Beaumont City Council
June 18, 2024

This page intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
Background and Study Objectives 5
Facility Standards and Costs 6
Use of Fee Revenues 6
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 7
Other Funding Needed 7

1. INTRODUCTION 9
Public Facilities Financing in California 9
Study Objectives 9
Fee Program Maintenance 10
Study Methodology 10
Types of Facility Standards 11
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 11
Organization of the Report 12

2. GROWTH FORECASTS 14
Land Use Types 14
Existing and Future Development 14
Occupant Densities 16

3. PARK FACILITIES 18
Service Population 18
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory 18
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 19
Parkland and Park Facility Standards 20
Mitigation Fee Act 20
Quimby Act 20
City of Beaumont Parkland and Park Facilities Standards 21 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 21
Park Facilities Cost per Capita 23
Use of Fee Revenue 24
Fee Schedule 24

4. RECREATION FACILITIES 26
Service Population 26
Existing Recreation Facilities Inventory 26
Planned Recreation Facilities 27
Cost Allocation 27
Existing Level of Service 27
Future Level of Service 28
Use of Fee Revenue 28
Non -Fee Funding Required 28
Fee Schedule 29
/WILLDAN I
Financial Services

i

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

5. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES 30
Service Population 30
Facility Inventories and Standards 31
Existing Inventory 31
Planned Facilities 32
Cost Allocation 33
Existing Level of Service 33
Future Level of Service 34
Use of Fee Revenue 34
Non -Fee Funding Required 35
Fee Schedule 35

6. POLICE FACILITIES 37
Service Population 37
Facility Inventories and Standards 38
Existing Inventory 38
Planned Facilities 39
Cost Allocation 40
Existing Level of Service 40
Future Level of Service 40
Use of Fee Revenue 41
Non -Fee Funding Required 41
Fee Schedule 42

7. PUBLIC FACILITIES 43
Service Population 43
Facility Inventories and Standards 44
Existing Inventory 44
Planned Facilities 45
Cost Allocation 46
Existing Level of Service 46
Future Level of Service 46
Use of Fee Revenue 47
Non -Fee Funding Required 47
Fee Schedule 48

8. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 49
Trip Demand 49
Trip Growth 49
Project Costs 50
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 52
Fee Schedule 52

9. SEWER FACILITIES 54
Sewer Demand 54
EDU Generation by New Development 55
Facility Needs and Costs 55
Cost per EDU 60

WILLDAN
Financial Services
ii

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule 60

10. SEWER CAPACITY 62
Current Demand for Wastewater Treatment 62
Current Sewer System Asset Valuation 62
Adjusted System Valuation 63
Fee per Gallon per Day 63
Nonresidential Fee Schedule 64
1 1 . RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES 66
Recycled Water Demand 66
Planned Facilities 66
Cost per EDU 66
Fee Schedule 67

12. GENERAL PLAN 69
Service Population 69
Planned Costs 70
Facility Standard 71
Fee Revenue Projection 71
Fee Schedule 72

13. LIBRARY FACILITIES 74
Service Population 74
Existing Library Facilities 74
Planned Facilities 75
Cost Allocation 75
Existing Level of Service 75
Use of Fee Revenue 76
Fee Revenue Projection 76
Fee Schedule 76

14. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FACILITIES 78
Service Population 78
Planned Facilities and Standards 79
Planned Facilities 79
Cost Allocation 80
Future Level of Service 80
Use of Fee Revenue 80
Non -Fee Funding Required 80
Fee Schedule 81

15. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES 82
Storm Drain Demand 82
EDU Generation by New Development 82
Existing Inventory 83
Planned Facilities 83

WILLDAN
Financial Services
iii

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 84
Projected Fee Revenue 84
Fee Schedule 85

16. TRAILS 86
Service Population 86
Existing Trails Inventory 86
Planned Trails 87
Cost Allocation 87
Existing Level of Service 87
Future Level of Service 88
Use of Fee Revenue 88
Fee Revenue Projection 88
Fee Schedule 88

17. MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT FACILITIES 90
Service Population 90
Facility Inventories and Standards 91
Existing Inventory 91
Planned Facilities 92
Cost Allocation 92
Existing Level of Service 92
Future Level of Service 93
Use of Fee Revenue 93
Non -Fee Funding Required 94
Fee Schedule 94

18. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS 96
Compliance with AB 602 96
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 96
66016.5. (a) (4) — Review of Original Fee Assumptions 97 66016.5. (a) (5) — Residential Fees per Square Foot 97
66016.5. (a) (6) — Capital Improvement Plan 97

19. IMPLEMENTATION 98
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 98
Inflation Adjustment 98
Reporting Requirements 98
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 98

20. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS 99
Purpose of Fee 99
Use of Fee Revenues 99
Benefit Relationship 99
Burden Relationship 100
Proportionality 100
APPENDIX 1
itiVfWILLDAN
Financial Services
iv

Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Beaumont through 2040. It is the City's intent that the costs representing future development's share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
• Parks • Recycled Water
• Recreation Facilities • General Plan
• Fire Protection Facilities • Library District
• Police Facilities • Emergency Preparedness Facilities • Public Facilities • Storm Drain
• Transportation Facilities • Trails
• Sewer Facilities • Maintenance Equipment
• Sewer Capacity
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.

The City imposes public facilities fees 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 Mitigation Fee Act findings required to implement impact fees in California demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and a fee to fund facilities needed to serve that development. The term essential nexus refers to the relationship between new development and the need for facilities (and corresponding impact fees) to serve that development. The findings also require that this study demonstrates rough proportionality of the fees- meaning that the amount of the exactions must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government, resulting from the proposed development project. To ensure that fees are roughly proportional to demand for facilities from new development, this study first allocates facilities costs to new development using the allocation methods described below, then to individual units of new development based on the demand characteristics of each unit, by land use type. This is described in detail in each chapter and summarized in Chapter 20.

All development impact fee -funded capital projects should be programmed through the City's five- year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

5 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Facility Standards and Costs
There are several approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements.

The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development's fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non -impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development's fair share of planned facilities. This approach is used for the recreation, fire, police, recycled water, general plan, emergency preparedness, maintenance equipment and public facility fees in this report.

The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the transportation -related, sewer facilities and trails facility fees in this report.

The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City's existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City's annual capital improvement plan and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is to calculate the parks, library, and storm drainage facilities fees in this report.

The buy -in method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now and into the future. Under the buy -in methodology, new development "buys" a proportionate share of existing capacity at the current value of the existing facilities. This approach is typically used for utility fees, where existing facilities are built with excess capacity to serve future development. This approach is used for the sewer capacity fees in this report.

Use of Fee Revenues
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that this analysis "Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged."1 Each chapter in this report identifies the appropriate use of impact fee revenues for each particular impact fee category.

Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, infrastructure, 1 California Government Code §66001 (a) (2).

WILLDAN
Financial Services
6

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.

Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City's identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

E.1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule - per Square Foot Land Use
Residential
Dwelling
Unit Commercial
Industrial/
Business Park
Industrial/
High -Cube
Warehouse
Park Land In Lieu (Subdivisions)
Park Land Acquisition (Non Subdivisions)2
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Recreation Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Transportation Facilities
Sewer Facilities
Sewer Capacity3
Recycled Water
General Plan
Library District
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Trails
Maintenance Equipment
Total (Subdivisions)
Total (Inn)
$ 0.79 $ $

0.77 0.53

0.59 1.12

0.38 0.47

1.33 0.73

0.60 0.33

2.61 26.23

2.57 1.34

4.72 1.80

0.32 0.17

0.02 0.01

0.15 0.01 0.004

0.92 0.97

0.02 0.02 0.010
$ 16.70 $ 32.06 $
$ 16.68 $ 32.06 $

0.68 1.06

0.48 11.86

0.99 3.33

0.12 0.02

0.006

0.75 0.19

0.30 0.14

1.65 2.06

2.29 0.26

0.01 0.002

0.97 0.010 0.004

19.31 $ 7.88

19.31 $ 7.88
1 Fee in lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act. 2 Fee for parkland acquisition charged under the Mitigation Fee Act. 3 "Commercial medium strength" fee shown for commercial. "Industrial high strength" fee shown for industrial/business park. "Industrial low strength" fee show n for industrial/high cube w arehouse. Refer to Table 10.5 for full sew er capacity nonresidential fee Sources: Tables 3.8, 4.7, 5.7, 6.7, 7.7, 8.5, 9.5, 10.4, 10.5, 11.3, 12.5, 13.6, 14.5, 15.6, 16.7 and 17.7.

Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Beaumont.

They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E.2, approximately $403.5 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. The "Additional Funding Required" column shows non -impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non -fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development.

The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
7

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table E.2: Non -Impact Fee Funding Required
Fee Category
Net Project Development
Cost Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Park Land
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Recreation Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Transportation Facilities
Sewer Facilities
Sewer Capacity
Recycled Water
General Plan
Library District
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Trails
Maintenance Equipment
Total
$ 15,223,304
10, 529, 000
11, 636, 000
62, 440, 220
12, 965, 326
73,182, 221
23, 345, 367
427, 962, 844
99, 764, 464
29, 432, 627
1,722,271
3,377,900
695,153
28,333,417
312,000
407,722
$ 801, 329, 835
$ 15, 223, 304
10, 529, 000
11, 636, 000
22, 230, 970
11,179, 035
32, 006,177
14, 386, 762
169, 834, 237
68, 858, 364
8,660,205
582,460
3,377,900
232,984
28,333,417
312,000
407,722
$ 397, 790, 537
40, 209, 250
1,786,291
41,176, 044
8,958,605
258,128, 607
30, 906,100
20, 772, 422
1,139,811
462,169
$ 403, 539, 298
1 No project costs show n. Capacity fee revenue is used to pay back City for excess capacity used to serve new development at WWTP.

Sources: Tables 3.5, 3.6, 4.6, 5.6, 6.6, 7.6, 8.3, 8.4, 9.3, 9.4, 11.2, 12.4, 13.3, 14.4, 15.6, 16.3 and 17.5.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
8

1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Beaumont. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
• Public Facilities Financing in California;
• Study Objectives;
• Fee Program Maintenance;
• Study Methodology; and,
• Organization of the Report.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 45 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;
• Unfunded state and federal mandates; and,
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.

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

Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Implementation Policy LUCD6 of the City's General Plan states "Development Fees. Update citywide development impact fees for infrastructure, affordable housing, other community benefits, and long range planning." The primary purpose of this report is to update the City's impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policy stated above.

The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act to demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and the impact fees needed to support that development. The findings demonstrate Al/WI LLDAN
Financial Services

9 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update that the fees are proportional to demand for facilities from new development and are necessary to allow the City to adopt the fee schedules presented in this report.

Beaumont is forecast to have significant growth through this study's planning horizon of 2040.

This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Beaumont has decided to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and capital facilities planning documents to update the City's existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.

Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the California Construction Cost Index, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 19.

Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:

1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;

2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;

3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;

4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;

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

6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non -fee funding is required to complete projects.

The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

10 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
• Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. • Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City's facility design standards.
• Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.

This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.

There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:

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 = $/unit of demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.

The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.

Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy -based standard. The local agency must secure non -fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This approach is used for the recreation, fire, police, recycled water, general plan, emergency preparedness, maintenance equipment and public facility fees in this report.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

11 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:

Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long- range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.

This approach is to calculate the parks, library, and storm drainage facilities fees in this report.

Planned Facilities Method
= $/unit of demand
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 planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is a portion of a roadway that has been identified as necessary to mitigate the impact from new development through traffic modeling analysis. Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the transportation -related, sewer facilities and trails facility fees in this report. - $/unit of demand
Buy -In Method
The buy -in method is based on the value of the existing system's capacity. This method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now and into the future. Under the buy -in methodology, new development "buys" a proportionate share of existing capacity at the current value of the existing facilities.

The buy -in fee is determined by taking the current value of assets (replacement cost new, less depreciation) divided by the current capacity provided by the system. Responsibility for new capital improvements is then shared equally by all customers. A simplified version of the calculation equation is:

Present Value of Existing Facilities
= cost per unit of demand
Existing System Capacity
This approach is typically used for utility fees, where existing facilities are built with excess capacity to serve future development. This approach is used for the sewer capacity 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 growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

12 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Chapters 3 through 17 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
• Parks • Recycled Water
• Recreation Facilities • General Plan
• Fire Protection Facilities • Library District
• Police Facilities • Emergency Preparedness Facilities • Public Facilities • Storm Drain
• Transportation Facilities • Trails
• Sewer Conveyance • Road Maintenance Equipment
• Sewer Capacity
Chapter 18 describes how this study complies with the requirements of AB 602.

Chapter 19 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 20.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

13 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2023 base year and a planning horizon of 2040.

Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2023 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The estimate of total development at the 2040 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. • Estimates of growth from 2023 through 2040 are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.

The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.

Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Residential: All residential dwelling units. Fees charged per square foot of living space.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development. • Industrial/Business Park: All manufacturing and other industrial development. • Industrial/High Cube Warehouse: All warehouse and distribution center development
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed -use development with both residential and commercial uses. Another similar situation would be a warehousing facility that contains office space. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type included within the building.

The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project's characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use.

Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Beaumont, both in 2023 and in 2040. The base year estimates of residents and dwelling units come from the California Department of Finance. The projection of future residents in 2040 comes from Figure 5.2 of the City's General Plan. The projection of total dwelling units in 2040 was estimated based on the increase in dwelling units needed to accommodate 80,000 residents in 2040 at the current occupant densities of 3.28 residents per single family unit and

2.70 residents per multifamily unit, based on data for Beaumont from the American Community Al/WI LLDAN
Financial Services

14 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Survey. This assumes that approximately 74.4% of all units will be single family units based on ratio of single family to multifamily units at buildout identified in Table 3.2b of the General Plan.

Base year employees were estimated based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau's Antheap Application. Estimated building square feet in 2023 was calculated based on the current employment count and density factors in Table 2.2.

Building square feet at buildout identified in Table 3.2b of the General Plan were reduced by approximately 17.6% corresponding with the proportion of dwelling unit growth needed to house 80,000 residents by 2040 compared to buildout dwelling units.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

15 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions
2023 2040 Increase
Residents' 56,070 80,000 23,930
Dwelling Units 2
Single Family 16,583 19,008 2,425
Multifamily 2,136 6,539 4,403
Total 18,719 25,547 6,828
Employment 3
Commercial 3,800 12,389 8,589
Industrial/Business Park 1,085 2,242 1,157
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,330 8,336 7,006
Total 6,215 22,968 16,753
Building Square Feet (000s) 4
Commercial 1,792 5,844 4,052
Industrial/Business Park 352 728 376
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,511 9,473 7,962
Total 3,656 16,045 12,389
1 Current household population from California Department of Finance. Total population in 2040 identified in General Plan Figure 5.2.
2 Current values from California Department of Finance. Rojection of total dw elling units in 2040 estimated based on the increase in dw elling units needed to accommodate 80,000 residents in 2040 at the current occupant densities of 3.28 residents per single family unit and 2.70 residents per multifamily unit, based on data for Beaumont from the American Community Survey. Assumes that approximately 74.4% of all units w ill be single family units based on ratio of single family to multifamily units at buildout identified in Table 3.2b of the General Ran.
3 Current estimates of primary jobs from the US Census' OnTheMap. Rojection based on projected building square feet in 2040 below , multiplied by employment densities from Table 2.2.
4 Estimated building square feet in 2023 calculated based on employment count and density factors in Table 2.2. Building square feet at buildout identified in Table 3.2b of the General Ran reduced by approximately 17.6% corresponding with the proportion of dwelling unit growth needed to house 80,000 residents by 2040.

Sources: California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2023; City of Beaumont, California Final General Ran, 2020; OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. The densities ensure that the fee per unit of new development is roughly proportional to the demand for facilities from various types of development.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

16 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.

The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factor was calculated using the most recent data from the American Community Survey specifically for the City of Beaumont. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition for commercial and industrial/business park land uses. The occupancy density factor for industrial/highOcube warehouse uses was calculated based on data provided by the City for use in this analysis.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential - All Units 3.22 Residents per dwelling unit Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial/Business Park 3.08 Employees per 1,000 square feet Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 0.88 Employees per 1,000 square feet Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITETrip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

17 3. Park Facilities
The purpose of the park facilities impact fee is to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of park facilities per capita. Fee revenue would be used to expand the provision of parks to meet demand from future development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for City parks from the projected increase in residents and the additional parks needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the City's existing ratio of park acres to residents, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit. A fee in -lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act is also included in this chapter.

Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in Beaumont primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City's residential population. Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park facilities.

Table 3.1: Park Facilities Service
Population
Residents
Census (2020)
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
53,036
56,070
23,930
80,000
Source: Table 2.1.

Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory
The City of Beaumont maintains several parks throughout the city. Table 3.2 summarizes the City's existing parkland inventory in 2023. All facilities are owned by the City. In total, the inventory includes a total of 154.27 acres of City -owned parkland.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

18 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.2: Park Land Inventory
Developed
Name Acres
Community Parks
Beaumont Sports Park
Stewart Park
Subtotal
Neighborhood Parks
Aspen Creek Park
De Forge Park
Fallen Heroes Park
Mickelson Park
Mountain View Park
Nicklaus Park
Palmer Park
Rangal Park
Seneca Springs Park
Shadow Hills Park
Stetson Park
Sundance Bowl
Sundance PA 51
Sunny Hills Park
Three Rings Ranch Park
Trevino Park
Veteran's Park
Wild Flower Park
Subtotal

22.66 13.21

35.87 1.18

15.10 16.61

6.68 5.00

18.06 3.62

1.58 2.14

3.90 11.82

16.51 1.40

0.32 6.02

5.36 0.13

2.97 118.40
Total 154.27
Source: City of Beaumont.

Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 3.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Beaumont. The cost of improving a acre of community and neighborhood parkland with standard park improvements is based on the assumed cost of park improvements from the City's prior impact fee study, adjusted for inflation into 2023 dollars. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. In total, this analysis assumes that it costs $847,200 to acquire and develop an acre of community parkland and $438,600 to acquire and develop an acre of neighborhood parkland, respectively, in Beaumont.

At/WILLDAN
Financial Services

19 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Community Neighborhood
Parks Parks
Standard Park Improvements
Land Acquisition
Total Cost per Acre
$ 628,600 $ 220,000
218,600 218,600
$ 847,200 $ 438,600
Sources: City of Beaumont; CoStar; Willdan Financial Services.

Parkland and Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded parkland and park facilities. Information regarding the City's existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.

The most common measure in calculating new development's demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act (using a city's existing inventory of parkland and park facilities), or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.2 In this case, the City will use the Mitigation Fee Act to impose park impact fees for development not occurring in subdivisions and will use the Quimby Act for development occurring in subdivisions.

Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to existing development.3 In this case, the fees will be set to maintain the City's existing parkland standard of acres per 1,000 residents.

Quimby Act
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three -acre minimum if the jurisdiction's existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).

The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction's adopted general or specific plan standards.

The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.

The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund the acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated. 2 California Government Code §66477.
3 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Background Report.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

20 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update The Quimby Act allows use of in -lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.

Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements, and rehabilitation of existing parks.

City of Beaumont Parkland and Park Facilities Standards Table 3.4 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. Once accounting for impact fee fund balances, the City has an existing parkland standard of 2.91 acres per 1,000 residents, which is less than the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The impact fee analysis in this report will be based on maintaining the City's 2.91 acre per 1,000 resident standard as new development adds demand for parks in Beaumont. Fees in -lieu of land dedication for subdivisions are calculated at the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. Note that the existing improvement standard is allocated to community and neighborhood parkland, respectively.

Table 3.4: Park Standards
Community Neighborhood
Parks Parks
Total
Developed Park Acreage
Fund Balance Equivalent
Total Park Acres
Existing Service Population (2023)
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)
Quimby Act Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)

35.87 118.40

3.52 5.57

39.39 123.97
56,070 56,070

0.70 2.21
154.27
163.36
56,070

2.91 3.00
1 Existing community and neighborhood park fund balance divided by cost per acre from Table 3.3 to determine equivalent park acres, respectively.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 3.5 shows the park improvements needed to accommodate new development at the existing acre per 1,000 resident standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, new residential development must fund the improvement of 16.75 community park acres and 52.89 neighborhood park acres, at a total cost of $22.2 million.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

21 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.5: Park Improvements to Accommodate New Development Calculation Community Neighborhood
Total
Park Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 0.70 2.21
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040) B 23,930 23,930 Facility Needs (acres) c =Ax B/1000 16.75 52.89
Average Unit Cost (per acre)
Total
D $ 628,600 $ 220,000
E=CxD $ 10,529,000 $ 11,636,000

2.91 69.64
$ 22,165,000
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.

Table 3.6 shows the park land needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard and Quimby standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, new development must fund the acquisition of between 69.64 and 71.79 parkland acres, at a total cost ranging between $15.2 and $15.7 million.

The facility standards and resulting fees under the Quimby Act are higher because development will be charged to provide 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 2.91 acres of improvements, whereas development not subject to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide only 2.91 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 2.91 acres of improvements. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 3.6 presents the range of total land costs that may be incurred depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

22 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.6: Park Land to Accommodate New Development
Calculation Parkland Total Ranger
Subdivisions
Parkland Dedication In -Lieu (Quimby Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 3.00
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040) B 23,930
Facility Needs (acres) C =A x B/1000 71.79
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 218,600
Total - Subdivisions2
E=CxD $ 15,693,294
Non -Subdivisions
Parkland Acquisition (Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 2.91
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040) B 23,930
Facility Needs (acres) C =Ax B/1000 69.64
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 218.600
Total - Infill3
E=CxD $ 15,223,304
1 Values in this column show the range of the cost of parkland acquisition and development should all development be either subject to the Quimby Act, or to the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. 2 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Quimby Act (Subdivisions of 50 units or more). Fee in -lieu of parkland dedication charged at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. 3 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Acquisition fee charged at the existing standard.

Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.

Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 3.7 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the existing facility standard, and at the Quimby standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of four fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of land dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition. This fee is payable by residential and nonresidential development not occurring in subdivisions. • A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for neighborhood park improvements. This fee is payable by all development.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for community park improvements. This fee is payable by all development.

A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, not both. All development projects pay both Mitigation Fee Act fees for park improvements.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

23 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.7: Cost per Capita
Land
Mitigation
Calculation Quimby Fee OR Fee Act Fee
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 218,600 $ 218,600
Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 3.00 2.91
Total Cost per 1,000 capita C=axe $ 655,800 $ 636,126
Cost per Resident D= C//,000
$ 656 $ 636
Improvements
Community Neighborhood
AND Parks Parks
$ 628,600 $ 220,000

0.70 2.21
$ 440,020 $ 486,200
$ 440 $ 486
Sources: Tables 3.3 and 3.4.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use parkland and park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.

Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per capita basis for both land acquisition and improvement. These cost factors (shown in Table 3.7) are cost per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards. The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

Table 3.8 shows the maximum justified park fees based on the Quimby Act standard and based on the existing park standards under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

24 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.8: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB
Base
Feel
D=Cx0.01
Admin
Charge1' 2
Total Fee
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Subdivisions
Parkland
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Total
Non -Subdivisions
Parkland
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Total
$ 656 3.22 $ 2,112 $ 21 $ 2,133 $ 0.79
440 3.22 1,417 14 1,431 0.53
486 3.22 1,565 16 1,581 0.59
$ 1,582 $ 5,094 $ 51 $ 5,145 $ 1.91
$ 636 3.22 $ 2,048 $ 20 $ 2,068 $ 0.77
440 3.22 1,417 14 1,431 0.53
486 3.22 1,565 16 1,581 0.59
$ 1,562 $ 5,030 $ 50 $ 5,080 $ 1.89
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.7.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services

25 4. Recreation Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new recreation facilities demanded by new development. A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of recreation facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new recreation facilities from the projected increase in residents and the additional recreation facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit.

Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in Beaumont primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City's residential population. Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for recreation facilities.

Table 4.1: Recreation Facilities
Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070

23.930
80,000
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of Beaumont owns a community recreation center. Table 4.2 summarizes the City's existing recreation facilities inventory. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. In total, the City owns approximately $11.9 million in recreation facilities.

Table 4.2: Existing Recreation Facilities
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Community Recreation Center - Land
Community Recreation Center - Building
Total Value - Existing Facilities

3.20 acres $ 218,600 $ 699,520
24,857 sq. ft. 450 11,185,650
$ 11, 885,170
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.
wWILLDAN
Financial Services

26 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Planned Recreation Facilities
The City has planned several recreation facilities to serve new development. Included in the plans are both expansions to existing facilities and the new construction of facilities. In total, the City has identified $66.9 million worth of new recreation facilities to serve existing and new development, net of existing fund balances. Table 4.3 details the City's planned recreation facilities.

Table 4.3: Planned Recreation Facilities
Cost
Overflow Parking Lot Lighting at the CRC $ 224,400
CRC Improvement Project 150,000
Community Center 48,439,900
Splash Pads (3) 4,450,000
Gym 11,676,400
Total $ 64,940,700
Less Existing Fund Balance 2,500,480
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 62,440,220
Source: City of Beaumont FY24 Capital Improvement Plan.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 4.4 expresses the City's current recreation facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 4.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City can fund the planned recreation facilities identified in Table 4.3.

Table 4.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Resident
$ 11, 885,170

56.070
$ 212
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.3.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

27 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Future Level of Service
Table 4.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in recreation facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

Table 4.5: Recreation Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities
Cost of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (2040)
$ 11, 885,170
62, 440, 220
$ 74, 325, 390
Future Service Population (2040) 80,000
Cost per Resident
$ 929
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use recreation facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are part of the system of recreation facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 4.3.

Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned recreation facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 4.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $40.2 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned recreation facilities. The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

28 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 4.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
$ 929
23,930
Fee Revenue $ 22,230,970
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified
62, 440, 220
$ (40,209,250)
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 4.7 shows the maximum justified recreation facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City 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, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 4.7: Recreation Facilities Fee - System Standard
Land Use
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Capita Density Base Feel Charge' 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 929 3.22
$ 2,991 $ 30
$ 3,021 $ 1.12
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.5.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

29 5. Fire Protection Facilities
The purpose of the fire impact fee is to fund the fire facilities needed to serve new development.

A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of fire facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new fire protection facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional fire protection facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
Fire facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses. The service population used to determine the demand for fire facilities includes both residents and workers.

Table 5.1 shows the current fire facilities service population and the estimated service population at the planning horizon of 2040.

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 0.69 factor is consistent with the factor used by Riverside County in its development impact fee study, as the City of Beaumont is part of the Riverside County fire protection service area. The worker weighting factor used in the Riverside County study was based on an analysis of call data response by land use type, which indicated varying levels of demand for fire protection services between residential and nonresidential land uses. 'WILLDAN
Financial Services

30 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.1: Fire Facilities Service Population
A B
Weighting
Persons Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070 1.00
23,930 1.00
80,000
6,215 0.69
16,753 0.69
22,968
56,070

23.930
80,000
4,288

11.559
15,847
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
60,358

35.489
95,847
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.69 of residents to be consistent w ith Riverside County's development impact fee analysis.

Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's fire facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
Table 5.2 summarizes the City's current inventory of land, apparatus and vehicles. Fire protection services are provided from two stations located throughout the City. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. The replacement cost for the station buildings is based on the City's recent fire station construction costs. The replacement costs of vehicles and apparatus were provided by the City for use in this analysis.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

31 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.2: Existing Fire Facilities Land and Building Inventory Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Fire Station 66 - 628 Maple Avenue
Land 0.36 acres $ 218,600 $ 77,785
Station 6,425 sq. ft. 827 5,314,359
Subtotal $ 5,392,144
Fire Station No. 106
Land 1.59 acres 218,600 $ 347,574
Station 10,760 sq. ft. 827 8,900,000
Subtotal $ 9,247,574
Vehicles
2004 Ford F550 $ 65,000
2022 Hyundai Santa Fe 40,000
2023 SUBARU CROSSTEK 30,848
Spartan Quint TDA Truck 2,205,647
Squad 282,449
Subtotal $ 2,623,944
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 17,263,662
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 5.3 summarizes the planned facilities needed to serve the City through 2040, consistent with the City's prior development impact fee study. Primarily, the City plans to build two new fire stations. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $13 million through 2040, net of existing impact fee fund balances.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

32 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.3: Planned Fire Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Fire Station 66 Plumbing System Improvement Project
Fire Station 66 Apparatus Bay Improvements
$ 108,000
162,000
New Station: N of I -10/E of Beaumont Av
Land 1.59 acres $ 218,600 $ 347,574
Building 10,760 sq. ft. 827 8,900,000
Subtotal $ 9,247,574
New Station: S of l -10/E of Beaumont Av
Land 1.59 acres $ 218,600 $ 347,574
Building 10,760 sq. ft. 827 8,900,000
Subtotal $ 9,247,574
Total
Less Existing Fund Balance
$ 18, 765,148
5,799,822
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 12,965,326
Source: City of Beaumont FY24 Capital Improvement Plan.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 5.4 expresses the City's current fire facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only. Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 5.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has an adequate fire response time throughout the City.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

33 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker'
$ 17,263,662
60,358
$ 286
$ 286
197
1 Based on the weighing factor of 0.65.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 5.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in fire protection facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.69 to determine the value per worker.

Table 5.5: Fire Protection Facilities System
Standard
Value of Existing Facilities
Value of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (2040)
$ 17,263,662
12, 965, 326
$30,228,988
Future Service Population (2040) 95,847
Cost per Capita $ 315
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 315
Cost Allocation per Worker' 217
1 Based on the w eighing factor of 0.69.

Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use fire facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles, apparatus and fire protection equipment that are part of the system of fire facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 5.3.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

34 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned fire protection facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 5.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $1.8 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned fire protection facilities. The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned fire protection facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table 5.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
$ 315
35,489
Fee Revenue $ 11,179,035
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified
12, 965, 326
$ 1,786,291
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 5.7 shows the maximum justified fire facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).

The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City 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, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

35 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.7: Fire Protection Facilities Fee Schedule
A B E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Fee per
Land Use Ca ita Densi Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 315 3.22 $ 1,024 $ 0.38
p
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 217 2.12 $ 460 $ 5 $ 465 $ 0.47
Industrial/Business Park 217 3.08 668 7 675 0.68
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 217 0.88 191 2 193 0.19
tY
$ 1,014 $ 10
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.5.

Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services

36 C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge'' 2

6. Police Facilities
The purpose of the police impact fee is to fund the police facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the system plan standard of police facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new police facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional police facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
Police facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.

Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for police facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

37 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.1: Police Facilities Service Population
A B
Weighting
Persons Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070 1.00
23,930 1.00
80,000
6,215 0.31
16,753 0.31
22,968
56,070

23.930
80,000
1,927

5.193
7,120
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
57,997

29.123
87,120
1 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 (40/128 = 0.31) Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's police facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
This study uses the system plan methodology to calculate fees for police facilities. Police services in the City of Beaumont are presently based out of two facilities. Table 6.2 summarizes the City's current inventory of police land, buildings and vehicles. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. The unit cost assumption for the replacement cost of buildings is based on a survey of recent police facility construction costs from several other jurisdictions in California 2023.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

38 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.2: Existing Police Facilities Inventory
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Land
Police Department - 660 Orange Avenue 1.94 acres $218,600 $ 424,084 Police Department Annex Building - 1580 E. 8th Street 0.08 acres 218,600 16,837 Subtotal $ 440,921
Buildings
Police Department - 660 Orange Avenue
Police Department Annex Building - 1580 E. 8th Street
Subtotal
10,780 sq. ft.
3,355 sq. ft.
$ 1,408 $ 15,178,240
1,408 4,723,840
$ 19,902,080
Vehicles
Explorer Interceptor 27 vehicles $ 49,186 $ 1,328,022
Prius 1 vehicles 42,525 42,525
Fusion 1 vehicles 30,000 30,000
Tahoe 7 vehicles 44,922 314,454
Escape 2 vehicles 26,360 52,720
Model Y 1 vehicles 55,290 55,290
Model 3 1 vehicles 41,290 41,290
Rav4 2 vehicles 32,526 65,052
Sienna 1 vehicles 50,800 50,800
M2 1 vehicles 52,500 52,500
F150 1 vehicles 50,427 50,427
Malibu 5 vehicles 21,051 105,255
Subtotal 50 $ 2,188,335
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 22,531,336
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 6.3 summarizes the planned police facilities needed to serve the City through 2040. The City plans to design and construct a new police station, including land acquisition and radio upgrades. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $73.2 million through 2040, net of existing impact fee fund balances.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

39 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.3: Planned Police Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New Police Station Design
New Police Station Construction
New Police Land Acquisition
Total Cost of Planned Facilities
Less Existing Fund Balance
$ 1,500,000
51,000 Sq. Ft. $ 1,408 71,808,000
8 Acres 218,600 1,748,800
$ 75, 056, 800
1,874,579
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 73,182,221
Source: City of Beaumont FY24 Capital Improvement Flan; City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study, 2017; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 6.4 expresses the City's current police facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 6.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has adequate facilities to provide police services to the City.

Table 6.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker
$ 22,531,336
57,997
$ 388
$ 388
120
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 6.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in police facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

40 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.5: Police Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities
Value of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (2040)
$ 22,531,336

73.182, 221
$ 95,713,557
Future Service Population (2040) 87,120
Cost per Capita $ 1,099
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 1,099
Cost Allocation per Worker' 341
1 Based on a weighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use police facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of police facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 6.3.

Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned police facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 6.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $41.2 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned police facilities.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned police facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table 6.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
$ 1,099
29,123
Fee Revenue $ 32,006,177
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified
73,182, 221
$ (41,176, 044)
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.

At/WILLDAN
Financial Services

41 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule
Table 6.7 shows the maximum justified police facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).

The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City 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, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 6.7: Police Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge' 2
E= C+ D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 1,099 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 341 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 341 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 341 0.88
$ 3,539 $ 35
$ 723 $ 7
1,050 11
300 3
$ 3,574 $ 1.33
$ 730 $ 0.73
1,061 1.06
303 0.30
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.5.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

42 7. Public Facilities
The purpose of the public facilities impact fee is to fund the public facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the system plan standard of public facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new public facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional public facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
Public facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.

Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for public facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.
fWILLDAN
Financial Services

43 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 7.1: Public Facilities Service Population
A B
Weighting
Persons Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070 1.00
23,930 1.00
80,000
6,215 0.31
16,753 0.31
22,968
56,070
23,930
80,000
1,927
5,193
7,120
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
57,997
29,123
87,120
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 (40/128 = 0.31)
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's public facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
The City's public facility inventory consists of City Hall and its various auxiliary buildings and the grounds maintenance building. Table 7.2 summarizes the City's current inventory of public land, buildings and vehicles. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. Unit cost assumptions for the replacement cost of buildings are based on the cost estimate to build a new City Hall from the City's prior impact fee study, which has been adjusted for inflation to 2023 dollars.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

44 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 7.2: Existing Public Facilities Inventory
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Land (acres)
City Hall - 550 E. Sixth Street
Grounds Maintenance Building - 713 W Fourth Street
Subtotal - Land
Buildings (square feet) 1
City Hall - 550 E. Sixth Street
Grounds Maintenance Building - 713 W Fourth Street
City Hall Building D - 650 Magnolia Avenue
City Hall Building G (Animal Control) - 650 Magnolia Avenue City Hall Building B - 650 Magnolia Avenue
City Hall Building C - 650 Magnolia Avenue
Subtotal - Buildings
Total Value - Existing Facilities

4.22 acres

0.01 acres

4.23 $218,600 $ 922,492
218,600 1,626
$ 924,118
23,283 sq. ft. $ 532 $ 12,386,556
324 sq. ft. 150 48,600
4,241 sq. ft. 532 2,256,212
3,606 sq. ft. 532 1,918,392
1,750 sq. ft. 532 931,000
2,240 sq. ft. 532 1,191,680
35,444 $ 18,732,440
$ 19,656,558
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 7.3 summarizes the planned public facilities needed to serve the City through 2040. The City plans for a new City Hall and Corporate Yard, including land acquisition. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $23.3 million through 2040, net of existing fund balances.

Table 7.3: Planned Public Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New City Hall 25,000 Sq. Ft. $ 532 $ 13,300,000
Land for New City Hall 2 Acres 218,600 437,200
New Corporate Yard Building 20,000 Sq. Ft. 500 10,000,000 Land for Corporate Yard 6 Acres 218,600 1,311,600
Total $ 25,048,800
Less Existing Fund Balance 1,703,433
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 23,345,367
1 Unit cost from 2017 Development lmapct Fee Study, adjusted for inflation using the Engineering News Record's Building Cost Index.

Source: City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study, 2017; Willdan Financial Services.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

45 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 7.4 expresses the City's current public facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only. Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 7.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has adequate facilities to provide public services to the City.

Table 7.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker
$ 19,656,558
57,997
$ 339
$ 339
105
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 7.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in public facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

AN/WILLDAN
Financial Services

46 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 7.5: Public Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 19,656,558
Value of Planned Facilities 23,345,367
Total System Value (2040) $43,001,925
Future Service Population (2040) 87,120
Cost per Capita $ 494
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 494
Cost Allocation per Worker 153
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use public facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of public facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 7.3.

Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned public facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 7.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $9 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned public facilities.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned public facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table 7.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
$ 494
29,123
Fee Revenue $ 14,386,762
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue to be Identified
23, 345, 367
$ (8,958,605)
Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.3 and 7.4.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

47 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule
Table 7.7 shows the maximum justified public facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).

The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City 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, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 7.7: Public Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 494 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 153 2.12 $ 324 $ 3 $ 327 $ 0.33
Industrial/Business Park 153 3.08 471 5 476 0.48
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 153 0.88 135 1 136 0.14
C=AxB D=CxO.01
Admin
Base Fee' Charge'' 2
$ 1,591 $ 16
E= C+ D F= E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
$ 1,607 $ 0.60
Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.5.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

48 8. Transportation Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for various transportation improvements to accommodate new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new transportation facilities from the projected increase in vehicle trips and the additional transportation facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number trips generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Trip Demand
The need for transportation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of PM peak hour vehicle trips, adjusted for pass -by trips. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of transportation facilities across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips. Pass -by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass -by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work.

Table 8.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use category based on the pass - by trip adjustment described above. The data for trip rates, and the pass -by trip assumption all come from the latest data available from the Institute of Traffic Engineers.

Table 8.1: Trip Demand Factors
ITE Category
Pass -by
Trips
PM Peak
Hour
Trips2
Adjusted
Trip Rate
Residential - per Dulling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial
Industrial/Business Park
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
A 8 C=(1-A)XB
Single Family Housing (210) 0% 0.99 0.99
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (220) 0% 0.57 0.57
Shopping Center (820)
Business Park (770)
High -Cube Transload and Short -Term
Storage Warehouse (154)
34% 4.09 2.70
0% 1.22 1.22
0% 0.17 0.17
1 Percent of total trips. A pass -by trip is made as an intermediate stop on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination w ithout a route diversion. Pass -by trips are not considered to add traffic to the road netw ork. Assumption based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook data.
2 Trips per dw elling unit or per 1,000 building square feet.

Sources: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition; Willdan Financial Services.

Trip Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is 2040. Table 8.2 lists the 2023 and 2040 land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated in Table 8.1 are multiplied by Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

49 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update the existing and future dwelling units and building square feet to determine the increase in trips caused by new development.

Table 8.2: Land Use Scenario and Total Trips
Land Use
Trip 2023 Growth 2023 to 2040 Total - 2040
Demand Units/ Units / Units/
Factor 1,000 SF Trips 1,000 SF Trips 1,000 SF Trips
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 0.99 16,583 16,417 2,425 2,401 19,008 18,818 Multifamily 0.57 2,136 1,218 4,403 2,509 6,539 3,727
Subtotal 18,719 17,635 6,828 4,910 25,547 22,545
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 2.70 1,792 4,840 4,052 10,939 5,844 15,779
Office 1.22 352 430 376 458 728 888
Industrial 0.17 1,511 257 7,962 1,353 9,473 1,610
Subtotal 3,656 5,527 12,389 12,750 16,045 18,277
Total
23,162 17,660 40,822

56.7% 43.3% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.1.

Project Costs
Cost estimates are summarized in Table 8.3 and were sourced from the City's CIP. Any funding that has been identified for these projects is netted out of the total cost. The net costs are allocated to new development proportionally to new development's share of trip demand at the planning horizon as calculated in Table 8.2 (43.3%). Allocating this amount of costs to the impact fee ensures that new development will not fund more than its proportional share of transportation facilities demand.

Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services

50 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 8.3: Planned Facilities
Allocation to
Less Alternative New Cost Allocated to New
Project No. Project Title Total Project Cost Funding Net Project Cost Development Development Streets and Bridges
2019-009 2nd Street Extension Feasibility / Design 200,000 - 200,000 43.3% 86,600 R-01 Oak Valley Pkwy Expansion 110 -Desert Lawn Phase 2 600,000 600,000 43.3% 259,800 R-12 2nd Street Extension Construction 4,800,000 4,800,000 43.3% 2,078,400 2016-003 Potrero Interchange- Phase!! 72,546,000 54,000,000 18,546,000 43.3% 8,030,418 2017-027 Oak Valley/I-10 Interchange Design 85,000,000 11,660,000 73,340,000 43.3% 31,756,220 2017-001 Pennsylvania Interchange 85,000,000 - 85,000,000 43.3% 36,805,000 R-37 Beaumont Avenue/1-10 Interchange Project 125,000,000 5,869,000 119,131,000 43.3% 51,583,723 Highland Springs (Beaumont Share) 60,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 43.3% 12,990,000 Subtotal $ 433,146,000 $ 101,529,000 $ 331,617,000 $ 143,590,161 Traffic Signals
R-02 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 1 $ 150,000 $ $ 150,000 43.3% $ 64,950 R-11 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 2 150,000 150,000 43.3% 64,950 R-13 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 3 274,400 274,400 43.3% 118,815 R25-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY25 150,000 150,000 43.3% 64,950 R26-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY26 150,000 150,000 43.3% 64,950 R27-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY27 150,000 150,000 43.3% 64,950 R28-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY28 150,000 150,000 43.3% 64,950 R-34 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY24 150,000 150,000 43.3% 64,950 Subtotal $ 1,324,400 $ $ 1,324,400 $ 573,465
Railroad
2017-012 Pennsylvania Ave/UPR Grade Separation $ 73,700,000 $ 8,678,556 $ 65,021,444 43.3% $ 28,154,285 Califomia URP Grade Separation' 100,000,000 70,000,000 30,000,000 43.3% 12,990,000 Subtotal $ 173,700,000 $ 78,678,556 $ 95,021,444 $ 41,144,285 1 Assumes 70% of this project w ill be funded w ith grants.

Source: City of Beaumont Master CIP, Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services. firWILLDAN
Financial Services
51

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, or the cost of projects that can be funded by a fee, divided by a measure of development. In this case, all fees are first calculated as a cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit (cost per dwelling unit) and employment space (cost per 1,000 building square feet) by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.

Table 8.4 calculates the cost the cost per trip demand unit by dividing the total project costs attributable to new development by transportation fee category summarized in Table 8.3, by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 8.2. Note that the traffic signals impact fee fund balances are sufficient to fund the allocated share of project costs. No fee is calculated for this category.

Table 8.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Road and Railroad
Bridge Traffic Signals Crossings
Costs Allocated to New Development
Les Existing Fund Balance
Net Costs Allocated to New Development
Growth in Trip Demand (2023 to 2040)
Cost per Trip
$ 143, 590,161 $ 573,465 $41,144,285
12, 090, 363 1,371,766 2,809,846
$ 131, 499, 798 $ - $38,334,439
17,660 17,660 17,660
$ 7,446 $ - $ 2,171
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 8.5 shows the maximum justified transportation fee schedule, be fee component. The maximum justified fees are based on the costs per trip shown in Table 8.4. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 8.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development.

The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City 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, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge. 'WILLDAN
Financial Services

52 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 8.5: Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
A 8
Trip
Cost Per Demand
Trip Factor
C=Ax8 D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge' 2
E=C -ED E/1,000
Fee
per Sq.

Total Feel Ft.

Road and Bridge
Residential Dwelling Unit
$ 7,446 0.72
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 7,446 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 7,446 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 7,446 0.17
Railroad Crossings
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 2,171 0.72
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 2,171 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 2,171 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 2,171 0.17
$ 5,361 $ 54
$ 20,104 $ 201
9,084 91
1,266 13
$ 1,563 $ 16
$ 5,862 $ 59
2,649 26
369 4
$ 5,415 $ 2.02
$ 20,305 $ 20.31
9,175 9.18
1,279 1.28
$ 1,579 $ 0.59
$ 5,921 $ 5.92
2,675 2.68
373 0.37
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of 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 justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
° Average trip demand factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

53 9. Sewer Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for sewer facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Beaumont. The projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified in the City's Wastewater Master Plan (2021). The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for sewer facilities from the projected increase sewer flow and the additional sewer facilities needed to meet those convey that flow to the City's wastewater treatment plant. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of wastewater flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Sewer Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased sewer demand provide the basis for calculating the sewer facilities fee. The need for sewer facilities improvements is based on the sewer demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of sewer improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 9.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates based on data from the City's Wastewater Master Plan. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the sewer demand generated by each unit of new development.

Table 9.1: Sewer Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation'
Average Flow
Generation per Equivalent
DU or 1,000 Sq. Dwelling Unit
Density2 Ft. (EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial
Industrial/Business Park
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
2,609 17.00
1,175 32.67
1,175 43.56
1,763 32.67
235.00
153.47

35.97 26.97

53.96 1.00

0.65 0.15

0.11 0.23
1 Gallons per acre per day.
2 Units per acre for residential or 1,000 square feet per acre for nonresidential. Residential and nonresidential densities are based on typical densities for each land use from the General Ran. Nonresidential densities are based on floor -area -ratios of 0.75 for commercial, 1.0 for industrial/business park and 0.75 for industrial/w arehouse.

Sources: Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; Willdan Financial Services.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

54 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update EDU Generation by New Development
Table 9.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. The EDU factors from Table 9.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Table 2.1 to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development. New development will generate approximately 7,767 new EDUs through 2040, comprising 29.4% of sewer demand in the City at that time.

Table 9.2: Sewer Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units
Land Use
2023 Growth 2023 to 2040 Total - 2040
EDU Units / Units / Units/
Factor 1,000 SF EDUs 1,000 SF EDUs 1,000 SF EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 16,583 16,583 2,425 2,425 19,008 19,008 Multifamily 0.65 2,136 1,388 4,403 2,862 6,539 4,250
Subtotal 18,719 17,971 6,828 5,287 25,547 23,258
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.15 1,792 269 4,052 608 5,844 877
Office 0.11 352 39 376 41 728 80
Industrial 0.23 1,511 348 7,962 1,831 9,473 2,179
Subtotal 3,656 656 12,389 2,480 16,045 3,136
Total
18,627 7,767 26,394

70.6% 29.4% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 9.1.

Facility Needs and Costs
Table 9.3 identifies the planned sewer facilities to be funded by the fee. The new sewer facilities were all identified in the City's 2016 WWTP Facility Plan. Since sewer facilities projects will benefit both existing development and new development, capacity expanding projects are allocated to new development based on new development's share of sewer demand at the planning horizon. Projects that do not expand capacity are not allocated to the impact fee.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

55 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Allocation to New Development Type of
Improv. No. Improvement
Lower Oak Valley Lift Station Tributary Area
Future Capacity Increase
Lift Station Replacement
LOV-P 1
LOV-LS
Subtotal
Tukwet Canyon (New) Lift Station Tributary Area
TC-FM1 New Force Main
TC-FM2 New Force Main
TC-LS New Lift Station
Subtotal
Upper Oak Valley Lift Station Tributary Area
UOV-P1 Future Capacity Increase
UOV-P2 Existing Capacity Deficiency
UOV-P3 Future Capacity Increase
UOV-LS Lift Station Replacement
Subtotal
Olivewood Lift Station Tributary Area
O -P1
O -LS
FM -1
Subtotal
Brookside Avenue (New) Lift Station Tributary Area
BR -P1 New Capacity
BR-FM1 New Force Main
BR -LS New Lift Station
Subtotal
Future Capacity Increase
Lift Station Replacement
Oak ValleyBlvd Embankment Stabilization
Existing
Diameter
(in)
15 8
8 12
10 New/
Replace
Replace
Replace
New
New
New
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Capital
Improvement
Cost ($)
$ 202,500
2,003,600
$ 2,206,100
$ 2,578,300
2,578,300
1,404,000
$ 6,560,600
$ 109,200
97,400
898,300
5,449,800
$ 6,554,700
$ 170,300
1,540,800
780,000
New $
New
New
2,491,100
656,400
951,500
1,005,300
$ 2,613,200
Allocation to
Dew
Development
Cost Allocated
to Existing
Development
100% $
0%
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
- $ 202,500
2,003,600
100% $
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
0%
2,003,600 $ 202,500
- $ 2,578,300
2,578,300
1,404,000
- $ 6,560,600
$ - $ 109,200
97,400
5,449,800
898,300
$ 5,547,200 $ 1,007,500
100% $
0%
0%
- $ 170,300
1,540,800
780,000
$ 2,320,800 $ 170,300
100% $
100%
100%
$ 656,400
951,500
1,005,300
- $ 2,613,200
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
56

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Existing
Type of Diameter New/
Improv. No. Improvement (in) Replace
Beaumont Mesa Lift Station Tributary Area
BM -P1 New Capacity
BM -P2 New Capacity
BM -P3 New Capacity
BM-FM1 Force Main Design and Pump Design
BM-FM1 New Force Main
BM -LS Pump Replacement/Addition Construction
BM -WW Wet Well Design
BM -WW New Wet Well
Subtotal
Beaumont Crossroads (New) Lift Station Tributary Area
BC -P1 New Capacity
BC -P2 New Capacity
BC -P3 New Capacity
BC -P4 New Capacity
BC -P5 New Capacity
BC-FM1 New Force Main
BC-FM2 New Force Main
BC -LS New Lift Station
Subtotal
Marshall Creek Lift Station Tributary Area
MC -LS Lift Station Replacement
Industrial Park Lift Station Tributary Area
IP-P1
IP-P2
IP-LS
Subtotal
Future Capacity Increase
Future Capacity Increase
Lift Station Replacement
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
Capital
Improvement
Cost ($)
Allocation to Cost Allocated
Dew to Existing
Development Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
$ 768,200
498,700
844,400
450,000
4,000,000
750,000
400,000
4,000,000
$ 11,711,300
$ 1,122, 900
680,900
134,900
558,800
413,100
5,378,500
3,090,000
7,099,100
$ 18,478,200
Replace $ 3,331,200
8 Replace
8 Replace
Replace
$ 148,100
148,100
1,005,300
$ 1,301,500
100% $
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
- $ 768,200
498,700
844,400
450,000
4,000,000
750,000
400,000
4,000,000
$ 11,711,300
100% $ $ 1,122,900
100% 680,900
100% - 134,900
100% - 558,800
100% - 413,100
100% 5,378,500
100% 3,090,000
100% 7,099,100
$ $ 18,478,200
0% $ 3,331,200 $
100% $ $ 148,100
100% 148,100
0% 1,005,300 -
$ 1,005,300 $ 296,200
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont. wWILLDAN
Financial Services
57

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Existing Capital Allocation to Cost Allocated Cost Allocated Type of Diameter New/ Improvement Dew to Existing to New Improv. No. Improvement (in) Replace Cost ($) Development Development Development Wastewater Treatment Plant
WWTP-P1 Future Capacity Increase 12 Replace $ 138,000 100% $ - $ 138,000 WWTP-P2 Existing Capacity Deficiency 12 Replace 206,700 0% 206,700 - WWTP-P3 Future Capacity Increase 12 Replace 138,000 100% - 138,000 WWTP-P4 Future Capacity Increase 24 Replace 924,000 100% 924,000 WWTP-P5 Future Capacity Increase 30 Replace 992,500 100% - 992,500 WWTP-P6 New Capacity - New 1,256,400 100% - 1,256,400
WWTP-P7 Future Capacity Increase - New 467,100 100% 467,100 WWTP-P8 Future Capacity Increase 8 Replace 952,200 100% 952,200 WWTP-P9 Future Capacity Increase 8 Replace 970,100 100% - 970,100 WWTP-P1- Future Capacity Increase 8 Replace 952,200 100% 952,200 WWTP-P11 Future Capacity Increase 8 Replace 961,300 100% - 961,300 WWTP-P12 Future Capacity Increase 10 Replace 611,000 100% - 611,000 WWTP-P13 Future Capacity Increase 12 Replace 1,320,500 100% 1,320,500 WWTP-P14 Future Capacity Increase 12 Replace 422,300 100% - 422,300 WWTP-P15 Future Capacity Increase 15 Replace 269,800 100% 269,800 WWTP-P16 Future Capacity Increase 18 Replace 602,100 100% - 602,100 WWTP-P17 Future Capacity Increase 18 Replace 3,120,600 100% - 3,120,600 WWTP-P18 Future Capacity Increase 10 Replace 39,000 100% - 39,000 WWTP-P19 Future Capacity Increase 10 Replace 54,600 100% - 54,600 WWTP-P2- Future Capacity Increase 12 Replace 916,300 100% 916,300 WWTP-P21 Future Capacity Increase 24 Replace 1,314,100 100% - 1,314,100 WWTP-P22 Future Capacity Increase 30 Replace 2,219,700 100% - 2,219,700 WWTP-P23 Future Capacity Increase 30 Replace 600,600 100% - 600,600 WWTP-P24 Future Capacity Increase 30 Replace 1,149,000 100% - 1,149,000 WWTP-P25 New Capacity - New 1,277,300 100% 1,277,300
Aeration Basin No. 5 Future Capacity Increase New 1,400,000 100% 1,400,000 Fine Screens Basin Facility Future Capacity Increase New 600,000 100% - 600,000 Centrifuge Future Capacity Increase New 1,500,000 100% 1,500,000 Membrane Future Capacity Increase New 1,500,000 100% - 1,500,000 RIO Rack Future Capacity Increase New 1,500,000 100% - 1,500,000 OCSD Capacity Fee Increase New 743,000 100% - 743,000
Future Storage Building New 450,000 29.4% 317,700 132,300 Subtotal $ 29,568,400 $ 524,400 $ 29,044,000
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Plan, 2021; City of Beaumont. wWILLDAN
Financial Services
58

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Existing Capital Allocation to Cost Allocated Cost Allocated Type of Diameter New/ Improvement Dew to Existing to New Improv. No. Improvement (in) Replace Cost ($) Development Development Development Four Seasons Lift Station Tributary Area
FS -P1 Future Capacity Increase 10 Replace $ 397,300 100% $ $ 397,300 FS -P2 Future Capacity Increase 10 Replace 210,900 100% 210,900 FS -P3 Future Capacity Increase 12 Replace 305,500 100% 305,500 FS -P4 Pipe Slope Reconstruction 12 Replace 32,500 0% 32,500 - FS -P5 Future Capacity Increase 15 Replace 587,600 100% 587,600 FS -P6 Future Capacity Increase 10 Replace 23,400 100% 23,400 FS -LS Lift Station Replacement - Replace 3,941,100 0% 3,941,100 - Subtotal $ 5,498,300 $ 3,973,600 $ 1,524,700
Gravity Portion of Wastewater Collection System
S. Beaumont Ave South Future Gravity Mt 21 New $ 350,000 100% $ - $ 350,000 S. California Ave South Future Gravity Mai 12 New 250,000 100% 250,000 S. Veile Ave Future Gravity Main 12 New 150,000 100% 150,000 S. Olive Ave Future Gravity Main 12 New 75,000 100% 75,000 Oak Valley Parkway Gravity Main Capacit 12 Replace 100,000 100% 100,000 Orange St Future Gravity Main 15 New 140,000 100% 140,000 Brookside Ave Future Gravity Main 15 New 300,000 100% 300,000 Oak Valley Pkwy (11-10 to Desert Lawn) Ft 12 New 150,000 100% 150,000 E. Desert Lawn Future Gravity Main 8 New 50,000 100% 50,000 Subtotal $ 1,565,000 $ - $ 1,565,000
Mobile Equipment
Combination Vacuum Truck with Overhead Boom New $ 750,000 100% $ - $ 750,000 Chase pickup truck outfitted with underground equipmer New 60,000 100% 60,000 Subtotal $ 810,000 $ - $ 810,000
Other Wastewater System Improvements
Lift Station Condition Assessment $ 3,600,000 0% $ 3,600,000 $ - CCTV Program 300,000 0% 300,000 -
On -going Pipeline Replacement Program 4,800,000 0% 4,800,000 - Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements 2,000,000 0% 2,000,000 Future WWTP Energy Cost Reduction Program 1,500,000 0% 1,500,000 - Subtotal $ 12,200,000 $ 12,200,000 $ -
Total $ 104,889,600 $ 30,906,100 $ 73,983,500
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastewater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont. wWILLDAN
Financial Services
59

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development in Table 9.3 is divided by the total growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU. Table 9.4 displays this calculation.

Table 9.4: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 73,983,500
Less WWTP Upgrades Needed After 20401 5,125,136
Net Cost Allocated to New Development $ 68,858,364
Growth in EDUs (2023 to 2040) 7,767
Cost per EDU $ 8,866
1 Excludes approximately 17.6% of VVWTPcapacity expansion costs, to conform w ith 2040 planning horizon as opposed to buildout sew er demands.

Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for sewer facilities is shown in Table 9.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 9.1.

The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) 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, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge. fWILLDAN
Financial Services

60 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
Table 9.5: Maximum Justified Sewer Facilities Fee Schedule A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/Average
Base Admin Fee per
Fee' Charge'' 2 Total Fee' Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit4 $ 8,866 0.77
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 8,866 0.15
Industrial/Business Park 8,866 0.11
Industrial/High-Cube Ware 8,866 0.23
$ 6,827 $ 68
$ 1,330 $ 13
975 10
2,039 20
$ 6,895 $ 2.57
$ 1,343 $ 1.34
985 0.99
2,059 2.06
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
' Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.4.

Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services

61 10. Sewer Capacity
This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a sewer capacity charge to fund sewer facilities that serve new development. It uses a buy -in approach to allocating the cost of excess capacity in the system to new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for wastewater treatment from the projected increase in sewer flow and the excess capacity to process wastewater flow available at the City's wastewater treatment plant. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will buy -in to the excess capacity of the wastewater treatment plant at no more than the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fees are imposed, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Current Demand for Wastewater Treatment
Table 10.1 displays the City's historical wastewater flows treated by the wastewater treatment plan. These flows indicate current demand for wastewater treatment.

Table 10.1: Historical Wastewater Flows
Month
2020 2021 2022 2023
Influent Influent Influent Influent
Flows Flows Flows Flows
(MG) (MG) (MG) (MG)
January 115.48 119.25 115.92 127.55
February 109.10 106.17 104.04 108.70
March 121.41 127.61 115.00 124.02
April 119.38 115.07 108.38 117.48
May 118.31 122.10 112.94 122.31
June 114.27 123.06 111.60 120.06
July 121.43 132.62 113.38 125.56
August 113.80 101.28 116.88 127.45
September 121.26 107.70 95.59 121.02
October 125.89 118.18 98.23 122.64
November 115.72 115.72 107.53 120.43
December 118.24 119.09 119.75 128.18
Total Annual 1,414.27 1,407.84 1,319.25 1,465.40
Average per Day (MG)

3.87 3.86 3.61 4.01
Source: City of Beaumont.

Current Sewer System Asset Valuation
In this case, Replacement New Cost Less Depreciation (RCNLD) is the appropriate method to determine the current value of the sewer systems. RCNLD is a commonly used method, and it is often preferred to alternative methods such as Original Cost Less Depreciation (OCLD), Original Cost (OC), and Replacement Cost (RC) because of its better reflection of the system's value in wWILLDAN
Financial Services

62 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update today dollars. Unless the systems have depreciated significantly due to lack of replacement and repair, RCNLD is more defensible because the replacement cost is inflation -adjusted to recover the cost of replacing that capacity in current dollars. RCNLD also accounts for depreciation and consequently address the fact that the system reflects its current condition.

Table 10.2 summarizes the City's current sewer system asset valuation, consistent with the asset valuation assumptions from its recently adopted 2024 Sewer Rate Study.

Table 10.2: Current Sewer System Asset Valuation
Asset Function Original Cost
Original Cost Less Replacement Cost
Depreciation Replacement Cost Less Depreciation
Treatment $ 254,104,711
Lift Stations 34,241,213
General 28,690,611
Land 2,002,560
Collection and Conveyance 141,085,109
Total $ 460,124,203
$ 225,417,691
17, 840, 374
23,118,124
2,002,560
58,167, 402
$ 326, 546,152
$ 294,170,308
49,299,280
36,007,492
2,278,393
262,543,603
$ 644,299,076
$ 246,207,054
24,539,591
24,906,543
2,278,393
105, 248, 515
$ 403,180, 096
Source: City of Beaumont 2024 Sew er Rate Study.

Adjusted System Valuation
The City's sewer enterprise has over $79 million in outstanding debt principal. This amount represents debt that ratepayers will pay back through monthly service charges on an ongoing basis, so this amount is subtracted from total asset value in calculating the total to be recovered as a buy -in component. Subtracting the outstanding debt principal from the current asset valuation yields the total adjusted system value. This calculation is shown below in Table 10.3.

Table 10.3: Adjusted System Valuation Calculation
Asset Valuation
Outstanding Debt Principal
Net Valuation
$ 403,180,096
79, 060, 000
$ 324,120,096
Sources: City of Beaumont; Table 10.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Fee per Gallon per Day
Every capacity fee consists of a dollar amount, representing the value of facilities, divided by a measure of demand. In this case, buy -in fees are first calculated as the adjusted system value per gallon per day (GPD). Then these amounts are translated into fees per housing unit (fee per unit) and employment space (fee per 1,000 square feet) by multiplying the cost per GPD by the flow generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.

The calculation of the buy -in fee per GPD for sewer facilities is shown in Table 10.4. The City provided the sewer system's production capacity, which is six million gallons per day. The adjusted system value divided by the total capacity of the system yields the sewer capacity fee per gallon per day of $54.02. This amount is multiplied by the assumption of 235 gallons per day per EDU to determine the capacity fee per average sized unit, which is divided by the average square feet per unit to determine the capacity fee per residential square foot.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

63 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 10.4: Fee per GPD
Total Adjusted System Value $ 324,120,096
System Flow Capacity (Gallons per Day) 6,000,000
Fee per GPD $ 54.02
GPD per EDU 235
Capacity Fee per Average Sized Single Family Unit $ 12,695 Average Square Feet per Unit 2,687
Capacity Fee per Residential Square Foot $ 4.72
Sources: City of Beaumont; Table 10.3, Willdan Financial Services.

Nonresidential Fee Schedule
The sewer capacity fee for nonresidential land uses are calculated to reflect the individual flow and strength characteristics of various nonresidential uses relative to the flow characteristics of a typical EDU. Strength characteristics are based on the Revenue Program Guidelines of the State Water Resources Control Board, March 1998 Edition. The effluent values for the various nonresidential land uses are consistent with assumptions from the City's rate study.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

64 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 10.5: Nonresidential Sewer Capacity Fee Schedule
$/EDU Flow (gpd) BOD (Mg/I) TSS (Mg/I)
Capacity Fee per EDU A $ 12,695
Standard EDU Effluent (per SFR)
B 235 gpd 235 gpd 250 Mg/I 250 Mg/I
Commercial Low Strength
Effluent Values C 35.97 gpd 140 Mg/I 115 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.15 0.56 0.46
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(Fbw Eou)) F 0.09 0.02 0.01 Total Capacity Fee $1,166 $218 $179
Commercial Medium Strength
Effluent Values C 35.97 gpd 235 Mg/I 175 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.15 0.94 0.70
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x DTFiow Eou)) F 0.09 0.03 0.02 Total Capacity Fee $1,166 $365 $272
Commercial High Strenath
Effluent Values C 35.97 gpd 933 Mg/I 667 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.15 3.73 2.67
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(Flow Eou)) F 0.09 0.11 0.08 Total Capacity Fee $1,166 $1,450 $1,037
Industrial Low Strength
Effluent Values C 53.96 gpd 106 Mg/I 127 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.23 0.42 0.51
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(Flow Eou)) F 0.14 0.02 0.02 Total Capacity Fee $1,749 $247 $296
Industrial High Strength
Effluent Values C 26.97 gpd 1598 Mg/I 506 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.11 6.39 2.02
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(FIow Eou)) F 0.07 0.15 0.05 Total Capacity Fee $874 $1,863 $590
Fee per 1,000
Sq. Ft.
$1,562
$1,803
$3,653
$2,292
$3,327
Sources: Tables 9.1 and 10.4.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

65 11. Recycled Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for recycled water facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Beaumont. The projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified in various planning document and provided by City staff for use in this analysis. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for recycled water facilities from the projected increase in sewer flow that can be treated to produce recycled water and the additional facilities needed to treat the effluent from the City's wastewater treatment plant. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of wastewater flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Recycled Water Demand
Wastewater treatment plants treat municipal wastewater to standards that protect the beneficial uses of the waters into which the treated wastewater is discharged. Recycled water facilities allow the treatment of wastewater to a level such that it can be used for irrigation and other purposes safely. Consequently, the need for treatment of recycled water is based on the wastewater that is treated at the wastewater treatment plan, so demand is equal to wastewater flows. This chapter uses the EDU factors and estimates of EDUs from Chapter 9 as measure of demand for recycled water facilities. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the demand generated by each unit of new development.

Planned Facilities
Table 11.1 details the City's planned recycled water facilities to be funded by the recycled water facilities impact fee. The identified facilities will cost $29.4 million, net of existing recycled water facilities impact fee fund balances.

Table 11.1: Planned Recycled Water Facilities
Cost (2024)
Recycled Water Storage Basins (Alternative 3) $ 6,483,100 Todd Groundwater Recycled Water 26,338,600
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan study (Phases 2 and 3) 730,000 Total $ 33,551,700
Less Existing Fund Balance 4,119,073
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 29,432,627
Sources: Draft Recycled Water Reuse Strategy Analysis Report, 2021; City of Beaumont — Recycled Water Storage Basin Engineering Feasibility Technical Memorandum, 2020; ENR CCI; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities in Table 11.1 is divided by the total EDUs in 2040 to determine a cost per EDU. Table 11.2 displays this calculation. Total EDUs in 2040 is used for this calculation 'WILLDAN
Financial Services

66 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update because the recycled water facilities will benefit all development in the City, both existing and new. The cost per EDU is multiplied by the projected increase in EDUs to estimate the projected fee revenue.

Table 11.2: Cost per EDU
Total Cost of Recycled Water Projects $ 29,432,627
Total EDUs at Buildout 26,394
Cost per EDU $ 1,115
New Development EDUs 7,767
Projected Fee Revenue $ 8,660,205
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 11.1.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for recycled water facilities is shown in Table 11.3. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 9.1.

The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) 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, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services

67 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 11.3: Recycled Water Facilities Fee Schedule
A B
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Base Admin
Feel Charge1' 2
E=C+D E/Average
Fee per
Total Feet Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1,115 0.15 $ 167 $ 2 $ 169 $ 0.17
Industrial/Business Park 1,115 0.11 123 1 124 0.12
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,115 0.23 256 3 259 0.26 $ 1,115 0.77
$ 859 $ 9
$ 868 $ 0.32
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 11.2.

Aft/WILLDAN
Financial Services

68 12. General Plan
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of future general plan updates and related studies. The City will undertake several planning studies through 2040.

These studies will guide future facility planning needed to serve all development within the City. A fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of general plan studies in the City of Beaumont to ensure that new development funds its fair share of those analyses. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for updated planning documents from the projected increase in service population and the additional planning documents needed to meet those demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planning documents needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
General plan updates serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.

Table 12.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for general plan updates.

While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

69 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 12.1: General Plan Service Population
A B
Weighting
Persons Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070 1.00
23,930 1.00
80,000
6,215 0.31
16,753 0.31
22,968
56,070
23,930
80,000
1,927
5,193
7,120
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
57,997
29,123
87,120
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 (40/128 = 0.31)
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Costs
Table 12.2 lists the City's anticipated General Plan updates and related study costs within the 2040 planning horizon. Estimated study costs were provided by City staff for use in this analysis.

In total, the City has identified $1.7 million in advanced planning costs, net of the existing general plan impact fee fund balance.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

70 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 12.2: General Plan Costs
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
General Plan Update' 1 Update $ 989,400 $ 989,400
Zoning Code Update2 1 Update 370,000 370,000
Housing Element Update3 2 Updates 297,000 594,000
Total $ 1,953,400
Less Existing Fund Balance 231,129
Net Cost $ 1,722,271
'Assumed cost based on cost of General Ran Update completed in 2020, adjusted for inflation using the CPI -U Index to December, 2023.
2 Cost based on City contract aw arded in 2023.
3 Cost based on Housing Element contract from 2022, adjusted for inflation using the CPI -U Index to December, 2023.

Source: City of Beaumont; US BLS CPI -U; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Standard
Table 12.3 shows the calculation of the system plan facilities standard per capita for General Plan updates and related studies. The studies will identify facilities needed to serve both existing and new development, so the costs of the studies are allocated to both existing and new development using this methodology. The cost standard is calculated by dividing the total cost of all studies needed by 2040 by the total service population in 2040. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Table 12.3: Advanced Planning — System Standard
Cost of Planning Studies $ 1,722,271
Future Service Population (2040) 87,120
Cost per Capita $ 20
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 20
Cost Allocation per Worker' 6
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 12.1 and 12.2.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use fee revenue to complete the studies identified in Table 12.2. The studies will be used to identify facility needs to serve the City as it grows. Table 12.4 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 12.1. The City should program fee revenue to specific projects annually through its CIP and budget process. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue approximately $1.1 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the studies.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

71 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the studies. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, and grants.

Table 12.4: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
Fee Revenue
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified
$ 20
29,123
$ 582,460
1,722,271
$ (1,139,811)
Sources: Tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 12.5 shows the maximum justified advanced General Plan update schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

72 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 12.5: Advanced Planning Maximum Justified Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Capita Density Base Feel Charge' 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 20 3.22 $ 64 $ 1 $ 65 $ 0.02 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 6 2.12 $ 13 $ - $ 13 $ 0.01
Industrial/Business Park 6 3.08 18 18 0.02
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 6 0.88 5 5 0.01
Fee per average sized dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 12.3.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

73 13. Library Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for expanded library facilities to serve new development using the existing facility standard approach. The fees calculated in this chapter could be implemented within the City of Beaumont and within unincorporated areas of the Beaumont Library District (District). The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for libraries within the District from the projected increase in residents and the additional library space and collections needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the District's existing ratio of library facilities to residents, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit.

Service Population
Library facilities in the District primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the District's residential population. Table 13.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for library facilities within the District, both inside the Beaumont City limits and in the surrounding unincorporated area.

Table 13.1: Library Facilities Service Population
City of
Beaumont
Residents
Residents
Outside of City Library District
Limits' Total
Existing (2023) 56,070 9,455 65,525
New Development 23.930 4,035 27,965
Total (2040) 80,000 13,490 93,490
1 Residents outside of City Limits in District in 2023 is the difference between the total Library District population reported by the California State Library and the existing population w ithin Beaumont City Limits. Projection assumes same ratio of residents w ithin City Limits to Districtw ide resident as the City grow s.

Sources: Table 2.1; California State Library; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Library Facilities
The quantity of existing library facilities that the District owns will be used to inform the facility standards in this analysis. The District currently operates one 11,700 square foot library. The District also owns collections and public computer stations. Table 13.2 summarizes the District's existing library facility inventory.
'WILLDAN
Financial Services

74 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 13.2: Existing Library Facilities
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Library Building 11,700 Sq. ft. $ 550 $ 6,435,000
Collections 58,460 Items 25 1,461,500
Public Computer Stations 15 Stations 2,000 30,000
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 7,926,500
1 Unit cost includes assumed cost of construction and land acquisition, as reported by Beaumont Library District.

Sources: Beaumont Library District; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 13.3 summarizes the planned library facility needed to serve the City through 2040. The projected increase in service population would require expanded facilities in order to maintain the same level of service as is currently provided. In all, the expanded facilities are estimated to cost approximately $3.4 million.

Table 13.3: Planned Library Facilities
Facilities
Facility Increase Demanded
Standard per in by New
Resident Residents Development Unit Cost Total Cost
Library Building Square Feet 0.1786 27,965 4,993 $ 550 $ 2,746,150 Collections 0.8922 27,965 24,950 25 623,750
Public Computer Stations 0.0002 27,965 4 2,000 8,000
Total $ 3,377,900
Sources: Tables 13.1 and 13.2.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 13.4 expresses the City's current recreation facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita drives the fee calculation. Fees implemented at this level would allow the District to maintain the existing level of service.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

75 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 13.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 7,926,500
Existing Service Population 65,525
Cost per Resident $ 121
Sources: Tables 13.1 and 13.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use library facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and collections that are part of the system of library facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 13.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use recreation and library facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of library facilities that serves new development. The preliminary list of facilities to be funded by the fee is detailed above in Table 13.3. Table 13.5 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 13.1.

Table 13.5: Library Impact Fee Revenue
Projection
Cost per Capita $
Growth in Service Population in District
(2023 to 2040)
121
27,965
Projected Fee Revenue $ 3,383,765
Sources: Tables 13.1, 13.3 and 13.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 13.6 shows the maximum justified library facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City 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, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

76 City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Table 13.6: Libra
rY
Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge'' 2
E=C+D
Total Fee'
F = E/Average
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 121 3.22
$ 390 $ 4
$ 394 $ 0.15
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 13.4.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

77 14. Emergency Preparedness
Facilities
The purpose of the emergency preparedness facilities impact fee is to fund the emergency preparedness facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of emergency preparedness facilities per capita.

The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new emergency preparedness facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional emergency preparedness facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
Emergency preparedness facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.

Table 14.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for emergency preparedness facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

78 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 14.1: Emergency Preparedness Facilities Service Population A 8 AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070 1.00
23,930 1.00
80,000
6,215
16,753
22,968

0.31 0.31
56,070
23,930
80,000
1,927
5,193
7,120
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
57,997
29,123
87,120
1 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 (40/128 = 0.31)
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities and Standards
Planned Facilities
Table 14.2 summarizes the planned facilities. The emergency operations center will be collocated with the planned police station and will serve both existing and new development. The cost of the emergency operations center is approximately $695,000 net of the existing fund balance.

Table 14.2: Planned Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Emergency Operations Center 1,930 Sq. Ft. $ 778 $ 1,501,540 Total $ 1,501,540
Less Existing Fund Balance 806,387
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 695,153
Source: City of Beaumont.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

79 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost Allocation
Future Level of Service
Table 14.3 shows new development's projected per capita investment in emergency preparedness facilities at the planning horizon. This value is calculated by dividing cost of all planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Table 14.3: Emergency Preparedness Facilities —
System Standard
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 695,153
Total System Value (2040) $ 695,153
Future Service Population (2040) 87,120
Cost per Capita $ 8
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 8
Cost Allocation per Worker 2
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 14.1 and 14.2.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use emergency preparedness facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of emergency preparedness facilities serving new development. The City intends to build a new emergency operations center.

Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned emergency preparedness facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 14.4 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $462,000 in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned emergency preparedness facilities.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned emergency preparedness facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

80 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 14.4: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
Fee Revenue
$ 8
29,123
$ 232,984
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 695,153
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (462,169)
Sources: Tables 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 14.5 shows the maximum justified emergency preparedness facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City 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, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 14.5: Emergenc
Land Use
y
Preparedness Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D
Cost Per Admin
Capita Density Base Fee' Charge' 2 Total Fee
F = E/ Average
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 8 3.22 $ 26 $ $ 26 $ 0.01
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 2 2.12 $ 4 $ - $ 4 0.004
Industrial/Business Park 2 3.08 6 6 0.006
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 2 0.88 2 - 2 0.002
Fee per average sized dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 14.3.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

81 15. Storm Drainage Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for storm drain facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Beaumont. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a storm drain fee calculated using the existing facilities standard approach to fund storm drain facilities that serve new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for storm drainage facilities from the projected increase in impervious surface generated by new development and the additional storm drains needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the City's existing ratio of storm drainage facilities to impervious surface, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of impervious surface generated by different types of development.

Storm Drain Demand
Most new development generates storm water runoff that must be controlled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation. Table 15.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on impervious surface coefficient by land use category. The impervious surface coefficients are based on data from Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual. EDU factors relate demand for storm drain facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the impervious surface generated by each unit of new development.

Table 15.1: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units DU or Impervious Equivalent
KSF per Surface Dwelling Unit
Land Use Type acre Coefficient (EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily

4.00 0.50 1.00

17.00 0.65 0.31
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 32.67 0.90 0.22
Industrial/Business Park 43.56 0.90 0.17
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 32.67 0.90 0.22
1 Units per acre for residential or 1,000 square feet per acre for nonresidential. Residential and nonresidential densities are based on typical densities for each land use from the General Ran.

Nonresidential densities are based on floor -area -ratios of 0.75 for commercial, 1.0 for industrial/business park and 0.75 for industrial/w arehouse.

Sources: Table 3.3, Beaumont General Ran; Rate D-5.6 from the Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual; Willdan Financial Services.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 15.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. New development will generate approximately 6,497 new EDUs, representing 26.5 percent of total storm drain demand in 2040.
wWILLDAN
Financial Services

82 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 15.2: Storm Drain Demand Projections
Land Use
2023
EDU Units /
Factor 1,000 SF EDUs
Growth 2023 to 2040
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Total - 2040
Units/
1,000 SF EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Subtotal

1.00 16,583 16,583

0.31 2,136 662
18,719 17,245
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.22 1,792 394
Office 0.17 352 60
Industrial 0.22 1,511 333
Subtotal
3,656 787
Total 18,032

73.5%
2,425 2,425
4,403 1,365
6,828 3,790
4,052 892
376 64
7,962 1,751
12,389 2,707
6,497

26.5%
19,008 19,008
6,539 2,027
25,547 21,035
5,844 1,286
728 124
9,473 2,084
16,045 3,494
24,529
100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 15.1.

Existing Inventory
Table 15.3 summarizes the replacement cost of the City's existing storm drain inventory.

Quantities of the various types of facilities were identified from the City's GIS data. The replacement cost of the facilities was estimated using recent bid data from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

Table 15.3: Storm Drain Existing Inventory
Description
Replacement
Cost
Structures $ 1,574,027
Culverts 685,600
Pipes 76, 369, 032
Total $ 78,628,659
Source: Appendix Table A.1.

Planned Facilities
Table 15.4 identify the preliminary planned storm drain facilities from the City's CIP. Note that additional facilities will have to be identified through the planning horizon to maintain the City's existing level of service.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

83 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 15.4: Preliminary Planned Storm Drain Facilities
CIP No. Description
Total Project
Cost
2019-019 Beaumont Master Drainage Plan - Line 2 Stage 1 R-07 Cherry Channel Drainage Project (cougar to OV parkway) R-25 3rd Street to California Ave Storm Drain
R-33 6th Street & Palm Storm Drain
Total
$ 5,000,000
750,000
650,000
113,000
$ 6,513,000
Source: City of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021.

Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
This chapter uses the existing standard approach to calculate the storm drain facilities cost standard. The replacement cost of existing facilities is divided by the existing EDUs to determine a cost standard per EDU. Table 15.5 shows the facility cost standard for storm drain facilities.

Table 15.5: Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Existing Inventory Replacement Cost $ 78,628,659
Existing EDUs 18,032
Cost per EDU $ 4,361
Sources: Tables 15.2 and 15.3.

Projected Fee Revenue
Table 15.6 displays a projection of fee revenue based on the cost per EDU from Table 15.5 and the increase in EDU from Table 15.2. The City will need to identify additional facilities to maintain its existing level of service as new development adds to demand for storm drainage facilities.

Table 15.6: Projected Fee Revenue
Cost per EDU $ 4,361
Projected Growth in EDUs 6,497
Projected Fee Revenue $ 28,333,417
Preliminary Planned Facility Costs $ 6,513,000
Additional Facilities To Be Identified $ 21,820,417
Sources: Tables 15.2 and 15.5.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

84 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for storm drain facilities is shown in Table 15.7. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU from Table 15.5 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 15.1.

The total fee includes a one percent (1.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 15.7: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A 8
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Base Admin
Fee' Charge'' 2
E=C +D E/ Average
Fee per
Total Fee' Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4
$ 4,361 0.56
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 4,361 0.22
Industrial/Business Park 4,361 0.17
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 4,361 0.22
$ 2,442 $ 24
$ 959 $ 10
741 7
959 10
$ 2,466 $ 0.92
$ 969 $ 0.97
748 0.75
969 0.97
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building pernyts issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 15.1 and 15.4.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

85 16. Trails
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new trails demanded by new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new trails from the projected increase in residents and the additional trails needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit.

Service Population
Trails in Beaumont primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for these facilities is based on the residential population. Table 16.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for trails.

Table 16.1: Trail Facilities
Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070
23,930
80,000
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Trails Inventory
The City of Beaumont owns several trails. Table 16.2 summarizes the City's existing trails inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the City owns approximately $3.1 million in trails.
wWILLDAN
Financial Services

86 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 16.2: Existing Trails
Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost
Existing Trails
Sundance Bowl Walking Path 3,000 linear feet $ 78 $ 234,000 Highland Springs Walking Path 7,400 linear feet 78 577,200 Noble Creek Walking Path 2,650 linear feet 78 206,700
Marshall Creek Walking Path 6,900 linear feet 78 538,200 Palm Islands Walking Path 6,800 linear feet 78 530,400
Crenshaw Walking Path 2,300 linear feet 78 179,400
Cherry Channel Walking Path 7,500 linear feet 78 585,000 Portero Walking Trail 3,300 linear feet 78 257,400
Total 39,850 linear feet $ 3,108,300
'Cost per linear foot assumes $5.55 per square foot of decomposed granite trail, 14' wide.

Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Trails
The City has one unfunded trail planned to serve the City as it grows. Table 16.3 details the City's planned trail.

Table 16.3: Planned Trails
Quantity Units Unit Cost' Total Cost
Future Trails
Edison Easement Phase 2 4,000 linear feet $ 78 $ 312,000 'Cost per linear foot assumes $5.55 per square foot of decomposed granite trail, 14' wide.

Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 16.4 expresses the City's current trails level of service in terms of an existing cost per resident. This cost per resident is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

87 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 16.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Resident
$ 3,108,300
56,070
$ 55
Sources: Tables 16.1 and 16.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 16.5 shows new development's cost per capita needed to fully fund the planned facilities.

The level of service indicated by the planned facility is lower than the existing standard. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing the cost of planned facilities by the increase in population.

Table 16.5: Trails Planned Facilities Standard
Cost of Planned Facilities
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
Cost per Resident
$ 312,000
23,930
$ 13
Sources: Tables 16.1 and 16.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use trails fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are part of the system of trails serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 16.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use trails fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of trails that serves existing and new development. The list of facilities to be funded by the fee is detailed above in Table 16.3. The projected fee revenue is equal to the cost of the planned facilities.

Fee Schedule
Table 16.6 shows the maximum justified trails fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City 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.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

88 City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 16.6: Trails Fee - System Standard
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Densi
ty
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge' 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 13 3.22
$ 42 $
$ 42 $ 0.02
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 16.4.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

89 17. Maintenance Equipment
Facilities
The purpose of the maintenance equipment impact fee is to fund the maintenance equipment needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the system plan standard of maintenance equipment per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new maintenance equipment facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional maintenance equipment facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
Maintenance equipment serves both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.

Table 17.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for maintenance equipment. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

90 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 17.1: Maintenance Equipment Service Population
A
Persons
B
Weighting
Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070 1.00
23,930 1.00
80,000
6,215 0.31
16,753 0.31
22,968
56,070
23,930
80,000
1,927
5,193
7,120
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
57,997
29,123
87,120
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 (40/128 = 0.31)
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's public facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
This study uses the system plan methodology to calculate fees for maintenance equipment.

Table 17.2 summarizes the City's current inventory maintenance vehicles and equipment. These assets are used to maintain the City's existing infrastructure.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

91 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 17.2: Existing Maintenance Equipment Inventory
Replacement
Unit No. Description Cost
1705 2017 FORD F150 $ 45,000
1810 2018 FORD F150 45,000
1919 2020 FORD FUSION 32,007
2002 2020 FORD F150 24,143
1811 2018 FORD F350 52,000
2220 2022 FORD F150 45,476
2221 2022 FORD F250 (Scelzi) 62,597
1812 2018 FREIGHTLINER PATCH TRUCK - M2 ASHPHALT RIG 170,514 2206 2022 FORD F550 - BUCKET TRUCK 137,219
2406 1983 FORD F700 75,000
1914 2018 FREIGHTLINER M2 70,000
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 758,957
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 17.3 summarizes the planned maintenance equipment identified in the City's CIP. New maintenance equipment costs are estimated to total $493,000.

Table 17.3: Planned Maintenance Equipment
Project
No. Description Cost
R-27 Purchase Skid Steer Grader Attachment $ 40,000
R-29 Purchase Tandem Vibratory Roller 58,000
R-30 Purchase Thermoplastic Equipment 195,000
R-31 Purchase 12 -Yard Dump Truck 200,000
Total $ 493,000
Source: City of Beaumont Development Master Capital Improvement Ran.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 17.4 expresses the City's current maintenance equipment level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 17.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

92 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update adequate facilities to maintain the City's infrastructure. The planned facilities were identified in the City's most recent CIP.

Table 17.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker
$ 758,957
57,997
$ 13
$ 13
4 1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 17.1 and 17.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 17.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in maintenance equipment at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Table 17.5: Maintenance Equipment System
Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 758,957
Value of Planned Facilities 493,000
Total System Value (2040) $ 1,251,957
Future Service Population (2040) 87,120
Cost per Capita $ 14
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 14
Cost Allocation per Worker 4
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 17.1, 17.2 and 17.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use maintenance equipment fee revenues for the acquisition of vehicles and maintenance equipment that are part of the system of maintenance equipment serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 17.3.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

93 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned maintenance equipment and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 17.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $85,000 in non -fee funding will be needed to acquire the planned maintenance equipment.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned maintenance equipment. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table 17.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
Fee Revenue
$ 14
29,123
$ 407,722
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 493,000
Non -Fee Revenue to be Identified $ (85,278)
Sources: Tables 17.1, 17.3 and 17.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 17.7 shows the maximum justified maintenance equipment fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City 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, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

94 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 17.7: Maintenance Equipment Fee Schedule
Land Use
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge' 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 14 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 4 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 4 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 4 0.88
$ 45 $
$ 8 $
12 4
$ 45 $ 0.02
$ 8 $ 0.01
12 0.01
4 0.004
Fee per average sized dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 17.5.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

95 18. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. 66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study's compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service

1. For fees calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service. These fee categories are: parks, library, and storm drainage facilities. The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita is shown in each corresponding chapter.

2. For fees calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensure that the level of service does not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the transportation -related, sewer facilities and trails facility fees.

All projects included in these fees met the City's congestion level of service standards at the time they were added to the impact fee program. Impact fees charged under this program will serve to ensure that the LOS does not fall to unacceptable levels.

3. For the fees calculated under the system standard methodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the facility level of service. The fees calculated under this methodology are the recreation, fire, police, recycled water, general plan, emergency preparedness, road maintenance and public facility fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development's fair share of facilities identified either in the City's most recent CIP, or the City's prior development impact fee studies. New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of service represented by the planned facilities. The City will have to fund existing development's share of the increased level of service through any other funding source. Each chapter for facility fee categories that are increasing the level of service includes a table that shows the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita.
'WILLDAN
Financial Services

96 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 66016.5. (a) (4) - Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Willdan extensively reviewed the City's prior impact fee studies while conducting this fee analysis.

Notable this study differs from the 2017 study in several ways:

1. This study uses planning horizon of 2040 as opposed to General Plan Buildout. City staff felt that the 2040 projection from the General Plan was more realistic than full buildout.

2. Cost assumptions have been updated to current dollars. The costs in the 2017 study were considerably lower than current market costs for construction of new facilities and the acquisition of land.

3. This study made use of the most current project lists and inventories of existing facilities where relevant.

Table 18.1 displays an accounting of annual revenue collected over the last five fiscal years for the impact fees included in this analysis.

Table 18.1: Annual Collected Impact Fee Revenue
FY 2023 FY 2022 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2019
Traffic Signal $ 203,304 $ 179,998 $ 108,731 $ 410,093 $ 458,661 Railroad Crossing 285,267 242,393 118,918 116,231 2,046,624 Fire Facility 559,958 472,975 192,423 212,209 1,666,646 Public Facility 410,685 439,313 155,937 154,245 379,250 Emergency Prepardeness 883,168 831,471 277,521 272,086 1,056,153 General Plan 122,733 87,226 24,048 19,528 172,890
Recycled Water 989,499 1,382,581 278,089 305,184 675,314 Road and Bridge Benefit 2,372,543 2,411,075 994,344 990,955 5,070,240 Sewer Capacity 4,610,065 5,896,211 1,988,400 2,083,699 3,588,099 Recreational Facilities 533,042 847,938 243,318 259,139 459,551 Police Facilities 486,085 514,076 183,599 180,923 447,718 Community Park Development 1,041,296 968,166 480,154 311,733 1,788,402 Neighborhood Park Development 1,259,955 1,171,643 581,180 377,535 2,164,265 Total $ 13, 757, 600 $ 15,445, 066 $5,626,662 $5,693,561 $ 19, 973, 812 Source: City of Beaumont.
66016.5. (a) (5) - Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot for all fee categories and comply with AB 602.
66016.5. (a) (6) - Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities within each facility fee chapter. Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City's current adopted CIP, master plans and other relevant documents. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

97 19. 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 City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. The impact fee nexus study must first be adopted at a public hearing to comply with AB 602. That public hearing must be noticed at least 30 days in advance.

Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City's legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60 -day waiting period before the fees go into effect.

Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.

Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available.

Reporting Requirements
The City complies with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non -fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs.

The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.

The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City's facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly.
fWILLDAN
Financial Services

98 20. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.

The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.

The Mitigation Fee Act findings required to implement impact fees in California demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and a fee to fund facilities needed to serve that development. The term essential nexus refers to the relationship between new development and the need for facilities (and corresponding impact fees) to serve that development. The findings also require that this study demonstrates rough proportionality of the fees- meaning that the amount of the exaction must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government, resulting from the proposed development project. To ensure that fees are roughly proportional to from new development, this study first allocates facilities costs to new development using the allocation methods described in the preceding chapters, then to individual units of new development based on the demand characteristics of each unit.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act.

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

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

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

Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City's sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: parkland acquisition, neighborhood and community parks, storm drains, transportation facilities, sewer facilities, trails, recreation facilities, fire protection facilities, police facilities, public facilities, recycled water facilities, general plan updates, emergency preparedness facilities and maintenance equipment.

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).

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

A-99

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.

Burden Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable 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.

For transportation related facilities demand standards are based on trip generation by various categories of new development. For storm drainage facilities demand is based on impervious surface generated by development. For sewer and recycled water facilities demand is based on increased wastewater flow generated by new development.

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

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter.

Proportionality
• Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).

The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.

See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

100

Appendix
Table A.1: Beaumont Storm Drain Facilities Inventory
Total
Replacement
Material Quantity Unit Cost Cost
Structures
Inlets 32 $ 7,263 $ 232,425
Outlets 18 4,675 84,157
Catch Basins 240 5,239 1,257,445
Structures Subtotal 290 $ 1,574,027
Culverts by Shape
Arch CMP 2 $ 4,300 $ 8,600
CONC 2 35,100 70,200
Box CONC 15 31,740 476,100
RCP 1 21,100 21,100
Circular CMP 7 1,914 13,400
CONC 4 2,125 8,500
RCP 28 1,814 50,800
Round CONC 2 2,500 5,000
Misc. 6 5,317 31,900
Culverts Subtotal 67 $ 685,600
Pipes by Diameter
4" - 12" 13,495 $ 118 $ 1,592,410
15" 3,114 150 467,100
18" 58,207 209 12,165,263
21" - 24" 58,266 227 13,226,382
27" - 30" 46,899 237 11,115, 063
33" - 36" 58,798 250 14, 699, 500
42" - 48" 47,323 250 11, 830, 750
54" 11,242 250 2,810,500
60" - 66" 14,624 250 3,656,000
72" 5,425 374 2,028,950
>72" 6,326 439 2,777,114
Total 323,719 $ 76,369,032
Sources: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Bids); Willdan Financial Services.

AN/WILLDAN
Financial Services

A-1

CITY OF BEAUMONT

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS

STUDY UPDATE

REVISED FINAL
MAY 31, 2024
WFinancial Services
Oakland Office
66 Franklin Street
Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel: (510) 832-0899

WILLDAN
Corporate Office
27368 Via Industria
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
Tel: (800) 755-6864
Fax: (888) 326-6864
www.willdan.com
Other Regional Offices
Aurora, CO
Orlando, FL
Phoenix, AZ
Plano, TX
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC

This page intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
Background and Study Objectives 5
Facility Standards and Costs 6
Use of Fee Revenues 6
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 7
Other Funding Needed 7

1. INTRODUCTION 9
Public Facilities Financing in California 9
Study Objectives 9
Fee Program Maintenance 10
Study Methodology 10
Types of Facility Standards 11
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 11
Organization of the Report 12

2. GROWTH FORECASTS 14
Land Use Types 14
Existing and Future Development 14
Occupant Densities 16

3. PARK FACILITIES 18
Service Population 18
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory 18
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 19
Parkland and Park Facility Standards 20
Mitigation Fee Act 20
Quimby Act 20
City of Beaumont Parkland and Park Facilities Standards 21 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 21
Park Facilities Cost per Capita 23
Use of Fee Revenue 24
Fee Schedule 24

4. RECREATION FACILITIES 26
Service Population 26
Existing Recreation Facilities Inventory 26
Planned Recreation Facilities 27
Cost Allocation 27
Existing Level of Service 27
Future Level of Service 28
Use of Fee Revenue 28
Non -Fee Funding Required 28
Fee Schedule 29
/WILLDAN I
Financial Services

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

5. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES 30
Service Population 30
Facility Inventories and Standards 31
Existing Inventory 31
Planned Facilities 32
Cost Allocation 33
Existing Level of Service 33
Future Level of Service 34
Use of Fee Revenue 34
Non -Fee Funding Required 35
Fee Schedule 35

6. POLICE FACILITIES 37
Service Population 37
Facility Inventories and Standards 38
Existing Inventory 38
Planned Facilities 39
Cost Allocation 40
Existing Level of Service 40
Future Level of Service 40
Use of Fee Revenue 41
Non -Fee Funding Required 41
Fee Schedule 42

7. PUBLIC FACILITIES 43
Service Population 43
Facility Inventories and Standards 44
Existing Inventory 44
Planned Facilities 45
Cost Allocation 46
Existing Level of Service 46
Future Level of Service 46
Use of Fee Revenue 47
Non -Fee Funding Required 47
Fee Schedule 48

8. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 49
Trip Demand 49
Trip Growth 49
Project Costs 50
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 52
Fee Schedule 52

9. SEWER FACILITIES 54
Sewer Demand 54
EDU Generation by New Development 55
Facility Needs and Costs 55
Cost per EDU 60

WILLDAN
Financial Services
ii

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule 60

10. SEWER CAPACITY 62
Current Demand for Wastewater Treatment 62
Current Sewer System Asset Valuation 62
Adjusted System Valuation 63
Fee per Gallon per Day 63
Nonresidential Fee Schedule 64
1 1 . RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES 66
Recycled Water Demand 66
Planned Facilities 66
Cost per EDU 66
Fee Schedule 67

12. GENERAL PLAN 69
Service Population 69
Planned Costs 70
Facility Standard 71
Fee Revenue Projection 71
Fee Schedule 72

13. LIBRARY FACILITIES 74
Service Population 74
Existing Library Facilities 74
Planned Facilities 75
Cost Allocation 75
Existing Level of Service 75
Use of Fee Revenue 76
Fee Revenue Projection 76
Fee Schedule 76

14. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FACILITIES 78
Service Population 78
Planned Facilities and Standards 79
Planned Facilities 79
Cost Allocation 80
Future Level of Service 80
Use of Fee Revenue 80
Non -Fee Funding Required 80
Fee Schedule 81

15. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES 82
Storm Drain Demand 82
EDU Generation by New Development 82
Existing Inventory 83
Planned Facilities 83

WILLDAN
Financial Services
iii

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 84
Projected Fee Revenue 84
Fee Schedule 85

16. TRAILS 86
Service Population 86
Existing Trails Inventory 86
Planned Trails 87
Cost Allocation 87
Existing Level of Service 87
Future Level of Service 88
Use of Fee Revenue 88
Fee Revenue Projection 88
Fee Schedule 88

17. MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT FACILITIES 90
Service Population 90
Facility Inventories and Standards 91
Existing Inventory 91
Planned Facilities 92
Cost Allocation 92
Existing Level of Service 92
Future Level of Service 93
Use of Fee Revenue 93
Non -Fee Funding Required 94
Fee Schedule 94

18. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS 96
Compliance with AB 602 96
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 96
66016.5. (a) (4) — Review of Original Fee Assumptions 97 66016.5. (a) (5) — Residential Fees per Square Foot 97
66016.5. (a) (6) — Capital Improvement Plan 97

19. IMPLEMENTATION 98
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 98
Inflation Adjustment 98
Reporting Requirements 98
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 98

20. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS 99
Purpose of Fee 99
Use of Fee Revenues 99
Benefit Relationship 99
Burden Relationship 100
Proportionality 100
APPENDIX 1
itiVfWILLDAN
Financial Services
iv

Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Beaumont through 2040. It is the City's intent that the costs representing future development's share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
• Parks • Recycled Water
• Recreation Facilities • General Plan
• Fire Protection Facilities • Library District
• Police Facilities • Emergency Preparedness Facilities • Public Facilities • Storm Drain
• Transportation Facilities • Trails
• Sewer Facilities • Maintenance Equipment
• Sewer Capacity
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.

The City imposes public facilities fees 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 Mitigation Fee Act findings required to implement impact fees in California demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and a fee to fund facilities needed to serve that development. The term essential nexus refers to the relationship between new development and the need for facilities (and corresponding impact fees) to serve that development. The findings also require that this study demonstrates rough proportionality of the fees- meaning that the amount of the exactions must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government, resulting from the proposed development project. To ensure that fees are roughly proportional to demand for facilities from new development, this study first allocates facilities costs to new development using the allocation methods described below, then to individual units of new development based on the demand characteristics of each unit, by land use type. This is described in detail in each chapter and summarized in Chapter 20.

All development impact fee -funded capital projects should be programmed through the City's five- year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

5 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Facility Standards and Costs
There are several approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements.

The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development's fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non -impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development's fair share of planned facilities. This approach is used for the recreation, fire, police, recycled water, general plan, emergency preparedness, maintenance equipment and public facility fees in this report.

The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the transportation -related, sewer facilities and trails facility fees in this report.

The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City's existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City's annual capital improvement plan and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is to calculate the parks, library, and storm drainage facilities fees in this report.

The buy -in method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now and into the future. Under the buy -in methodology, new development "buys" a proportionate share of existing capacity at the current value of the existing facilities. This approach is typically used for utility fees, where existing facilities are built with excess capacity to serve future development. This approach is used for the sewer capacity fees in this report.

Use of Fee Revenues
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that this analysis "Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged."1 Each chapter in this report identifies the appropriate use of impact fee revenues for each particular impact fee category.

Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, infrastructure, 1 California Government Code §66001 (a) (2).

WILLDAN
Financial Services
6

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.

Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City's identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

E.1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule - per Square Foot Land Use
Residential Industrial/
Dwelling Industrial/ High -Cube
Unit Commercial Business Park Warehouse
Park Land In Lieu (Subdivisions)' $ 0.79 $ $
Park Land Acquisition (Non Subdivisions)2 0.77
Community Park Improvements 0.53
Neighborhood Park Improvements 0.59
Recreation Facilities 1.12
Fire Protection Facilities 0.38 0.47
Police Facilities 1.33 0.73
Public Facilities 0.60 0.33
Transportation Facilities 2.33 23.47
Sewer Facilities 2.57 1.34
Sewer Capacity3 4.72 1.80
Recycled Water 0.32 0.17
General Plan 0.02 0.01
Library District 0.15
Emergency Preparedness Facilities 0.01 0.004
Storm Drain 0.92 0.97
Trails 0.02
Maintenance Equipment 0.02 0.010
Total (Subdivisions) $ 16.42 $ 29.30 $
Total (Inn) $ 16.40 $ 29.30 $

0.68 1.06

0.48 10.61

0.99 3.33

0.12 0.02

0.006

0.75 0.010

0.19 0.30

0.14 6.17

2.06 2.29

0.26 0.01

0.002

0.97 0.004

18.06 $ 12.40

18.06 $ 12.40
Fee in lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act. z Fee for parkland acquisition charged under the Mitigation Fee Act. 3 "Corrrnercial medium strength" fee show n for commercial. "Industrial high strength" fee show n for industrial/business park. "Industrial low strength" fee shown for industrial/high cube warehouse. Refer to Table 10.5 for full sewer capacity nonresidential fee Sources: Tables 3.8, 4.7, 5.7, 6.7, 7.7, 8.5, 9.5, 10.4, 10.5, 11.3, 12.5, 13.6, 14.5, 15.6, 16.7 and 17.7.

Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Beaumont.

They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E.2, approximately $368.1 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. The "Additional Funding Required" column shows non -impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non -fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development.

The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
7

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table E.2: Non -Impact Fee Funding Required
Fee Category
Net Project Development
Cost Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Park Land
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Recreation Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Transportation Facilities
Sewer Facilities
Sewer Capacity
Recycled Water
General Plan
Library District
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Trails
Maintenance Equipment
Total
$ 15,223,304
10, 529, 000
11, 636, 000
62, 440, 220
12, 965, 326
73,182, 221
23, 345, 367
411, 690, 869
99, 764, 464
29, 432, 627
1,722,271
3,383,765
695,153
28,333,417
312,000
407,722
$ 785,063,725
$ 15, 223, 304
10, 529, 000
11, 636, 000
22, 230, 970
11,179, 035
32, 006,177
14, 386, 762
189, 032, 967
68, 858, 364
8,660,205
582,460
3,383,765
232,984
28,333,417
312,000
407,722
$ 416, 995,132
40, 209, 250
1,786,291
41,176, 044
8,958,605
222, 657, 902
30, 906,100
20, 772, 422
1,139,811
462,169
$ 368, 068, 593
1 No project costs show n. Capacity fee revenue is used to pay back City for excess capacity used to serve new development at WWTP.

Sources: Tables 3.5, 3.6, 4.6, 5.6, 6.6, 7.6, 8.3, 8.4, 9.3, 9.4, 11.2, 12.4, 13.5, 14.4, 15.6, 16.3 and 17.5.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
8

1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Beaumont. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
• Public Facilities Financing in California;
• Study Objectives;
• Fee Program Maintenance;
• Study Methodology; and,
• Organization of the Report.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 45 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;
• Unfunded state and federal mandates; and,
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.

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

Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Implementation Policy LUCD6 of the City's General Plan states "Development Fees. Update citywide development impact fees for infrastructure, affordable housing, other community benefits, and long range planning." The primary purpose of this report is to update the City's impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policy stated above.

The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act to demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and the impact fees needed to support that development. The findings demonstrate

W'WILLDAN
Financial Services

9 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update that the fees are proportional to demand for facilities from new development and are necessary to allow the City to adopt the fee schedules presented in this report.

Beaumont is forecast to have significant growth through this study's planning horizon of 2040.

This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Beaumont has decided to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and capital facilities planning documents to update the City's existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.

Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the California Construction Cost Index, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 19.

Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:

1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;

2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;

3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;

4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;

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

6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non -fee funding is required to complete projects.

The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

10 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
• Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. • Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City's facility design standards.
• Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.

This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.

There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:

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 = $/unit of demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.

The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.

Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy -based standard. The local agency must secure non -fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This approach is used for the recreation, fire, police, recycled water, general plan, emergency preparedness, maintenance equipment and public facility fees in this report.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

11 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:

Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long- range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.

This approach is to calculate the parks, library, and storm drainage facilities fees in this report.

Planned Facilities Method
= $/unit of demand
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 planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is a portion of a roadway that has been identified as necessary to mitigate the impact from new development through traffic modeling analysis. Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the transportation -related, sewer facilities and trails facility fees in this report. - $/unit of demand
Buy -In Method
The buy -in method is based on the value of the existing system's capacity. This method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now and into the future. Under the buy -in methodology, new development "buys" a proportionate share of existing capacity at the current value of the existing facilities.

The buy -in fee is determined by taking the current value of assets (replacement cost new, less depreciation) divided by the current capacity provided by the system. Responsibility for new capital improvements is then shared equally by all customers. A simplified version of the calculation equation is:

Present Value of Existing Facilities
= cost per unit of demand
Existing System Capacity
This approach is typically used for utility fees, where existing facilities are built with excess capacity to serve future development. This approach is used for the sewer capacity 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 growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

12 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Chapters 3 through 17 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
• Parks • Recycled Water
• Recreation Facilities • General Plan
• Fire Protection Facilities • Library District
• Police Facilities • Emergency Preparedness Facilities • Public Facilities • Storm Drain
• Transportation Facilities • Trails
• Sewer Conveyance • Road Maintenance Equipment
• Sewer Capacity
Chapter 18 describes how this study complies with the requirements of AB 602.

Chapter 19 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 20.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

13 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2023 base year and a planning horizon of 2040.

Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2023 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The estimate of total development at the 2040 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. • Estimates of growth from 2023 through 2040 are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.

The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.

Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Residential: All residential dwelling units. Fees charged per square foot of living space.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development. • Industrial/Business Park: All manufacturing and other industrial development. • Industrial/High Cube Warehouse: All warehouse and distribution center development
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed -use development with both residential and commercial uses. Another similar situation would be a warehousing facility that contains office space. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type included within the building.

The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project's characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use.

Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Beaumont, both in 2023 and in 2040. The base year estimates of residents and dwelling units come from the California Department of Finance. The projection of future residents in 2040 comes from Figure 5.2 of the City's General Plan. The projection of total dwelling units in 2040 was estimated based on the increase in dwelling units needed to accommodate 80,000 residents in 2040 at the current occupant densities of 3.28 residents per single family unit and

2.70 residents per multifamily unit, based on data for Beaumont from the American Community Al/WI LLDAN
Financial Services

14 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Survey. This assumes that approximately 74.4% of all units will be single family units based on ratio of single family to multifamily units at buildout identified in Table 3.2b of the General Plan.

Base year employees were estimated based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau's Antheap Application. Estimated building square feet in 2023 was calculated based on the current employment count and density factors in Table 2.2.

Building square feet at buildout identified in Table 3.2b of the General Plan were reduced by approximately 17.6% corresponding with the proportion of dwelling unit growth needed to house 80,000 residents by 2040 compared to buildout dwelling units.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

15 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions
2023 2040 Increase
Residents' 56,070 80,000 23,930
Dwelling Units 2
Single Family 16,583 19,008 2,425
Multifamily 2,136 6,539 4,403
Total 18,719 25,547 6,828
Employment 3
Commercial 3,800 12,389 8,589
Industrial/Business Park 1,085 2,242 1,157
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,330 8,336 7,006
Total 6,215 22,968 16,753
Building Square Feet (000s) 4
Commercial 1,792 5,844 4,052
Industrial/Business Park 352 728 376
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,511 9,473 7,962
Total 3,656 16,045 12,389
1 Current household population from California Department of Finance. Total population in 2040 identified in General Plan Figure 5.2.
2 Current values from California Department of Finance. Rojection of total dw elling units in 2040 estimated based on the increase in dw elling units needed to accommodate 80,000 residents in 2040 at the current occupant densities of 3.28 residents per single family unit and 2.70 residents per multifamily unit, based on data for Beaumont from the American Community Survey. Assumes that approximately 74.4% of all units w ill be single family units based on ratio of single family to multifamily units at buildout identified in Table 3.2b of the General Ran.
3 Current estimates of primary jobs from the US Census' OnTheMap. Rojection based on projected building square feet in 2040 below , multiplied by employment densities from Table 2.2.
4 Estimated building square feet in 2023 calculated based on employment count and density factors in Table 2.2. Building square feet at buildout identified in Table 3.2b of the General Ran reduced by approximately 17.6% corresponding with the proportion of dwelling unit growth needed to house 80,000 residents by 2040.

Sources: California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2023; City of Beaumont, California Final General Ran, 2020; OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. The densities ensure that the fee per unit of new development is roughly proportional to the demand for facilities from various types of development.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

16 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.

The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factor was calculated using the most recent data from the American Community Survey specifically for the City of Beaumont. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition for commercial and industrial/business park land uses. The occupancy density factor for industrial/highOcube warehouse uses was calculated based on data provided by the City for use in this analysis.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential - All Units 3.22 Residents per dwelling unit Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial/Business Park 3.08 Employees per 1,000 square feet Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 0.88 Employees per 1,000 square feet Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITETrip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

17 3. Park Facilities
The purpose of the park facilities impact fee is to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of park facilities per capita. Fee revenue would be used to expand the provision of parks to meet demand from future development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for City parks from the projected increase in residents and the additional parks needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the City's existing ratio of park acres to residents, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit. A fee in -lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act is also included in this chapter.

Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in Beaumont primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City's residential population. Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park facilities.

Table 3.1: Park Facilities Service
Population
Residents
Census (2020)
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
53,036
56,070
23,930
80,000
Source: Table 2.1.

Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory
The City of Beaumont maintains several parks throughout the city. Table 3.2 summarizes the City's existing parkland inventory in 2023. All facilities are owned by the City. In total, the inventory includes a total of 154.27 acres of City -owned parkland.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

18 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.2: Park Land Inventory
Developed
Name Acres
Community Parks
Beaumont Sports Park
Stewart Park
Subtotal
Neighborhood Parks
Aspen Creek Park
De Forge Park
Fallen Heroes Park
Mickelson Park
Mountain View Park
Nicklaus Park
Palmer Park
Rangal Park
Seneca Springs Park
Shadow Hills Park
Stetson Park
Sundance Bowl
Sundance PA 51
Sunny Hills Park
Three Rings Ranch Park
Trevino Park
Veteran's Park
Wild Flower Park
Subtotal

22.66 13.21

35.87 1.18

15.10 16.61

6.68 5.00

18.06 3.62

1.58 2.14

3.90 11.82

16.51 1.40

0.32 6.02

5.36 0.13

2.97 118.40
Total 154.27
Source: City of Beaumont.

Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 3.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Beaumont. The cost of improving a acre of community and neighborhood parkland with standard park improvements is based on the assumed cost of park improvements from the City's prior impact fee study, adjusted for inflation into 2023 dollars. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. In total, this analysis assumes that it costs $847,200 to acquire and develop an acre of community parkland and $438,600 to acquire and develop an acre of neighborhood parkland, respectively, in Beaumont.

At/WILLDAN
Financial Services

19 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Community Neighborhood
Parks Parks
Standard Park Improvements
Land Acquisition
Total Cost per Acre
$ 628,600 $ 220,000
218,600 218,600
$ 847,200 $ 438,600
Sources: City of Beaumont; CoStar; Willdan Financial Services.

Parkland and Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded parkland and park facilities. Information regarding the City's existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.

The most common measure in calculating new development's demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act (using a city's existing inventory of parkland and park facilities), or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.2 In this case, the City will use the Mitigation Fee Act to impose park impact fees for development not occurring in subdivisions and will use the Quimby Act for development occurring in subdivisions.

Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to existing development.3 In this case, the fees will be set to maintain the City's existing parkland standard of acres per 1,000 residents.

Quimby Act
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three -acre minimum if the jurisdiction's existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).

The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction's adopted general or specific plan standards.

The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.

The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund the acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated. 2 California Government Code §66477.
3 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Background Report.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

20 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update The Quimby Act allows use of in -lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.

Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements, and rehabilitation of existing parks.

City of Beaumont Parkland and Park Facilities Standards Table 3.4 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. Once accounting for impact fee fund balances, the City has an existing parkland standard of 2.91 acres per 1,000 residents, which is less than the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The impact fee analysis in this report will be based on maintaining the City's 2.91 acre per 1,000 resident standard as new development adds demand for parks in Beaumont. Fees in -lieu of land dedication for subdivisions are calculated at the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. Note that the existing improvement standard is allocated to community and neighborhood parkland, respectively.

Table 3.4: Park Standards
Community Neighborhood
Parks Parks
Total
Developed Park Acreage
Fund Balance Equivalent
Total Park Acres
Existing Service Population (2023)
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)
Quimby Act Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)

35.87 118.40

3.52 5.57

39.39 123.97
56,070 56,070

0.70 2.21
154.27
163.36
56,070

2.91 3.00
1 Existing community and neighborhood park fund balance divided by cost per acre from Table 3.3 to determine equivalent park acres, respectively.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 3.5 shows the park improvements needed to accommodate new development at the existing acre per 1,000 resident standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, new residential development must fund the improvement of 16.75 community park acres and 52.89 neighborhood park acres, at a total cost of $22.2 million.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

21 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.5: Park Improvements to Accommodate New Development Calculation Community Neighborhood
Total
Park Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 0.70 2.21
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040) B 23,930 23,930 Facility Needs (acres) c =Ax B/1000 16.75 52.89
Average Unit Cost (per acre)
Total
D $ 628,600 $ 220,000
E=CxD $ 10,529,000 $ 11,636,000

2.91 69.64
$ 22,165,000
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.

Table 3.6 shows the park land needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard and Quimby standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, new development must fund the acquisition of between 69.64 and 71.79 parkland acres, at a total cost ranging between $15.2 and $15.7 million.

The facility standards and resulting fees under the Quimby Act are higher because development will be charged to provide 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 2.91 acres of improvements, whereas development not subject to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide only 2.91 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 2.91 acres of improvements. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 3.6 presents the range of total land costs that may be incurred depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

22 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.6: Park Land to Accommodate New Development
Calculation Parkland Total Ranger
Subdivisions
Parkland Dedication In -Lieu (Quimby Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 3.00
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040) B 23,930
Facility Needs (acres) C =A x B/1000 71.79
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 218,600
Total - Subdivisions2
E=CxD $ 15,693,294
Non -Subdivisions
Parkland Acquisition (Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 2.91
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040) B 23,930
Facility Needs (acres) C =Ax B/1000 69.64
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 218.600
Total - Infill3
E=CxD $ 15,223,304
1 Values in this column show the range of the cost of parkland acquisition and development should all development be either subject to the Quimby Act, or to the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. 2 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Quimby Act (Subdivisions of 50 units or more). Fee in -lieu of parkland dedication charged at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. 3 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Acquisition fee charged at the existing standard.

Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.

Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 3.7 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the existing facility standard, and at the Quimby standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of four fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of land dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition. This fee is payable by residential and nonresidential development not occurring in subdivisions. • A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for neighborhood park improvements. This fee is payable by all development.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for community park improvements. This fee is payable by all development.

A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, not both. All development projects pay both Mitigation Fee Act fees for park improvements.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

23 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.7: Cost per Capita
Land
Mitigation
Calculation Quimby Fee OR Fee Act Fee
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 218,600 $ 218,600
Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 3.00 2.91
Total Cost per 1,000 capita C=axe $ 655,800 $ 636,126
Cost per Resident D= C//,000
$ 656 $ 636
Improvements
Community Neighborhood
AND Parks Parks
$ 628,600 $ 220,000

0.70 2.21
$ 440,020 $ 486,200
$ 440 $ 486
Sources: Tables 3.3 and 3.4.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use parkland and park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.

Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per capita basis for both land acquisition and improvement. These cost factors (shown in Table 3.7) are cost per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards. The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

Table 3.8 shows the maximum justified park fees based on the Quimby Act standard and based on the existing park standards under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

24 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.8: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB
Base
Feel
D=Cx0.01
Admin
Charge1' 2
Total Fee
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Subdivisions
Parkland
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Total
Non -Subdivisions
Parkland
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Total
$ 656 3.22 $ 2,112 $ 21 $ 2,133 $ 0.79
440 3.22 1,417 14 1,431 0.53
486 3.22 1,565 16 1,581 0.59
$ 1,582 $ 5,094 $ 51 $ 5,145 $ 1.91
$ 636 3.22 $ 2,048 $ 20 $ 2,068 $ 0.77
440 3.22 1,417 14 1,431 0.53
486 3.22 1,565 16 1,581 0.59
$ 1,562 $ 5,030 $ 50 $ 5,080 $ 1.89
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.7.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services

25 4. Recreation Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new recreation facilities demanded by new development. A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of recreation facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new recreation facilities from the projected increase in residents and the additional recreation facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit.

Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in Beaumont primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City's residential population. Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for recreation facilities.

Table 4.1: Recreation Facilities
Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070

23.930
80,000
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of Beaumont owns a community recreation center. Table 4.2 summarizes the City's existing recreation facilities inventory. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. In total, the City owns approximately $11.9 million in recreation facilities.

Table 4.2: Existing Recreation Facilities
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Community Recreation Center - Land
Community Recreation Center - Building
Total Value - Existing Facilities

3.20 acres $ 218,600 $ 699,520
24,857 sq. ft. 450 11,185,650
$ 11, 885,170
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.
wWILLDAN
Financial Services

26 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Planned Recreation Facilities
The City has planned several recreation facilities to serve new development. Included in the plans are both expansions to existing facilities and the new construction of facilities. In total, the City has identified $66.9 million worth of new recreation facilities to serve existing and new development, net of existing fund balances. Table 4.3 details the City's planned recreation facilities.

Table 4.3: Planned Recreation Facilities
Cost
Overflow Parking Lot Lighting at the CRC $ 224,400
CRC Improvement Project 150,000
Community Center 48,439,900
Splash Pads (3) 4,450,000
Gym 11,676,400
Total $ 64,940,700
Less Existing Fund Balance 2,500,480
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 62,440,220
Source: City of Beaumont FY24 Capital Improvement Plan.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 4.4 expresses the City's current recreation facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 4.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City can fund the planned recreation facilities identified in Table 4.3.

Table 4.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Resident
$ 11, 885,170

56.070
$ 212
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.3.
7WILLDAN
Financial Services

27 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Future Level of Service
Table 4.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in recreation facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

Table 4.5: Recreation Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities
Cost of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (2040)
$ 11, 885,170
62, 440, 220
$ 74, 325, 390
Future Service Population (2040) 80,000
Cost per Resident
$ 929
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use recreation facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are part of the system of recreation facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 4.3.

Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned recreation facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 4.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $40.2 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned recreation facilities. The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

28 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 4.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
$ 929
23,930
Fee Revenue $ 22,230,970
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified
62, 440, 220
$ (40,209,250)
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 4.7 shows the maximum justified recreation facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City 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, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 4.7: Recreation Facilities Fee - System Standard
Land Use
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Capita Density Base Feel Charge' 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 929 3.22
$ 2,991 $ 30
$ 3,021 $ 1.12
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.5.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

29 5. Fire Protection Facilities
The purpose of the fire impact fee is to fund the fire facilities needed to serve new development.

A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of fire facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new fire protection facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional fire protection facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
Fire facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses. The service population used to determine the demand for fire facilities includes both residents and workers.

Table 5.1 shows the current fire facilities service population and the estimated service population at the planning horizon of 2040.

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 0.69 factor is consistent with the factor used by Riverside County in its development impact fee study, as the City of Beaumont is part of the Riverside County fire protection service area. The worker weighting factor used in the Riverside County study was based on an analysis of call data response by land use type, which indicated varying levels of demand for fire protection services between residential and nonresidential land uses. 'WILLDAN
Financial Services

30 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.1: Fire Facilities Service Population
A B
Weighting
Persons Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070 1.00
23,930 1.00
80,000
6,215 0.69
16,753 0.69
22,968
56,070

23.930
80,000
4,288

11.559
15,847
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
60,358

35.489
95,847
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.69 of residents to be consistent w ith Riverside County's development impact fee analysis.

Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's fire facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
Table 5.2 summarizes the City's current inventory of land, apparatus and vehicles. Fire protection services are provided from two stations located throughout the City. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. The replacement cost for the station buildings is based on the City's recent fire station construction costs. The replacement costs of vehicles and apparatus were provided by the City for use in this analysis.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

31 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.2: Existing Fire Facilities Land and Building Inventory Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Fire Station 66 - 628 Maple Avenue
Land 0.36 acres $ 218,600 $ 77,785
Station 6,425 sq. ft. 827 5,314,359
Subtotal $ 5,392,144
Fire Station No. 106
Land 1.59 acres 218,600 $ 347,574
Station 10,760 sq. ft. 827 8,900,000
Subtotal $ 9,247,574
Vehicles
2004 Ford F550 $ 65,000
2022 Hyundai Santa Fe 40,000
2023 SUBARU CROSSTEK 30,848
Spartan Quint TDA Truck 2,205,647
Squad 282,449
Subtotal $ 2,623,944
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 17,263,662
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 5.3 summarizes the planned facilities needed to serve the City through 2040, consistent with the City's prior development impact fee study. Primarily, the City plans to build two new fire stations. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $13 million through 2040, net of existing impact fee fund balances.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

32 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.3: Planned Fire Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Fire Station 66 Plumbing System Improvement Project
Fire Station 66 Apparatus Bay Improvements
$ 108,000
162,000
New Station: N of I -10/E of Beaumont Av
Land 1.59 acres $ 218,600 $ 347,574
Building 10,760 sq. ft. 827 8,900,000
Subtotal $ 9,247,574
New Station: S of l -10/E of Beaumont Av
Land 1.59 acres $ 218,600 $ 347,574
Building 10,760 sq. ft. 827 8,900,000
Subtotal $ 9,247,574
Total
Less Existing Fund Balance
$ 18, 765,148
5,799,822
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 12,965,326
Source: City of Beaumont FY24 Capital Improvement Plan.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 5.4 expresses the City's current fire facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only. Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 5.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has an adequate fire response time throughout the City.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

33 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker'
$ 17,263,662
60,358
$ 286
$ 286
197
1 Based on the weighing factor of 0.65.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 5.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in fire protection facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.69 to determine the value per worker.

Table 5.5: Fire Protection Facilities System
Standard
Value of Existing Facilities
Value of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (2040)
$ 17,263,662
12, 965, 326
$30,228,988
Future Service Population (2040) 95,847
Cost per Capita $ 315
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 315
Cost Allocation per Worker' 217
1 Based on the w eighing factor of 0.69.

Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use fire facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles, apparatus and fire protection equipment that are part of the system of fire facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 5.3.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

34 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned fire protection facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 5.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $1.8 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned fire protection facilities. The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned fire protection facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table 5.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
$ 315
35,489
Fee Revenue $ 11,179,035
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified
12, 965, 326
$ 1,786,291
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 5.7 shows the maximum justified fire facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).

The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City 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, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

35 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.7: Fire Protection Facilities Fee Schedule
A B E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Fee per
Land Use Ca ita Densi Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 315 3.22 $ 1,024 $ 0.38
p
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 217 2.12 $ 460 $ 5 $ 465 $ 0.47
Industrial/Business Park 217 3.08 668 7 675 0.68
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 217 0.88 191 2 193 0.19
tY
$ 1,014 $ 10
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.5.

Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services

36 C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge'' 2

6. Police Facilities
The purpose of the police impact fee is to fund the police facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the system plan standard of police facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new police facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional police facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
Police facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.

Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for police facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

37 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.1: Police Facilities Service Population
A B
Weighting
Persons Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070 1.00
23,930 1.00
80,000
6,215 0.31
16,753 0.31
22,968
56,070

23.930
80,000
1,927

5.193
7,120
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
57,997

29.123
87,120
1 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 (40/128 = 0.31) Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's police facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
This study uses the system plan methodology to calculate fees for police facilities. Police services in the City of Beaumont are presently based out of two facilities. Table 6.2 summarizes the City's current inventory of police land, buildings and vehicles. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. The unit cost assumption for the replacement cost of buildings is based on a survey of recent police facility construction costs from several other jurisdictions in California 2023. 7WILLDAN
Financial Services

38 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.2: Existing Police Facilities Inventory
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Land
Police Department - 660 Orange Avenue 1.94 acres $218,600 $ 424,084 Police Department Annex Building - 1580 E. 8th Street 0.08 acres 218,600 16,837 Subtotal $ 440,921
Buildings
Police Department - 660 Orange Avenue
Police Department Annex Building - 1580 E. 8th Street
Subtotal
10,780 sq. ft.
3,355 sq. ft.
$ 1,408 $ 15,178,240
1,408 4,723,840
$ 19,902,080
Vehicles
Explorer Interceptor 27 vehicles $ 49,186 $ 1,328,022
Prius 1 vehicles 42,525 42,525
Fusion 1 vehicles 30,000 30,000
Tahoe 7 vehicles 44,922 314,454
Escape 2 vehicles 26,360 52,720
Model Y 1 vehicles 55,290 55,290
Model 3 1 vehicles 41,290 41,290
Rav4 2 vehicles 32,526 65,052
Sienna 1 vehicles 50,800 50,800
M2 1 vehicles 52,500 52,500
F150 1 vehicles 50,427 50,427
Malibu 5 vehicles 21,051 105,255
Subtotal 50 $ 2,188,335
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 22,531,336
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 6.3 summarizes the planned police facilities needed to serve the City through 2040. The City plans to design and construct a new police station, including land acquisition and radio upgrades. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $73.2 million through 2040, net of existing impact fee fund balances.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

39 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.3: Planned Police Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New Police Station Design
New Police Station Construction
New Police Land Acquisition
Total Cost of Planned Facilities
Less Existing Fund Balance
$ 1,500,000
51,000 Sq. Ft. $ 1,408 71,808,000
8 Acres 218,600 1,748,800
$ 75, 056, 800
1,874,579
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 73,182,221
Source: City of Beaumont FY24 Capital Improvement Flan; City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study, 2017; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 6.4 expresses the City's current police facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 6.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has adequate facilities to provide police services to the City.

Table 6.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker
$ 22,531,336
57,997
$ 388
$ 388
120
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 6.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in police facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services