotal 77,139$

Board of Supervisors

Personal Computers 12 696$ 8,350$

Monitors 24 174 4,180

Laptop 1 993 993

Printer 4 1,250 5,000

Table/iPad 10 3,200 32,000

Cell Phones 6 400 2,400

Microfilm Printer 1 7,078 7,078

Cassette Reformatter/Duplicator 1 4,569 4,569

Subtotal 64,570$

Building Inspection

Personal Computer 17 1,500$ 25,500$

Laptop 2 3,000 6,000



Server ??? 1 38,000 38,000

Computronix POSSE 7.2 Upgrade 1 80,425 80,425

POSSE 17 101 1,717

Adobe Acrobat Standard 17 200 3,400

Subtotal 161,242$

Central Garage


Buffalo Terastation 4TB HDD NAS server 1 584 584

Monitor 3 174 522

COMMVAULT com 1 650 650

Subtotal 3,755$



A-11



Total

Replacement

Cost

Central Services


Monitors 2 174 348

Printer 1 1,250 1,250

Tablet/iPad 1 200 200

Subtotal 3,432$

Clerk-Recorder/Elections


Laptop 1 1,500 1,500


Cisco Firewall 1 1,000 1,000

Cisco Firewall 1 4,900 4,900

ScanPro Film Scanner 1 11,500 11,500

Fujitsu Document Scanner 2 4,800 9,600

HP Election Server 2 4,800 9,600

Monitors 40 174 6,966

Tyler Eagle Recorder 12 3,000 36,000

Windows Terminal Services 10 150 1,500

Kiosk Basic 4 150 600

DFM EIMS Site License 1 40,000 40,000

Subtotal 148,223$

Environmental Health


Laptop 2 400 800

*These laptops will be retired. -


Cell Phones 3 300 900

HP Laser Jet Printer 6 400 2,400

Adobe Acrobat Pro 4 273 1,092

Adobe Acrobat Standard 2 200 400

Envision Connect 1 40,000 40,000

Subtotal 64,114$

General Services (Grounds & Maintenance)


Laptops 2 1,092 2,183

Cell Phones 18 - -

Monitors 20 174 3,483

Printers 6 1,250 7,500

CAMS (annual cost) 2 567 1,133

Adobe Acrobat IX Pro 2 273 546

Subtotal 26,283$



A-12



Total

Replacement

Cost

Human Resources




Subtotal 12,856$

Information Technology Department

PC HP ELITEDESK 800 G3-CORE I5 (GF) 99 814$ 80,560$

PC HP SB 800 G3 I7-7700 512GB 16GB W10 22 1,133 24,921

PC HP Desktop 5 1,134 5,668

PC HP Compaq Desktop 2 960 1,920

PC Desktop 1 784 784

Tablet MS Surface Pro 3 3 1,885 5,654





Laptop HP Zbook 4 1,192 4,768



iPhone 6S 5 100 500

iPhone 6SPlus 1 294 294

iPhone 3 (to be replaced with iPhone 6 minimum) 1 100 100

Cell Phone Galaxy S7 2 152 304

Flip phone 1 - -

IFAS Server for Auditor's Office 3 9,935 29,806

Dell Computer Equipment 001 1 111,791 111,791







Executime Server 1 5,336 5,336

IFAS Upgrade to 7.9 1 18,332 18,332

IFAS Upgrade to 7.9 1 3,818 3,818

IFAS Upgrade to 7.9 1 3,360 3,360

IFAS COGNOS Reporting Server 2 5,400 10,801

3925 Router Desktop 1 6,939 6,939

80" LCD Screen and Sound Bar 1 6,116 6,116

8Port 1000 Base 2 5,270 10,540

Application and I7 Web Server IFAS Upgrade 2 7,763 15,527

ARCGIS Workgroup 4 Core Server 1 31,720 31,720

ASA5520 Appliance 1 18,694 18,694



A-13



Total

Replacement

Cost

Barracuda Web Filter 1 12,383 12,383

Blue Coat Complet Web Security 1 37,825 37,825

CATALYST 4500 E-SERIES 6-PORT 10GBE 2 6,750 13,500

CATALYST 4500 E-SERIES LE, 520 GBPS 2 5,398 10,796

Cisco 3850 Server 1 6,748 6,748

Cisco System Firewall 2 11,343 22,686

CITRIX SWITCH 4 PORT 2 37,487 74,973

Fluke Fiber Verification Kit 1 6,072 6,072

HPE BLD460C G9 3 13,026 39,079

ISR4331/K9 CISCO ISR 4331 1 5,566 5,566

ME22600X-44FA-A-KP9 1 8,098 8,098

MICROWAVE RADIO SYS EVAL 1 14,784 14,784

MOBILEIRON VSP APPLIANCE 2 5,000 10,000

NETAPP DISK SHELF 2 8,919 17,839

NETAPP APPLIANCE 2 9,204 18,408

NETAPP APPLIANCE-DSK SHELF 2 14,005 28,010

NETAPP APPLIANCE-FILE 1 27,286 27,286

NETAPP APPLIANCE-FILE BASE 1 5,388 5,388

NETAPP APPLIANCE-TRAY 1 22,143 22,143

NETWORK APPLIANCE 1 59,989 59,989

NIMBLE CS 1000 1 108,915 108,915

Rackmount 1 17,264 17,264

RACKMOUNT NEXAN SATABOY 1 13,356 13,356

RACKMOUNT NEXAN SATABOY 2 11,444 22,888

Routing Switch 1 6,661 6,661

Routing Switch Module 3 8,422 25,266

SATA SHELF PLUS RACKMOUNT 1 24,675 24,675

Server 1 22,352 22,352

Server 1 8,608 8,608

Server 1 8,493 8,493

Server 1 8,466 8,466

Server 1 8,303 8,303

Server 2 7,917 15,833

Server 1 7,379 7,379

Server 1 7,336 7,336

Server 1 6,718 6,718

Server 2 6,052 12,104

Server 1 5,854 5,854

Server 1 5,525 5,525

Server 1 5,127 5,127

Server 1 4,950 4,950

Server 1 9,249 9,249

Server 1 5,633 5,633

Server 1 5,024 5,024

Server Load Balancer 2 6,961 13,922

Server Proliant 2 8,468 16,936




A-14



Total

Replacement

Cost


SQL SERVER-IFAS UPGRAGE 1 9,504 9,504

STORAGE CABINET NEXAN SATABOY 1 5,775 5,775

Storage System 1 37,371 37,371

Switch 1 12,682 12,682

TAPE BACKUP OVERLAND 48TB LTO 1 43,459 43,459

TAPE MEDIA STORAGE DEVICE 1 24,183 24,183

TOSHIBA IPEDGE EM SERVER 1 12,078 12,078

Voicemail Government Center 1 48,319 48,319

Voicemail Road 28 1 12,206 12,206

WEBSITE CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1 14,790 14,790

HP DL360P GEN8-SFF CTO SERVER 7 4,014 28,095

Server 2 4,423 8,847

Server 1 3,927 3,927

Modular Router 2 1,085 2,169

Server - Dell Power Edge 4 1,982 7,926

Server 3 4,153 12,458

Server 1 3,333 3,333

Server 1 3,148 3,148

Barco Wireless Presentation System 1 1,575 1,575

Barco Wireless Presentation System 1 901 901

Airmux 1 2,117 2,117

Airmux 1 1,108 1,108

4 SLOT MODULAR ROUTER 1 533 533

BARRACUDA SPAM FIREWALL 1 2,832 2,832

CISCO ETHERNET MODULAR ROUTER 1 1,503 1,503

CISCO ETHERNET MODULAR ROUTER 1 910 910

DRIVE FOR MEDIA DEVICE 1 1,092 1,092

PC HP Desktop 1 4,400 4,400

Laptop Charging Cart 1 1,781 1,781

NETWORK SECURITY 1 2,313 2,313

Server HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen9 1 1,821 1,821

VIZIO SMARTCAST 65 TV 1 933 933

PRINTER HP COLOR LASER JET 2600N 1 1,250 1,250

PRINTER- HP LASER PRO 400 1 1,250 1,250

PRINTER- HP OFFICE JET PRO 8600 1 1,250 1,250

PRINTER- SAMSUNG/CLP-775WD 1 1,250 1,250

PRINTER-HP COLOR X555 1 1,250 1,250

PRINTER-LASER JET 3000N COLOR 1 1,250 1,250

PRINTER-LASER JET PRO 400 COLOR 1 1,250 1,250

PRINTER-SAMSUNG CIP-775ND 1 1,250 1,250

LEXMARK IBM TYPEWRITER 1 - -

HP Z220 4 1,192 4,768

HP DESKTOP COMPUTER 6 1,133 6,796

Microsoft SPE E3 GOV ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MV1 1,450 308 446,513



A-15



Total

Replacement

Cost

Microsoft AzureMntryCmmtmntG ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL Commit Provision1 Included with Microsoft SPE E3 Gov-

Microsoft ProjOninProfGOV ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL 10 238 2,382

Microsoft VisioProforO365G ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL 27 103 2,786

Microsoft VSProwMSDN ALNG LicSAPR MVL 1 324 324

Microsoft SQLSvrEntCore ALNG LicSAPk MVL 2Lic CoreLic 4 4,852 19,408

Microsoft SQLSvrStdCore ALNG LicSAPk MVL 2Lic CoreLic 66 1,265 83,510

Microsoft CISSteDCCore ALNG LicSAPk MVL 2Lic CoreLic 74 359 26,547

Microsoft CISSteStdCore ALNG LicSAPk MVL 2Lic CoreLic 320 74 23,664

Microsoft WinSvrExtConn ALNG LicSAPk MVL 1 713 713

Microsoft Dyn365ForCaseMgmt ALNG LicSAPk MVL UsrCAL 1 243 243

Microsoft Dyn365ForCustmrSrvc ALNG LicSAPk MVL UsrCAL 1 577 577

Microsoft Dyn365ForTeamMembers ALNG LicSAPk MVL UsrCAL 1 46 46

IFAS Software (Auditor's Asset List) 1 363,000 363,000

IFAS II Software (Auditor's Asset List) 1 114,581 114,581

One Solution Software 1 168,460 168,460

COGNOS Software 1 72,180 72,180

COGNOS Software 1 11,465 11,465

Executime Software 1 66,895 66,895

Executime Software 1 25,480 25,480

Subtotal 3,689,090$

LAFCO



POSSE 2 101 202

Subtotal 3,802$

Planning


Laptop 6 1,500 9,000



Barco Clickshare 1 1,500 1,500

POSSE 22 101 2,222

Adobe Acrobat Standard 22 200 4,400

Subtotal 48,977$

Public Works Department


Monitors 70 174 12,191

Laptop 1 750 750


Adobe Acrobat Standard/DC license 24 200 4,800

AutoCAD (3-Road,3-Eng) 6 2,383 14,297

GISMaps (Advanced License) 1 634 634

CAMS 6 1,000 6,000



A-16



Total

Replacement

Cost

Crossroads Software 1 174 174

Megabyte (paid for under Assessor's license) 5 - -

POSSE 8 110 880

ASANA (30 users) 1 1,000 1,000

Dropbox 16 95 1,519

Jamar TraxPro 1 - -

Parcel Quest 10 180 1,799

Subtotal 102,495$

Treasurer/Tax Collector


Monitors 25 174 4,354

Laptop 1 1,072 1,072

RTL First-Check Scanner 1 1,101 1,101

Symrpo Investment Software (annual cost) 1 8,054 8,054

First View- Check Image 1 613 613


Visio 1 200 200

Subtotal 31,005$

Veterans Services Office


Monitors 5 174 871

Scanner 1 450 450

Printer 1 1,250 1,250

Subtotal 5,839$

Total Value - General Government IT Inventory 4,578,551$



A-17

Appendix Table A.5: Public Protection Vehicle Inventory

Unit # Department Section Make, Model

Replacement

Value

121 Probation Juvenile Services Division 2006 Ford Crown Victoria 9,400$

122 Probation Juvenile Detention Facility 2010 Ford E350 -

123 Probation Juvenile Services Division 1998 Ford Crown Victoria 2,200

131 Corrections 2008 Ford E350 9,300

132 Corrections 2015 Chevrolet Impala 16,900

133 Corrections 2007 Ford E350 -


135 Corrections 2005 Ford Crown Victoria 10,900

136 Corrections 2015 Ford Van 17,500

137 Corrections 2016 Chevrolet 3500 17,900

138 Corrections 1993 GMC 3500 4,200


151 District Attorney 2008 Dodge Avenger -

153 District Attorney 2016 Dodge Ram 18,200

154 District Attorney 2016 Chevrolet Impala 16,100

155 District Attorney 2007 Chrysler Sebring 5,700

156 District Attorney 2001 Chevrolet Malibu 3,300

157 District Attorney 2006 Pontiac Grand Prix 3,000

158 District Attorney 2002 Ford Taurus 7,700



286 Probation Juvenile Detention Facility 1996 Ford E350 13,100

301 Probation Adult Services Division - Gang Task Force 2003 Jeep Liberty -


304 Probation Juvenile Services Division - Mountain 2016 Ford Explorer 23,100

305 Probation Adult Services Division 2016 Chevrolet Impala 17,200

307 Probation Adult Services Division 2014 Ford Explorer 17,600

309 Probation Adult Services Division 1996 Oldsmobile Ciera 7,200

310 Probation Adult Services Division 1998 Ford Crown Victoria -

311 Probation Adult Services Division - Mountain 2017 Ford Explorer 24,100

313 Probation Adult Services Division 2005 Ford Crown Victoria 10,300

315 Probation Juvenile Services Division 2008 Dodge Nitro 12,100


317 Probation Juvenile Detention Facility 2005 Ford Crown Victoria 9,800


319 Probation Admin/Investigation 2001 Ford Taurus 8,800

320 Probation Juvenile Services Division 2002 Ford Taurus 6,900

321 Probation Juvenile Services Division 2001 Ford Taurus 4,300

322 Probation Adult Services Division 2001 Ford Taurus 9,700

323 Probation Admin/Investigation 2002 Ford Taurus 13,200

324 Probation Juvenile Services Division 2008 Dodge Avenger 4,600


336 DA District Attorney 2009 Dodge Ram -


442 District Attorney 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 27,100

Total 465,600$

Source: Madera County


A-18

Appendix Table A.6: Public Protection IT Inventory

Technology Equipment Quantity Unit Price Estimated Total

Juvenile Hall

Personal Computer 24 $ 850 20,400$

Monitors 38 120 4,560

Laserjet Printers 13 150 1,950

TVs 4 1,000 4,000

Quicken Deluxe 2014 1 65 65 Adobe Acrobat DC 1 273 273

Subtotal 81 31,248$

Probation


Laptop 9 792 7,128

Monitors 171 120 20,520

Printers 9 150 1,350

Fujitsu Scanners 2 750 1,500

TVs 8 1,500 12,000

Quicken Deluxe 2014 2 65 130 Adobe Acrobat DC 7 273 1,911

Subtotal 296 119,339$

Department of Corrections


Monitors 80 174 13,932

Laminator 1 370 370

In Focus Projector 1 2,246 2,246

Projector 1 1,227 1,227

Printers 26 325 8,450 Security Cameras System 1 23,543 23,543

Subtotal 168 $ 97,151

District Attorney


Laptop 3 750 2,250

Fujitsu Scanner 8 450 3,600

HP/Acer Monitors 69 125 8,625

Tandberg Video Conference 1 13,000 13,000

HP Printer 13 500 6,500

Canon Digital Document Camera 1 2,500 2,500

Verity Sys DVD Duplicator 2 500 1,000

Canon Projector 1 1,250 1,250

DAMION Case Management

Software by CourtView Justice

Solutions 46 unavailable -

Westlaw 22 545 11,990 Adobe Acrobat Pro 2 273 546

Subtotal 204 $ 87,261

Total 334,999$



A-19

Unit # Section Make, Model Type 2017 Value

326 Patrol 2015 Ford Explorer SUV 22,400$

327 Coroner 2012 Ford F150 Truck 5,200

328 Patrol 2015 Ford Explorer SUV 30,800

329 Patrol - K9 2016 Ford Explorer SUV 44,600

330 Patrol 2014 Ford Explorer Vehicle 2,000


332 Detective 2014 Dodge Ram Truck 23,400

333 Community Service 2015 Chevrolet Equinox Vehicle 21,100

334 Patrol 2013 Chevrolet Caprice Vehicle 19,300




338 Detective 2007 Ford F150 Truck 3,000



341 Detective 2013 Chevrolet Caprice Vehicle 25,000

342 POP Unit 2007 Ford F150 Truck -

343 Patrol - K9 2016 Chevrolet Tahoe Vehicle 54,600


345 Patrol 2013 Chevrolet Silverado Truck 17,400



348 Patrol 2011 Ford Crown Victoria Vehicle 500

349 Civil 2014 Ford Explorer Vehicle 26,900



352 SWAT 2004 Ford Excursion SUV 23,500


354 OES 2012 Ford F250 Truck 20,600


356 Patrol 2013 Ford Explorer SUV -

357 Detective 2007 Ford F150 Truck -

358 Detective 2014 Chevrolet Caprice Vehicle 22,600

359 Civil 2016 Ford Explorer SUV 48,000

360 Civil 2015 Ford Explorer SUV 23,200

361 Administration 2012 Chevrolet Silverado Truck 3,700

362 POP Unit 2012 Ford F250 Truck 15,100

363 Administration 2009 Chevrolet Silverado Truck -

364 Community Service 2013 Chevrolet Equinox SUV 11,600

365 Patrol - K9 2014 Chevrolet Tahoe SUV 43,600

366 Search and Rescue 2003 Chevrolet Silverado Truck -

367 Patrol 2014 Chevrolet Tahoe SUV 31,800

368 Patrol 2011 Ford Crown Victoria Vehicle -

369 School Response 2016 Ford Explorer SUV 30,800



Appendix Table A.7: Sheriff Partol and Investigation

Vehicle Inventory


A-20

Unit # Section Make, Model Type 2017 Value

371 Detective 2015 Ford Explorer Vehicle 44,200

372 Patrol 2017 Chevrolet Silverado Truck 17,900




376 Administration 2016 Ford Explorer SUV 31,300


379 Administration 2014 Ford Explorer Vehicle 25,000


382 Courts 2016 Ford Explorer SUV 27,600

383 Detective 2009 Chevrolet Colorado Truck 8,400

384 Detective 2006 Chevrolet Silverado Truck 3,800

385 Administration 2007 Toyota Camry Vehicle 4,800

386 Detective 2006 Toyota Tundra Truck 3,500

387 Detective 2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV 1,400



390 Coroner 2015 Chevrolet Equinox Vehicle 21,600



990/379 Detective - MadNet 2007 Ford F150 Truck -

998 Detective 2010 Chevrolet 1500 Truck 1,300

Total 1,373,500$


Appendix Table A.7: Sheriff Partol and Investigation

Vehicle Inventory Continued


A-21

Appendix Table A.8: Fire Protection Vehicle and Apparatus Inventory

Vehicle Type and Make Unit Station Qty

Replacement

Vehicle Cost

Replacement

Equipment

Cost

Total

Replacement

Cost

Type II Engines

2009 Navistar E-1 1 1 560,000$ 150,000$ 710,000$

1990 Ford E-201 1 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

2006 Navistar E-2 2 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

2016 Spartan E-3 3 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

1990 Ford E-4 19 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

2006 Navistar E-5 5 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

1999 Navistar E-8 8 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

1999 Navistar E-9 9 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

1990 Ford E-209 9 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

2006 Navistar E-10 10 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

1999 Navistar E-11 11 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

2006 Navistar E-12 12 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

1999 Navistar E-212 12 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

1990 Ford E-14 14 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

1990 Ford E-16 16 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

2006 Navistar E-17 17 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

2007 Navistar E-18 18 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

2006 Navistar E-19 19 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

1999 Navistar E-219 19 1 560,000 150,000 710,000

Subtotal Type II 19 10,640,000$ 2,850,000$ 13,490,000$

Type III Engines

1988 Navistar E-310 10 1 325,000$ 100,000$ 425,000$

1981 Navistar E-316 16 1 325,000 100,000 425,000

Subtotal Type III 2 650,000$ 200,000$ 850,000$

Type VI Engines

2003 Ford E-611 11 1 260,000$ 85,000$ 345,000$

Aerial Truck

2016 Rosenbauer T-8 8 1 1,600,000$ 100,000$ 1,700,000$

2016 Rosenbauer T-8 9 1 1,600,000 100,000 1,700,000

Subtotal Aerial 2 3,200,000$ 200,000$ 3,400,000$

Rescues

1996 International S-10 10 1 240,000$ 85,000$ 325,000$

2003 Ford S-12 12 1 240,000 85,000 325,000

1999 Ford S-18 18 1 240,000 85,000 325,000

2004 Ford S-19 19 1 240,000 100,000 340,000

Subtotal Rescues 4 960,000$ 355,000$ 1,315,000$



A-22

Vehicle Type and Make Unit Station Qty

Replacement

Vehicle Cost

Replacement

Equipment

Cost

Total

Replacement

Cost

Water Tenders

1985 Ford WT-2 2 1 300,000$ 40,000$ 340,000$

2006 Kenworth WT-3 3 1 300,000 40,000 340,000

1999 Kenworth WT-8 8 1 300,000 40,000 340,000

1996 Kenworth WT-11 11 1 300,000 40,000 340,000

1999 Kenworth WT-14 14 1 300,000 40,000 340,000

1994 Kenworth WT-16 16 1 300,000 40,000 340,000

2006 Kenworth WT-17 17 1 300,000 40,000 340,000

1999 Kenworth WT-18 18 1 300,000 40,000 340,000

1994 Kenworth WT-19 19 1 300,000 40,000 340,000

Subtotal Water Tenders 9 2,700,000$ 360,000$ 3,060,000$

Miscellaneous Vehicles

2017 Ford UT-12 12 1 60,000$ 3,000$ 63,000$

2016 Tru-trailer T/TR-11 1 1 7,000 4,000 11,000

2015 Ford B-11 HQ 1 60,000 15,000 75,000

2015 Ford B-13 HQ 1 60,000 15,000 75,000

2011 Ford TRN-11 HQ 1 60,000 15,000 75,000

2010 Chevrolet MSU-19 19 1 65,000 25,000 90,000

2008 Wells Cargo HM/T-19 19 1 300,000 200,000 500,000

2010 GMC HM-19 19 1 150,000 25,000 175,000

2007 Hyster Forklift Shop 1 17,000 - 17,000

2006 Ford UT-8 8 1 60,000 1,000 61,000

2005 Modec Shower 1 1 100,000 15,000 115,000

2003 Ford R-602 Shop 1 85,000 35,000 120,000

2003 Ford R-603 Shop 1 85,000 35,000 120,000

2001 Ford R-601 Shop 1 60,000 5,000 65,000

2001 Chevrolet UT-1 1 1 60,000 1,000 61,000

1995 GMC SS-1 1 1 70,000 2,000 72,000

1974 Dodge Snowplow 18 1 40,000 5,000 45,000

Subtotal Miscellaneous 17 1,339,000$ 401,000$ 1,740,000$

Fire Prevention for Land Development

2002 Dodge Stratus 1 4,100$ -$ 4,100$ 2007 Chevrolet Trailblazer 1 10,000 - 10,000

Subtotal 2 14,100$ -$ 14,100$

Total 109 19,763,100$ 4,451,000$ 24,214,100$


Appendix Table A.8: Fire Protection Vehicle and Apparatus Inventory

Continued


A-23

Appendix Table A.9: Fire Prevention Facilities IT Inventory

Technology Equipment Quantity Unit Price

Estimated

Total


Laptop 19 1,092 20,741


Cell Phones 6 - -

Shiva Lanrover Server 4 185 740

Madera County Net Frequency 1 13,399 13,399

Toshiba Strata CTX100 Phone/Voicemail System 1 2,000 2,000

Monitors 30 174 5,225


E-Maintenance 1 4,000 4,000

91 69,035$

Fire Prevention for Land Development


Cell Phone 1 300 300

POSSE 3 101 303

7 5,103$

Total 74,138$


B-1

Appendix B: Capital Improvement

Plan The following appendix contains the preliminary capital improvement plan for Madera County.

Introduction This capital improvement plan (CIP) was created as a component of the 2018 Madera County Development Impact Fee Study update. All of the fees were calculated using the existing standard methodology. This methodology calculates fees based on the existing investment in facilities and does not require cost estimates of planned facilities to determine the maximum justified fee. This CIP is a preliminary indication of how the County intends to program its development impact fee revenues. As a working document, it will need to be reviewed and revised on a regular basis as the County’s needs change. It is not intended to be inclusive of all projects needed to serve the county in the future, rather, it is a ‘snapshot’ of the County’s perceived needs at this time.

The objectives of this CIP are as follows:

• To improve the infrastructure in Madera County to satisfy the needs of projected development;

• To identify and examine the current and future infrastructure needs so that available resources are used to the County’s best advantage; and

• To provide a preliminary estimate of the costs and phasing of needed capital improvements.

Definition of CIP Projects This CIP includes all major capital improvement projects identified thus far. In general, the following types of projects and purchases can be classified as capital improvement projects:

▪ New construction of facilities and infrastructure;

▪ Renovation and expansion of existing facilities and infrastructure;

▪ Land purchases;

▪ Purchases of major equipment.

CIP Development Process As stated earlier, this CIP was developed as a component of the Madera County 2018 Development Impact Fee Study update. Projects identified were a preliminary list of projects deemed necessary to accommodate the growth projections from Table 2.1. The projects included in this CIP were identified from two main sources:

▪ Review of existing documents;

▪ Interviews with individual County departments.

Some departments, such as the Fire Department, already had a Master Plan document prepared before this process began. We reviewed the existing documents and filtered out any projects that had already been completed or that were not necessary anymore. Additionally, we met with key staff members from each department to conduct interviews to determine the projects that should be included in this CIP. Finally, when confronted with incomplete plans or staff members that


B-2

were unsure of future facility needs, we developed capital needs and project details by applying the existing facility standard to projected growth.

Funding Sources and Financing Mechanisms The primary source of funding for these projects will come from impact fee and General Fund revenue. This document is not intended to be a comprehensive financing plan. Anticipated funding sources are listed in each CIP data sheet. We have identified alternative funding sources when known. Project phasing may need to be altered to match CIP projects with fee revenues.

In practice, jurisdictions often need to develop financing mechanisms to complete CIP projects. Impact fees alone, on a pay-as-you-go basis, often do not provide enough cash flow to construct major projects. Therefore, jurisdictions have pursued a number of financing mechanisms to front-load the fee revenues and complete projects. Examples of these financing mechanisms include inter-fund loans, general fund reserves, developer financing, and revenue bonds (secured by the general fund).

CIP Summary Table B.1 below summarizes all project costs included in the CIP, by facility category. Summaries of project costs by fee category are provided in the following pages. The total cost of all CIP projects programmed thus far is approximately $189.5 million dollars.

Table B.1: Capital Improvement Plan Summary

FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23-27 FY28-35 Total

General Government 40,000$ -$ 7,096,000$ 7,096,000$ 7,095,900$ -$ -$ 21,327,900$

Public Protection 10,254,300 6,231,800 6,180,100 5,954,300 5,954,300 19,950,000 3,850,000 58,374,800

Library 130,000 1,568,900 - - - 17,996,800 17,569,600 37,265,300

Parks - - 407,500 - - 300,000 - 707,500

Law Enforcement - - 1,062,333 1,212,333 2,447,333 246,953 4,168,000 9,136,953

Fire Protection - 2,400,000 5,217,333 6,417,333 8,847,333 27,280,000 12,564,000 62,726,000

Total 10,424,300$ 10,200,700$ 19,963,267$ 20,679,967$ 24,344,867$ 65,773,753$ 38,151,600$ 189,538,453$

Source: Madera County, Capital Improvement Plan.

The following pages comprise the Madera County CIP. The following pages include summaries of project costs, by facility category, followed by a project description worksheet for each project within that category. Architecture and Engineering (A&E “Soft costs”) are assumed at 10% of construction costs.


B-3

Table B.2: General Government Capital Improvement Plan Summary

CIP

No. Project Name FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23-27 FY28-35 Total

1 New Animal Services Facility -$ -$ 6,666,700$ 6,666,700$ 6,666,600$ -$ -$ 20,000,000$

2

Modular Expansion of Animal Shelter

Intake 20,000 - - - - - - 20,000

3 Laundry Equipment Replacement 20,000 - - - - - - 20,000

4 Agriculture Building Replacement - - 429,300 429,300 429,300 - - 1,287,900

Total 40,000$ -$ 7,096,000$ 7,096,000$ 7,095,900$ -$ -$ 21,327,900$


Table B.3: Countywide Public Protection Capital Improvement Plan Summary

CIP


5 Hall of Justice Facility 5,954,300$ 5,954,300$ 5,954,300$ 5,954,300$ 5,954,300$ -$ -$ 29,771,500$

6 Juvenile Services Division Parking Lot - 227,500 - - - - - 227,500

7 Dormitory Conversion - 50,000 - - - - - 50,000

8 Old Juvenile Services Building Demolition - - 225,800 - - - - 225,800

9 HVAC Replacement 4,300,000 - - - - - - 4,300,000

10 New Housing Unit - - - - - 19,950,000 - 19,950,000

11 New Inmate Transport Staging Facility - - - - - - 2,475,000 2,475,000

12 Face-To-Face Inmate Visitation Facility - - - - - - 1,375,000 1,375,000

Total 10,254,300$ 6,231,800$ 6,180,100$ 5,954,300$ 5,954,300$ 19,950,000$ 3,850,000$ 58,374,800$



B-4

Table B.4: Library Capital Improvement Plan Summary

CIP


13 Main Library Renovation 130,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 130,000$

14

Madera Ranchos Library Relocation and

Expansion - 1,568,900 - - - - - 1,568,900

15 New Rio Mesa Library - - - - - 14,809,300 - 14,809,300

16 New Main Library - - - - - - 17,569,600 17,569,600

17

North Fork Branch Library

Expansion/Renovation - - - - - 3,187,500 - 3,187,500

Total 130,000$ 1,568,900$ -$ -$ -$ 17,996,800$ 17,569,600$ 37,265,300$


Table B.5: Parks Capital Improvement Plan Summary

CIP


18 Courthouse Park Improvements Project -$ -$ 407,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 407,500$

19

Manzanita Lake Planning Unit Land

Donation Project - - - - - 300,000 - 300,000

Total -$ -$ 407,500$ -$ -$ 300,000$ -$ 707,500$



B-5

Table B.6: Law Enforcement Facilities Capital Improvement Plan Summary

CIP


20 Secondary Building Expansion -$ -$ 1,062,333$ 1,062,333$ 1,062,333$ -$ -$ 3,187,000$

21 Bass Lake Boat Dock Replacement - - - 150,000 - - - 150,000

22

Bass Lake Equipment and Vehicle Storage

- Joint Project With Fire - - - - 1,385,000 - - 1,385,000

23 Highway 41 Substation - - - - - - 4,168,000 4,168,000

24 Madera Ranchos Substation - - - - - 246,953 - 246,953

Total -$ -$ 1,062,333$ 1,212,333$ 2,447,333$ 246,953$ 4,168,000$ 9,136,953$

Source: Madera County, 10 Year Capital Improvement Plan.


B-6

Table B.7: Fire Capital Improvement Plan Summary

CIP


25

Relocate and Expand Existing Station 1

(Training Complex) -$ -$ 3,117,333$ 3,117,333$ 3,117,333$ -$ -$ 9,352,000$

26 New Madera Lakes Station (Station 3) - - - - - 4,376,000 - 4,376,000

27 New Rolling Hills Station - - - - - 6,176,000 - 6,176,000

28 New Palm Dairy Station - - - - - 4,376,000 - 4,376,000

29 Station 11 Expansion - - 2,100,000 - - - - 2,100,000

30 Yosemite Lakes and O'Neal's Station - - - - - 6,176,000 - 6,176,000

31 New Tesoro Viejo Fire Station (Station 7) - - - - - 6,176,000 - 6,176,000

32

Joint Fire Station and Sheriff Substation on

Bass Lake - - - - 5,730,000 - - 5,730,000

33 Station 15 - Demolish and Replace - - - 3,300,000 - - - 3,300,000

34 New Fire Station Awahnee (Station 16) - - - - - - 3,300,000 3,300,000

35 New Fire Station Bonadelle (Station 19) - - - - - - 6,176,000 6,176,000

36 Station 8 Expansion - 2,400,000 - - - - - 2,400,000

37 New Station 18 - - - - - - 3,088,000 3,088,000

Total -$ 2,400,000$ 5,217,333$ 6,417,333$ 8,847,333$ 27,280,000$ 12,564,000$ 62,726,000$


B-7

CIP

No.

1 New Animal Services Facility

Project Description

Square Feet: 24,000 Acres: 7.5 Cost/Acre: $ 114,000

Project Strategic Goal

None Madera


A & E -$ -$ 581,200$ 666,700$ 666,700$ -$ -$ 1,914,600$

Land Acquisition - - 855,000 - - - - 855,000

Construction - - 5,230,500 6,000,000 5,999,900 - - 17,230,400

-$ -$ 6,666,700$ 6,666,700$ 6,666,600$ -$ -$ 20,000,000$

67%

Capital Cost Schedule

Anticipated Funding Sources:

Development Impact Fees; County General Fund; Friends of Madera Animal Shelter Non-Profit; City

of Madera; City of Chowchilla

Eligible Impact Fee Share:

Increase capacity to provide animal services

Associated Master Plan: Location:

General Government Facilities

Madera County

Capital Improvement Plan

This project will construct a new animal services facility to replace and expand current facility and service capacity.

Requires between 5 and 10 acres of land acquisition. Replaces 8,000 sf facility with 24,000 sf facility.

B-8

CIP

No.

2 Modular Expansion of Animal Shelter Intake

Project Description

Square Feet: 264 Cost/SF: $ 76 Acres: - Cost/Acre: $ -


None Madera


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Land Acquisition - - - - - - - -

Construction 20,000 - - - - - - 20,000

20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 20,000$

100%



Development Impact fees; General Fund; Friends of Madera Animal Shelter Non-Profit


Madera County

Capital Improvement Plan General Government Facilities

Increase capacity to provide animal services


This project will purchase a modular building to serve as an intake area to existing Animal Shelter. Completion of

this project will expand the capacity to provide services.

B-9

CIP

No.

3 Laundry Equipment Replacement

Project Description

Square Feet: - Cost/SF: $ - Acres: - Cost/Acre: $ -


None Madera


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


Purchase Equipment 20,000 - - - - - - 20,000

20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 20,000$

0%

Madera County


This project entails purchase and replacement of laundry machines, which are used intensely every day.

General Fund; Friends of Madera Animal Shelter Non-Profit


Replace existing equipment




B-10

CIP

No.

4 Agriculture Building Replacement

Project Description

Square Feet: 9,390 Cost/SF: $ 137 Acres: - Cost/Acre: $ -


None Madera


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


Construction - - 429,300 429,300 429,300 - - 1,287,900

-$ -$ 429,300$ 429,300$ 429,300$ -$ -$ 1,287,900$

0%

This project entails the replacement of the old agriculture building with modern a building. The new facility will be

smaller than the existing facility, but will provide the same capacity to provide services.


Replace aging facility




General Fund

Madera County


B-11

CIP

No.

5 Hall of Justice Facility

Project Description



None Madera


A & E 595,430$ 595,430$ 595,430$ 595,430$ 595,430$ -$ -$ 2,977,150$


Construction 5,358,870 5,358,870 5,358,870 5,358,870 5,358,870 - - 26,794,350

5,954,300$ 5,954,300$ 5,954,300$ 5,954,300$ 5,954,300$ -$ -$ 29,771,500$

60%

Madera County

Capital Improvement Plan Countywide Public Protection

Expand capacity to provide public protection services

This building will be 54,130 SF, split equally between Adult Probation (replacing 10,780 SF used currently at 209

W. Yosemite Avenue) and District Attorney (also replacing their current facility use listed in the asset listing, 10,780

SF).




Development Impact Fees; County General Fund


B-12

CIP

No.

6 Juvenile Services Division Parking Lot

Project Description



None Madera


A & E -$ 22,750$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22,750$


Construction - 204,750 - - - - - 204,750

-$ 227,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 227,500$

0%

Madera County




This project will pave over the existing temporary parking lot to provide 50 parking spaces





B-13

CIP

No.

7 Dormitory Conversion

Project Description



None Madera


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


Purchase Equipment - 50,000 - - - - - 50,000

-$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$

100%





Madera County


This project will convert two dormitories into vocational training areas. Also includes the purchase and installation

of training equipment.

County General Fund


B-14

CIP

No.

8 Old Juvenile Services Building Demolition

Project Description



None Madera


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


Demolition - - 225,800 - - - - 225,800

-$ -$ 225,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 225,800$

0%

Renovate facility




County General Fund

Madera County


This project will demolish the old Juvenile Services Building. Assumes $20 per square foot for demolition.


B-15

CIP

No.

9 HVAC Replacement

Project Description



None Madera


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


Construction 4,300,000 - - - - - - 4,300,000

4,300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,300,000$

0%




General Fund


Madera County


Renovate facility

This project will replace the HVAC system needed as a result of the recent remodeling of the Old Jail. Fully

funded.

B-16

CIP

No.

10 New Housing Unit

Project Description



None Madera


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,995,000$ -$ 1,995,000$


Construction - - - - - 17,955,000 - 17,955,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 19,950,000$ -$ 19,950,000$

10%



Fully funded. SB1022 Grant and General Fund


Madera County


Expand capacity to provide public protection services.


The project consist of 20 special use beds, two class rooms, and one computer lab with associated support space.

Project will also entail renovation of the old kitchen to accommodate for program space consisting of two

classrooms and one computer lab with associated support space.

B-17

CIP

No.

11 New Inmate Transport Staging Facility

Project Description



None Madera


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 247,500$ 247,500$


Construction - - - - - - 2,227,500 2,227,500

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,475,000$ 2,475,000$

100%

Madera County


This facility is needed to stage inmates prior to transport to court. This project will include a total of twelve (12)

holding cells and two (2) group holding cells, officer station, two private offices and 10 workstations with associated

support space. Projected project construction to start in 2028.

Development Impact Fees; County General Fund; Community Corrections Partnership


Expand capacity to provide public protection services.




B-18

CIP

No.

12 Face-To-Face Inmate Visitation Facility

Project Description



None Madera


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 137,500$ 137,500$


Construction - - - - - - 1,237,500 1,237,500

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,375,000$ 1,375,000$

0%

This project will facilitate state mandated face-to-face visiting requirements. It will include a total of twelve (12)

visiting stations with associated support space. Projected project construction to start in 2028.


Upgrade facilities to meet State regulations.





Madera County


B-19

CIP

No.

13 Main Library Renovation

Project Description



None Madera


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


Construction 130,000 - - - - - - 130,000

130,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 130,000$

23%

Madera County

Capital Improvement Plan Library

Expand capacity to provide library services.

This project will modernize the Main Library with a new information desk, new paint and carpet replacement. The

project has a total cost of $130,000, $70,000 of which will be funded by City of Madera.




Development Impact Fees; County General Fund; City of Madera; Friends of the Library


B-20

CIP

No.

14 Madera Ranchos Library Relocation and Expansion

Project Description



None Madera Ranchos


A & E -$ 156,890$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 156,890$


Construction - 1,412,010 - - - - - 1,412,010

-$ 1,568,900$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,568,900$

50%

Madera County




This project entails the conversion of a 7,000 square foot hardware store into a Library. The facility will be shared

with Sheriff Substation. Library share of costs shown here. The Sheriff share of this project is shown as separate

project under the law enforcement section. Includes cost of tenant improvements.





B-21

CIP

No.

15 New Rio Mesa Library

Project Description

Square Feet: 32,500 Cost/SF: $ 425 Acres: 3.5 Cost/Acre: $ 284,800


None Rio Mesa


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,381,250$ -$ 1,381,250$

Land Acquisition - - - - - 996,800 - 996,800

Construction - - - - - 12,431,250 - 12,431,250

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,809,300$ -$ 14,809,300$

100%





Madera County


Construction of a new library to serve Rio Mesa.



B-22

CIP

No.

16 New Main Library

Project Description



None Madera


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,700,000$ 1,700,000$

Land Acquisition - - - - - - 569,600 569,600

Construction - - - - - - 15,300,000 15,300,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 17,569,600$ 17,569,600$

51%






Madera County


The current main library is approximately 19,600 square feet. It does not currently meet all of the needs of the

community. A new 40,000 square foot facility is proposed in the general vicinity of the new government center. One

potential location for the new library is the former site of the county government center. Buildings on this site are

likely to be demolished in the next 5 to 10 years.


B-23

CIP

No.

17 North Fork Branch Library Expansion/Renovation

Project Description



None North Fork


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 318,750$ -$ 318,750$


Construction - - - - - 2,868,750 - 2,868,750

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,187,500$ -$ 3,187,500$

65%






Madera County



The current North Fork branch library is approximately 2,600 square feet and occupies the second floor of the

North Fork Fire Station facility. The vacant fire station occupies approximately 4,900 square feet of facility on the

first floor. This project entails the retrofit of the facility to convert the occupancy from a fire station to a library. Cost

estimates are based on a renovated 7,500 square foot branch library.

B-24

CIP

No.

18 Courthouse Park Improvements Project

Project Description


None Madera


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


Construction - - 407,500 - - - - 407,500

-$ -$ 407,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 407,500$

50%



General Fund; Development Impact Fees; Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant


Madera County

Capital Improvement Plan Parks and Recreation

The proposed project will further develop the existing 2.78 acre Madera County Courthouse Park by demolishing

an existing unused 11,808 square foot structure (formerly the County Jail Annex building) to create an additional

0.27 acres of additional park space on which various recreational amenities will be constructed to increase usability

and attractiveness of the park. Recreational amenities include an age 2-12 play structure with rubberized tile

surfacing, outdoor musical equipment, park benches, metal shade structure, picnic tables, park fitness stations,

fencing, concrete slab, curbing, new sidewalks, and park lighting fixtures.

Expand parkland.


B-25

CIP

No.

19 Manzanita Lake Planning Unit Land Donation Project

Project Description



None Manzanita Lake


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


Construction - - - - - 300,000 - 300,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ -$ 300,000$

100%

Madera County

Capital Improvement Plan Parks and Recreation

PG&E is donating 156.05 acres to the County, protected by a conservation easement. The County is planning on

setting up a few campgrounds, pedestrian and equestrian trails, an equestrian corral, a scenic view lookout, and an

maintenance/emergency access road. Total cost to the County is unknown, though initial cost to build

campgrounds, a restroom, a well, and some of the planned trails or parking is shown here.

Pacific Forest and Watershed Lands Stewardship Council Grant; General Fund; Development Impact

Fees


Expand parkland.




B-26

CIP

No.

20 Secondary Building Expansion

Project Description



None Madera


A & E -$ -$ 106,233$ 106,233$ 106,233$ -$ -$ 318,700$


Construction - - 956,100 956,100 956,100 - - 2,868,300

-$ -$ 1,062,333$ 1,062,333$ 1,062,333$ -$ -$ 3,187,000$

100%

This project entails the construction of a secondary Sheriff facility of approximately 7,000 square feet to house a

locker room, training room, gym, and property room.


Expand capacity to provide law enforcement services.




Development Impact Fees; Law Enforcement Trust Fund; Rural County Funds; General Fund

Madera County

Capital Improvement Plan Law Enforcement

B-27

CIP

No.

21 Bass Lake Boat Dock Replacement

Project Description



None Bass Lake


A & E -$ -$ -$ 15,000$ -$ -$ -$ 15,000$


Construction - - - 135,000 - - - 135,000

-$ -$ -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$

0%

Madera County


Replace dilapidated facility.

Replacement of existing boat dock. Current facility is falling into disrepair and needs replacement.




Law Enforcement Trust Fund; Rural County Funds; General Fund


B-28

CIP

No.

22 Bass Lake Equipment and Vehicle Storage - Joint Project With Fire

Project Description



None Bass Lake


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ 127,500$ -$ -$ 127,500$

Land Acquisition - - - - 110,000 - - 110,000

Construction - - - - 1,147,500 - - 1,147,500

-$ -$ -$ -$ 1,385,000$ -$ -$ 1,385,000$

100%

Madera County




Shared project with Fire. 75% Fire 25% Sheriff. Replaces current station 14. Sheriff will then use Station 14 for

storage. Sheriff share shown here, fire share shown under Fire CIP.





B-29

CIP

No.

23 Highway 41 Substation

Project Description



None Highway 41


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 408,000$ 408,000$


Construction - - - - - - 3,672,000 3,672,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,168,000$ 4,168,000$

100%







Madera County


Construction of new substation at Highway 41. Similar to existing Oakhurst substation.

B-30

CIP

No.

24 Madera Ranchos Substation

Project Description



None Madera Ranchos


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,695$ -$ 24,695$


Construction - - - - - 222,258 - 222,258

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 246,953$ -$ 246,953$

100%


Madera County







Renovate building for substation use. Library share of project listed in the library CIP section. Shares allocated to

library and sheriff based on square footage.

B-31

CIP

No.

25 Relocate and Expand Existing Station 1 (Training Complex)

Project Description



Madera County Fire Master Plan Ave 12 and Hwy 99


A & E -$ -$ 276,533$ 311,733$ 311,733$ -$ -$ 900,000$

Land Acquisition - - 352,000 - - - - 352,000

Construction - - 2,488,800 2,805,600 2,805,600 - - 8,100,000

-$ -$ 3,117,333$ 3,117,333$ 3,117,333$ -$ -$ 9,352,000$

100%

Madera County

Capital Improvement Plan Fire Protection

Expand capacity to provide fire protection services.

Relocate and expand existing Station 1 to include shop and training space. The County will fund the shop and

training spaces, and the future casino is obligated to fund the station construction costs. 10,000 sf station, 5,000 sf

training space




Development Impact Fees; Casino Developer Contribution; General Fund


B-32

CIP

No.

26 New Madera Lakes Station (Station 3)

Project Description



Madera County Fire Master Plan Ave 21 and Road 26


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 420,000$ -$ 420,000$


Construction - - - - - 3,780,000 - 3,780,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,376,000$ -$ 4,376,000$

100%

Madera County




Construct new Madera Lakes Station. The station would serve the Madera Acres, Makera Lake, Kismet and

Berenda communities.



Development Impact Fees; General Fund


B-33

CIP

No.

27 New Rolling Hills Station

Project Description





A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 600,000$ -$ 600,000$


Construction - - - - - 5,400,000 - 5,400,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,176,000$ -$ 6,176,000$

100%





Madera County


Construct new Rolling Hills Fire Station. There is a development agreement with local developers to fully fund this

fire station.

CFD / Development Agreement


B-34

CIP

No.

28 New Palm Dairy Station

Project Description



Madera County Fire Master Plan West of Chowchilla


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 420,000$ -$ 420,000$


Construction - - - - - 3,780,000 - 3,780,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,376,000$ -$ 4,376,000$

0%





General Fund; City of Chowchilla

Madera County


The new Palm Dairy Station would replace Station 2. City of Chowchilla to share costs.


B-35

CIP

No.

29 Station 11 Expansion

Project Description

Square Feet: 3,500 Cost/SF: $ 600 Acres: - Cost/Acre: $ 88,000


Madera County Fire Master Plan Station 11


A & E -$ -$ 210,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 210,000$


Construction - - 1,890,000 - - - - 1,890,000

-$ -$ 2,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,100,000$

50%






Madera County



This project would expand the existing Station 11 to include living quarters so that it can be a staffed station. The

existing station is approximately 3,500 square feet. This project would add 3,500 square feet.

B-36

CIP

No.

30 Yosemite Lakes and O'Neal's Station

Project Description



Madera County Fire Master Plan


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 600,000$ -$ 600,000$


Construction - - - - - 5,400,000 - 5,400,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,176,000$ -$ 6,176,000$

0%





Madera County




The construction of a new station would house the planned Union of companies 10, 13 and 17. The current Station

10 is rented. The current Station 17 consists of one owned building and a second building and land that are not

owned by the County. The project would acquire and build a new station.

Between Yosemite

Springs Parkway and

Road 200

B-37

CIP

No.

31 New Tesoro Viejo Fire Station (Station 7)

Project Description



Madera County Fire Master Plan Ave 15 at Hwy 41


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 600,000$ -$ 600,000$


Construction - - - - - 5,400,000 - 5,400,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,176,000$ -$ 6,176,000$

100%

Madera County


This project consists of the construction of new station at Avenue 15 and Highway 41.







B-38

CIP

No.

32 Joint Fire Station and Sheriff Substation on Bass Lake

Project Description



Madera County Fire Master Plan Bass Lake


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ 540,000$ -$ -$ 540,000$

Land Acquisition - - - - 330,000 - - 330,000

Construction - - - - 4,860,000 - - 4,860,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ 5,730,000$ -$ -$ 5,730,000$

100%

This is a joint project between fire and sheriff. The new facility would replace current Station 14. Sheriff will then

use Station 14 for storage. Project cost responsibility is allocated 75% to fire and 25% sheriff. The fire cost and

space allocation is shown here, and the sheriff share shown under the Law Enforcement CIP.






Development Impact Fees; General Fund; Law Enforcement Funding

Madera County


B-39

CIP

No.

33 Station 15 - Demolish and Replace

Project Description





A & E -$ -$ -$ 330,000$ -$ -$ -$ 330,000$


Construction - - - 2,970,000 - - - 2,970,000

-$ -$ -$ 3,300,000$ -$ -$ -$ 3,300,000$

0%

Madera County


Replace dilapidated facility.

The existing Station 15 is approximately 1,000 square feet and is not useable due to increased apparatus size and

new safety standards. This project will demolish and replace the existing facility with a 5,500 square foot station.






B-40

CIP

No.

34 New Fire Station Awahnee (Station 16)

Project Description



Madera County Fire Master Plan Awahnee


A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 330,000$ 330,000$


Construction - - - - - - 2,970,000 2,970,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,300,000$ 3,300,000$

55%

Madera County




The current Station 16 is rented. This project will replace and expand the current station. The station will be sited

on to County-owned parkland. Existing station is approximately 2,500 square feet.





B-41

CIP

No.

35 New Fire Station Bonadelle (Station 19)

Project Description





A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 600,000$ 600,000$


Construction - - - - - - 5,400,000 5,400,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,176,000$ 6,176,000$

30%





Madera County


The current station is 7,000 square feet, but not strategically located. This project will acquire land and build an

expanded station to serve Bonadelle, Madera Ranchos and Bonadelle Ranchos.



B-42

CIP

No.

36 Station 8 Expansion

Project Description





A & E -$ 240,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 240,000$


Construction - 2,160,000 - - - - - 2,160,000

-$ 2,400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,400,000$

100%






Madera County


Station 8 is undersized to meet future demands. This project will expand the living quarters and apparatus bay.


B-43

CIP

No.

37 New Station 18

Project Description





A & E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ 300,000$


Construction - - - - - - 2,700,000 2,700,000

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,088,000$ 3,088,000$

40%

Location:





Madera County



Current station 18 is rented and undersized. This project will acquire one acre of land and build a 5,000 square

foot station. Represents a 2,000 square foot expansion compared to current station.

Associated Master Plan:

Documents

Madera County Impact Fee and CIP Update