Agenda packet — Beaumont City Council, October 1, 2024 (part 7 of 9)

62 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New City Hall'
Land for New City Hall
New Corporate Yard Building
Land for Corporate Yard
Total
Less Existing Fund Balance
25,000 Sq. Ft. $ 532
2 Acres 218,600
20,000 Sq. Ft. 500
6 Acres 218,600
$ 13, 300, 000
437,200
10, 000, 000
1,311,600
$ 25,048,800
1,703,433
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 23,345,367
1 Unit cost from 2017 Development Imapct 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.

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. wWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 953 of 1299 ends

63 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 7.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
$ 19, 656, 558
57,997
$ 339
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker' 105
$ 339
1 Based on a weighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.3.

Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker'
$ 924,678
57,997
$ 16
$ 16
5 'Based on a weighing 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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 954 of 1299 ends

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

Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.

Value of Existing Facilities $ 924,678
Value of Planned Facilities 23,345,367
Total System Value (Buildout) $24,270,045
Future Service Population (Buildout) 105,790
Cost per Capita $ 229
Cost Allocation per Resident
Cost Allocation per Worker' 71
$ 229
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 20'10buildout. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $912.4 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned public facilities.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 955 of 1299 ends

65 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 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.

Cost per Capita $ 229
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Revenue
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue to be Identified
$ 10, 944, 524
23, 345, 367
$ (12,400,843)
Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.3 and 7.4.

Fee Schedule
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. See the Administrative Costs section of Chapter 1 for a discussion of this assumption.

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 ovcncqad charge applied to all City programs for (1) legal, accounting, and other departmental and 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 See the Administrative Costs section of the base fee adequately covers the costChapter 1 for a discussion of fee program

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 956 of 1299 ends

66 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update administration. Impact fcc program cots 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 perccnt to calculatc the administrativc chargcassumption.

Table 7.7: Public Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge1' 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 494 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 153 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 153 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 153 0.88
$ 1,591 $ 16
$ 324 $ 3
471 5
135 1
$ 1,607 $ 0.60
$ 327 $ 0.33
476 0.48
136 0.14
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.
'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 7.5.

Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=CxO.01
Admin
Base Feet Charge1' 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 229 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 71 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 71 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 71 0.88
$ 737 $ 7
$ 151 $ 2
219 2
62 1
$ 744 $ 0.28
$ 153 $ 0.15
221 0.22
63 0.06
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.
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 7.5.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 957 of 1299 ends

67 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.

Fee Structure Changes
The City currently charges three transportation -related impact fees: streets and bridges, traffic signals and railroad crossings. Going forward this analysis will combine the streets and bridges fee and traffic signals fees into a single impact fee category, which will also be known as the streets and bridges impact fee. Existing fund balances in each of the existing three funds must be spent for the purpose they were collected. The City will establish a new streets and bridges fee fund that can be spent on any of the projects in the streets and bridges project list shown later in this chapter.

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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 958 of 1299 ends

68 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 8.1: Trip Demand Factors
ITE Category
PM Peak
Pass -by Hour
Trips1 Trips2
Adjusted
Trip Rate
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial
Single Family Housing (210)
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (220)
A B C=(1-A)xB
0% 0.99
0% 0.57
Shopping Center (820) 34% 4.09

0.99 0.57

2.70 Industrial/Business Park
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Business Park (770)
High -Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse
(156)
0% 1.22 1.22
0% 0.71 0.71
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 dwelling 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.

ITE Category
PM Peak
Pass -by Hour
Trips1 Trips2
Adjusted
Trip Rate
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial
Industrial/Business Park
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse3
A B 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) 34% 4.09 2.70
Business Park (770) 0% 1.22 1.22
High -Cube Transload, Fulfilment
Center, Parcel Hub, Cold Storage 0% 0.32 0.32
Warehouse (154, 155, 156, 157)
1 Percent of total trips. A pass -by trip is made as an intermediate stop on the w ay 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 fTETrip Generation Handbook data.
2 Trips per dw elling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. 'Average trip rate for all high -cube warehouse uses identified in ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

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

Trip Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is 2040.General Plan buildout. Table 8.2 lists the 2023 and 2040buildout land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated in Table 8.1 are multiplied by the existing and future dwelling units and building square feet to determine the increase in trips caused by new development.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 959 of 1299 ends

69 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Subtotal
Total

2.70 1,792 4,840 4,052 10,939 5,844 15,779

1.22 352 430 376 458 728 888

0.71 1,511 1,073 7,962 5,653 9,473 6,726
3,656 6,343 12,389 17,050 16,045 23,393
23,978 21,960 45,938

52.2% 47.8% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.1.

Land Use
Trip 2023
Demand Units/
Factor 1,000 SF Trips
Buildout
Units/
1,000 SF Trips
Total - Buildout
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Subtotal
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 2.70 1,792 4,840 5,304 14,320 7,096 19,160
Industrial/Business Park 1.22 352 430 532 649 884 1,079 Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 0.32 1,511 484 9,991 3,197 11,502 3,681 Subtotal 3,656 5,754 15,827 18,166 19,483 23,920

0.99 16,583 16,417 6,498 6,433 23,081 22,850

0.57 2,136 1,218 5,804 3,308 7,940 4,526
18,719 17,635 12,302 9,741 31,021 27,376
Total
23,389 27,907 51,296

45.6% 54.4% 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 (47.854A%). 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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 960 of 1299 ends

70 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 961 of 1299 ends

71 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 8.3: Planned Facilities
Project No. Project Title
Less Allocation to Cost Allocated to
Total Project Alternative Net Project New New
Cost Funding Cost Development Development
Streets and Bridges
2019-009 2nd Street Extension Feasibility / Design $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 47.8% $ 95,600 R-01 Oak Valley Pkwy Expansion 110 -Desert Lawn Phase 2 600,000 - 600,000 47.8% 286,800 R-12 2nd Street Extension Construction 4,800,000 - 4,800,000 47.8% 2,294,400 2016-003 Potrero Interchange- Phase 11 72,546,000 54,000,000 18,546,000 47.8% 8,864,988 2017-027 Oak Valley/I-10 Interchange Design 85,000,000 11,660,000 73,340,000 47.8% 35,056,520 2017-001 Pennsylvania Interchange 85,000,000 85,000,000 47.8% 40,630,000 R-37 Beaumont Avenue/1-10 Interchange Project 125,000,000 5,869,000 119,131,000 47.8% 56,944,618 Highland Springs (Beaumont Share) 60,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 47.8% 14,340,000 Subtotal $ 433,146,000 $ 101,529,000 $ 331,617,000 $ 158,512,926 Traffic Signals
R-02 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 1 $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 47.8% $ 71,700 R-11 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 2 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R-13 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 3 274,400 - 274,400 47.8% 131,163 R25-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY25 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R26-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY26 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R27-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY27 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R28-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY28 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R-34 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY24 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 Subtotal $ 1,324,400 $ $ 1,324,400 $ 633,063
Railroad
2017-012
Subtotal
Pennsylvania Ave/UPR Grade Separation
California URP Grade Separation'
$ 73,700,000 $ 8,678,556 $ 65,021,444 47.8% $
100,000,000 70,000,000 30,000,000

47.8%
31, 080, 250
14, 340, 000
$ 173,700,000 $ 78,678,556 $ 95,021,444 $ 45,420,250
'Assumes 70% of this project w ill be funded with grants.

Source: Qty of Beaumont Master CIP; Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services. /WILLDAN
Financial Services
72

Page 962 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Project No. Project Title
Less Allocation to Cost Allocated to
Total Project Alternative Net Project New New
Cost Funding Cost Development Development
Streets and Bridges
R-01 Oak Valley Pkwy Expansion 110 -Desert Lawn Phase 2 $ 600,000 $ $ 600,000 54.4% $ 326,400 R-12 2nd Street Extension Construction 4,800,000 4,800,000 54.4% 2,611,200 2017-027 Oak Valley/I-10 Interchange Design 85,000,000 11,660,000 73,340,000 54.4% 39,896,960 2017-001 Pennsylvania Interchange 85,000,000 85,000,000 54.4% 46,240,000 R-37 Beaumont Avenue/1-10 Interchange Project 125,000,000 5,869,000 119,131,000 54.4% 64,807,264 Highland Springs (Beaumont Share) 60,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 54.4% 16,320,000 R-02 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 1 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R-11 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 2 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R-13 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 3 274,400 - 274,400 54.4% 149,274 R25-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY25 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R26-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY26 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R27-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY27 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R28-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY28 150,000 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R-34 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY24 150,000 150,000 54.4% 81,600 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location 600,000 600,000 54.4% 326,400 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location 600,000 600,000 54.4% 326,400 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location 600,000 600,000 54.4% 326,400 Citywide Traffic Signal System Upgrade 2,000,000 2,000,000 54.4% 1,088,000 Subtotal $ 365,524,400 $ 47,529,000 $ 317,995,400 $ 172,989,498 Railroad
2017-012
Subtotal
Pennsylvania Ave/UPR Grade Separation
California URP Grade Separation'
$ 73,700,000 $ 8,678,556 $ 65,021,444
100,000,000 70,000,000 30,000,000
$ 173,700,000 $ 78,678,556 $ 95,021,444

54.4% $ 35,371,666

54.4% 16,320,000
$ 51,691,666
1 Assumes 70% of this project w ill be funded w ith grants.

Source: Qty of Beaumont Master CIP; Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services. /WILLDAN
Financial Services
73

Page 963 of 1299 ends

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 fcc fund balances arc sufficicnt to fund the allocated sharc 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
$ 158,512,926 $
12, 090, 363
$ 146,422,563 $
Growth in Trip Demand (2023 to 2040) 21,960
Cost per Trip $ 6,668 $
633,063 $
1,371,766
45, 420, 250
2,809,846
42, 610, 404
21,960 21,960
1,940
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.

Streets and Railroad
Bridges Crossings
Costs Allocated to New Development
Less Existing Fund Balance'
$ 172,989,498 $
13,462,129
51,691,666
2,809,846
Net Costs Allocated to New Development $ 159,527,369 $ 48,881,819 Growth in Trip Demand (2023 to Buildout)
Cost per Trip
27,907 27,907
$ 5,716 $
1,752
1 Fund balance shown for streets and bridges fee includes $12,090,363 from the streets and bridges impact fee fund and $1,371,766 from the traffic signals impact fee fund. These fund balances must be spent on the purpose they w ere collected for. Going forw and a new streets and bridges fund w ill be established that w ill include traffic signals costs. Fee revenue deposited in that fund can be spent on the streets and bridges projects listed in Table 8.3.

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. /WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 964 of 1299 ends

74 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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 (1) legal, accounting, and other departmental and 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 See the Administrative Costs section of the base fee adequately covers the costChapter 1 for a discussion of fee program administration. Impact fcc 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 perccnt to calculatc the administrativc chargoassumption.

Table 8.5: Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
A B
Trip
Cost Per Demand
Trip Factor
C=AxB D=CxO.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge1' 2
E=C+D E/1,000
Fee
per Sq.

Total Feel Ft.

Road and Bridge
Residential Dwelling Unit
$ 6,668 0.72
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 6,668 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 6,668 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 6,668 0.71
Railroad Crossings
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 1,940 0.72
$ 4,801 $ 48
$ 18,004 $ 180
8,135 81
4,734 47
$ 1,397 $ 14
$ 4,849 $ 1.80
$ 18,184 $ 18.18
8,216 8.22
4,781 4.78
$ 1,411 $ 0.53
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1,940 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 1,940 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,940 0.71
$ 5,238 $ 52
2,367 24
1,377 14
$ 5,290 $ 5.29
2,391 2.39
1,391 1.39
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 repo ting, and fee justification analyses.
'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.
° Average trip demand factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single fanily and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 965 of 1299 ends

75 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Land Use
A 8
Trip
Cost Per Demand
Trip Factor
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge1' 2
E=C+D E/1,000
Fee
per Sq.

Total Feel Ft.

Streets and Bridges
Residential Dwelling Unit
$ 5,716 0.79
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 5,716 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 5,716 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 5,716 0.32
Railroad Crossings
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 1,752 0.79
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1,752 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 1,752 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,752 0.32
$ 4,516 $ 45
$ 15,433 $ 154
6,974 70
1,829 18
$ 1,384 $ 14
$ 4,730 $ 47
2,137 21
561 6
$ 4,561 $ 1.70
$ 15,587 $ 15.59
7,044 7.04
1,847 1.85
$ 1,398 $ 0.52
$ 4,777 $ 4.78
2,158 2.16
567 0.57
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 '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.
/WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 966 of 1299 ends

76 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
DU or 1,000 Sq.

Equivalent
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. /WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 967 of 1299 ends

77 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 2040buildout.

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 7,76713,422 new EDUs through 2040buildout, comprising 2-9:441.9% of sewer demand in the City at that time.

Table 9.2: Sewer Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units
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 1.00 16,583 16,583
Multifamily 0.65 2,136 1,388
Subtotal 18,719 17,971
Nonresidential - per 1, 000
2,425 2,425
4,403 2,862
6,828 5,287
19,008 19,008
6,539 4,250
25,547 23,258
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

70.6%
7,767

29.4%
26,394
100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 9.1.

Land Use
2023
EDU Units /
Factor 1,000 SF EDUs
Buildout
Units/
1,000 SF EDUs
Total - Buildout
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 16,583 16,583
Multifamily 0.65 2,136 1,388
Subtotal 18,719 17,971
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.15 1,792 269
Office 0.11 352 39
Industrial 0.23 1,511 348
Subtotal 3,656 656
Total 18,627

58.1%
6,498 6,498
5,804 3,773
12,302 10,271
5,304 795
532 58
9,991 2,298
15,827 3,151
13,422

41.9%
23,081 23,081
7,940 5,161
31,021 28,242
7,096 1,064
884 97
11,502 2,646
19,483 3,807
32,049
100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 9.1.
wWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 968 of 1299 ends

78 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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 2021 Wastewater Master 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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 969 of 1299 ends

79 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
LOV-P1 Future Capacity Increase
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
Lift Station Replacement
UOV P2 Existing Capacity Deficiency
UOV-P3 Future Capacity Increase
UOV-LS
Subtotal
Olivet/mod Lift Station Tributary Area
O -P1 Future Capacity Increase
O -LS Lift Station Replacement
FM -1 Oak ValleyBk1 Embankment Stabilization
Subtotal
Brookside Avenue (New) Lift Station Tributary Area
Existing
Diameter New/
(in) Replace
15 Replace
- Replace
Lift Station Replacement
BR -P1 New Capacity
BR-FM1 New Force Main
BR -LS New Lift Station
Subtotal
New
New
New
8 Replace
8 Replace
12 Replace
Replace
10 Replace
- Replace
New
New
New
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
$ 2,491,100
$ 2,613,200
656,400
951,500
1,005,300
Allocation to Cost Allocated
Dew to Existing
Development Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
100% $ $ 202,500
0% 2,003,600
$ 2,003,600 $ 202,500
100% $
100%
100%
- $ 2,578,300
2,578,300
1,404, 000
100% $
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
0%
- $ 6,560,600
- $ 109,200
97,400
5,449,800
898,300
$ 5,547,200 $ 1,007,500
$ - $ 170,300
1,540,800
780,000
$ 2,320,800 $ 170,300
100% $ - $ 656,400
100% 951,500
100% 1,005,300
$ 2,613,200
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastewater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont. /WILLDAN
Financial Services
80

Page 970 of 1299 ends

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 Beaumont Mesa Lift Station Tributary Area
BM -P1 New Capacity New $ 768,200 100% $ - $ 768,200
BM -P2 New Capacity New 498,700 100% - 498,700
BM -P3 New Capacity New 844,400 100% - 844,400
BM-FM1 Force Main Design and Pump Design New 450,000 100% - 450,000 BM-FM1 New Force Main New 4,000,000 100% - 4,000,000
BM -LS Pump Replacement/Addition Construction New 750,000 100% - 750,000 BM -WW Wet Well Design New 400,000 100% - 400,000
BM -WW New Wet Well New 4,000,000 100% - 4,000,000
Subtotal $ 11,711,300 $ $ 11,711,300
Beaumont Crossroads (New) Lift Station Tributary Area
BC -P1 New Capacity New $ 1,122,900 100% $ $ 1,122,900
BC -P2 New Capacity New 680,900 100% 680,900
BC -P3 New Capacity New 134,900 100% 134,900
BC -P4 New Capacity New 558,800 100% 558,800
BC -P5 New Capacity New 413,100 100% 413,100
BC-FM1 New Force Main New 5,378,500 100% 5,378,500
BC-FM2 New Force Main New 3,090,000 100% 3,090,000
BC -LS New Lift Station New 7,099,100 100% 7,099,100
Subtotal $ 18,478,200 $ $ 18,478,200
Marshall Creek Lift Station Tributary Area
MC -LS Lift Station Replacement Replace $ 3,331,200 0% $ 3,331,200 $ Industrial Park Lift Station Tributary Area
IP-P1 Future Capacity Increase 8 Replace $ 148,100 100% $ $ 148,100 IP-P2 Future Capacity Increase 8 Replace 148,100 100% - 148,100 IP-LS Lift Station Replacement - Replace 1,005,300 0% 1,005,300 Subtotal $ 1,301,500 $ 1,005,300 $ 296,200
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastewater Master Plan, 2021; City of Beaumont. */WI LLDAN
Financial Services
81

Page 971 of 1299 ends

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-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 R/O 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 Wastewater Master Flan, 2021; City of Beaumont. */WI LLDAN
Financial Services
82

Page 972 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Type of
Improv. No. Improvement
Four Seasons Lift Station Tributary Area
FS -P1 Future Capacity Increase
FS -P2 Future Capacity Increase
FS -P3 Future Capacity Increase
FS -P4 Pipe Slope Reconstruction
FS -P5 Future Capacity Increase
FS -P6 Future Capacity Increase
FS -LS Lift Station Replacement
Subtotal
Gravity Portion of Wastewater Collection System
S. Beaumont Ave South Future Gravity M;
S. California Ave South Future Gravity Ma
S. Veile Ave Future Gravity Main
S. Olive Ave Future Gravity Main
Oak Valley Parkway Cravity Main Capacit
Orange St Future Gravity Main
Brookside Ave Future Gravity Main
Oak Valley Pkwy (11-10 to Desert Lawn) Fi
E. Desert Lawn Future Gravity Main
Existing
Diameter
(in)
Capital
New/ Improvement
Replace Cost ($)
10 Replace $ 397,300
10 Replace 210,900
12 Replace 305,500
12 Replace 32,500
15 Replace 587,600
10 Replace 23,400
Replace 3,941,100
$ 5,498,300
21 New $ 350,000
12 New 250,000
12 New 150,000
12 New 75,000
12 Replace 100,000
15 New 140,000
15 New 300,000
12 New 150,000
8 New 50,000
Subtotal
Mobile Equipment
Combination Vacuum Truck with Overhead Boom
Chase pickup truck outfitted with underground equipmer
Subtotal
Other Wastewater System Improvements
Lift Station Condition Assessment
CCTV Program
On -going Pipeline Replacement Program
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
Future WWTP Energy Cost Reduction Program
Subtotal
Total
New
New
$ 1,565,000
$ 750,000
60,000
$ 810,000
$ 3,600,000
300,000
4,800,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
$ 12,200,000
$ 104,889,600
Allocation to Cost Allocated
Dew to Existing
Development Development
100% $
100% -
100% -
0% 32,500
100% -
100%
0% 3,941,100
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
$ 397,300
210,900
305,500
587,600
23,400
$ 3,973,600 $ 1,524,700
100% $
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
- $ 350,000
250,000
150,000
75,000
100,000
140,000
300,000
150,000
50,000
100% $
100%
- $ 1,565,000
- $ 750,000
60,000
0% $
0%
0%
0%
0%
- $ 810,000
3,600,000 $
300,000
4,800,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
$ 12,200,000 $ -
$ 30, 906,100 $ 73, 983, 500
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont. */WI LLDAN
Financial Services
83

Page 973 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Type of
Improv. No. Improvement
Lower Oak Valley Lift Station Tributary Area
LOV-P1 Future Capacity Increase
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 Future Capacity Increase
O -LS Lift Station Replacement
FM -1 Oak ValleyBlvd Embankment Stabilization
Subtotal
Brookside Avenue (Net/0 Lift Station Tributary Area
BR -P1 New Capacity
BR-FM1 New Force Main
BR -LS New Lift Station
Subtotal
Lift Station Replacement
Existing
Diameter New/
(in) Replace
15 Replace
Replace
8 8
12 New
New
New
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
10 Replace
- Replace
New
New
New
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
$ 2,491,100
$ 656,400
951,500
1,005,300
$ 2,613,200
Allocation to
Dew
Development
Cost Allocated
to Existing
Development
100% $
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
- $ 202,500
0% 2,003,600
$ 2,003,600 $ 202,500
100% $
100%
100%
- $ 2,578,300
2,578,300
1,404, 000
$ - $ 6,560,600
100% $ - $ 109,200
0% 97,400 -
100% - 898,300
0% 5,449,800 -
$ 5,547,200 $ 1,007,500
100% $ - $ 170,300
0% 1,540,800 -
0% 780,000 -
$ 2,320,800 $ 170,300
100% $ - $ 656,400
100% - 951,500
100% - 1,005,300
$ - $ 2,613,200
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastewater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont. */WI LLDAN
Financial Services
84

Page 974 of 1299 ends

Page 975 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Type of
Improv. No. Improvement
Wastewater Treatment Plant
WWTP-P 1
WWTP-P2
WWTP-P3
WWTP-P4
WWTP-P5
WWTP-P18
WWTP-P19
WWTP-P2-
WWTP-P21
Subtotal
Four Seasons
FS -P 1
FS -P2
FS -P3
FS -P4
FS -P5
FS -P6
FS -LS
Subtotal
Future Capacity Increase
Existing Capacity Deficiency
Future Capacity Increase
Future Capacity Increase
Future Capacity Increase
Future Capacity Increase
Future Capacity Increase
Future Capacity Increase
Future Capacity Increase
Aeration Basin No. 5 Future Capacity Increase
Fine Screens Basin Facility Future Capacity Increase
Centrifuge Future Capacity Increase
Membrane Future Capacity Increase
RIO Rack Future Capacity Increase
OCSD Capacity Fee Increase
Future Storage Building
Existing
Diameter
(in)
12 12
12 24
30 10
10 12
24 Lift Station Tributary Area
Future Capacity Increase
Future Capacity Increase
Future Capacity Increase
Pipe Slope Reconstruction
Future Capacity Increase
Future Capacity Increase
Lift Station Replacement
10 10
12 12
15 10
New/
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Capital Allocation to
Improvement Dew
Cost ($) Development
Cost Allocated Cost Allocated
to Existing to New
Development Development
$ 138,000 100% $
206,700 0%
138,000 100%
924,000 100%
992,500 100%
39,000 100%
54,600 100%
916,300 100%
1,314,100 100%
1,400,000 100%
600,000 100%
1,500,000 100%
1,500,000 100%
1,500,000 100%
743,000 100%
450,000 41.9%
$ 12,416,200 $
$ 397,300 100% $
210,900 100%
305,500 100%
32,500 0%
587,600 100% -
23,400 100% -
3,941,100 0% 3,941,100
$ 5,498,300 $ 3,973,600 $ 1,524,700
- $ 138,000
206,700
261,450
138,000
924,000
992,500
39,000
54,600
916,300
1,314,100
1,400,000
600,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
743,000
188,550
468,150 $ 11, 948, 050
$ 397,300
210,900
305,500
587,600
23,400
32,500
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastewater Master Plan, 2021; City of Beaumont. */WI LLDAN
Financial Services
86

Page 976 of 1299 ends

Page 977 of 1299 ends

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

Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.

Cost Allocated to New Development $ 39,532,250
Growth in EDUs (2023 to Buildout) 13,422
Cost per EDU $ 2,945
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for sewer facilities is shown in 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. See the Administrative Costs section of Chapter 1 for a discussion of this assumption.

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 aria one percent (1%) 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, and (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with thc share of projccts funded by thc facilities fcc, and (3) fee impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. \nWiudaals a .,ith i act fee ., ent See the Administrative Costs section of Chapter 1 for a discussion of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fcc program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of /WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 978 of 1299 ends

88 City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative chargcassumption.

Table 9.5: Maximum Justified Sewer Facilities Fee Schedule A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/Average
Cost Per EDU Base Admin Fee per
EDU Factor Feel Charge' 2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4 $ 8,866 0.77 $ 6,827 $ 68 $ 6,895 $ 2.57 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
$ 1,330 $ 13
975 10
2,039 20
$ 1,343 $ 1.34
985 0.99
2,059 2.06
' 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.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.4.

A B
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
C=Axe D=CxO.01
Base Admin
Fee' Charge'' 2
Residential Dwelling Unit4 $ 2,945 0.83 $ 2,444 $
E = C + D E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee' Sq. Ft.3
24 $ 2,468 $ 0.92
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 2,945 0.15 $ 442 $ 4 $ 446 $ 0.45
Industrial/Business Park 2,945 0.11 324 3 327 0.33
Industrial/High-Cube Ware 2,945 0.23 677 7 684 0.68
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.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.4.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 979 of 1299 ends

89 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 /WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 980 of 1299 ends

90 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
Depreciation Replacement Cost
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 Sewer 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. */WI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 981 of 1299 ends

91 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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 982 of 1299 ends

92 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)
Fee per 1,000
Sq. Ft.

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(FIow sou) 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 D(Fiow EDu)) F 0.09 0.03 0.02 Total Capacity Fee $1,166 $365 $272
Commercial High Strength
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 sou)) 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(FIow EDU)) 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 EDu)) F 0.07 0.15 0.05 Total Capacity Fee $874 $1,863 $590
$1,562
$1,803
$3,653
$2,292
$3,327
Sources: Tables 9.1 and 10.4.

WI LLDAN
iii Financial Services

Page 983 of 1299 ends

93 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 2040at buildout to determine a cost per EDU. Table 11.2 displays this calculation. Total EDUs in 20,10 bat buildout /WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 984 of 1299 ends

94 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update are used for this calculation 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.

Total Cost of Recycled Water Projects $ 29,432,627
Total EDUs at Buildout 32,049
Cost per EDU $ 918
New Development EDUs 13,422
Projected Fee Revenue $ 12,321,396
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 ar+a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a sta, lard overhead chiargc plied to all City for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support; and (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with thc share of projccts funded by thc facilities fcc, and (3) fee impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Im W,I rs--exper-ienGe with act fee n ent See the Administrative Costs section of Chapter 1 for a discussion of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fcc 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 i es one nercenl to eaIeuloto Oho adm'nictratiye nhargeaSSumption. wWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 985 of 1299 ends

95 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 Feel Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4
$ 1,115 0.77
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1,115 0.15
Industrial/Business Park 1,115 0.11
Industrial/High Cube Warehouse 1,115
0 23
$ 859 $ 9
$ 167 $ 2
123 1
256 3
$ 868 $ 0.32
$ 169 $ 0.17
124 0.12
259 0 26
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.
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.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dwelling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 11.2.

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 Feel Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4
$ 918 0.83
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 918 0.15
Industrial/Business Park 918 0.11
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 918 0.23
$ 762 $ 8
$ 138 $ 1
101 1
211 2
$ 770 $ 0.29
$ 139 $ 0.14
102 0.10
213 0.21
1 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.
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.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dwelling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 11.2.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 986 of 1299 ends

96 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 20'10.buildout of the City's General Plan. 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.
/WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 987 of 1299 ends

97 City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Table 12.1: General Plan Service Population
A
Persons
B
Weighting
Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 56,070

1.00 56,070
New Development 23,930

1.00 23,930
Total (2040) 80,000
80,000
Workers
Existing (2023) 6,215

0.31 1,927
New Development 16,753

0.31 5 193
Total (2040) 22,968
7,120
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
57,997
New Development
29,123
Total (2040)
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.

A
Persons
B
Weighting
Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
56,070 1.00
41,074 1.00
97,144
6,215 0.31
21,675 0.31
27,890
56,070
41,074
97,144
1,927
6,719
8,646
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
57,997
47,793
105,790
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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 988 of 1299 ends

98 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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.

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 Plan 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 Bement 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 20'IObuildout by the total service population in 20/Mat buildout. 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
Cost Allocation per Worker' 6
$ 20
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 12.1 and 12.2.
wWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 989 of 1299 ends

99 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost of Planning Studies $ 1,722,271
Future Service Population (Buildout) 105,790
Cost per Capita $ 16
Cost Allocation per Resident
Cost Allocation per Worker' 5
$ 16
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$957,588 in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the studies.

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
$ 20
29,123
$ 582,460
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 1,722,271
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (1,139,811)
Sources: Tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 990 of 1299 ends

100

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost per Capita $ 16
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Revenue
$ 764,683
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 1,722,271
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (957,588)
Sources: Tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3.

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 (1) legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support; and (2) impact 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, and fee justification analyses.

See the Administrative Costs section of the base fee adequately covers the costChapter 1 for a discussion of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one current practice, this study -us esono norc n+ +„ c -al late +ho a m'ni trativo nharnoassumption.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 991 of 1299 ends

101

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 12.5: Advanced Planning Maximum Justified Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
A 8 C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Capita Density Base Feet Charge1' 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
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 12.3.

Land Use
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge1' 2
E=C+D
Total Fee
F = E/Average
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 16 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 5 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 5 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 5 0.88
$ 52 $ 1
$ 53 $ 0.02
$ 11 $ 0.01
15 0.02
4 0.004
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.
'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 12.3.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 992 of 1299 ends

102

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
Reside nts
Residents
Outside of City Library District
Limits Total
Existing (2023) 56,070
New Development 23,930
9,455 65,525
4,035 27,965
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 grows.

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

City of
Beaumont
Residents
Residents
Outside of City Library District
Limits' Total
Existing (2023) 56,070 9,455 65,525
New Development 41,074 6,926 48,000
Total (Buildout) 97,144 16,381 113,525
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 grows.

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

Page 993 of 1299 ends

103

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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.

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
' 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 20'IDbuildout.

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 $3.15_8 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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 994 of 1299 ends

104

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Facilities
Facility Increase Demanded
Standard per in by New
Resident Residents Development Unit Cost Total Cost
Library Building Square Feet 0.1786 48,000 8,571 $ 550 $ 4,714,050 Collections 0.8922 48,000 42,824 25 1,070,600
Public Computer Stations 0.0001 48,000 6 2,000 12,000
Total $ 5,796,650
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.

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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 995 of 1299 ends

105

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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.

Cost per Capita $
Growth in Service Population in District
(2023 to Buildout)
121
48,000
Projected Fee Revenue $ 5,807,961
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 (1) legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support; and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
n Wih_oilkl �_rl�n per'onro h i npadt too nrnnram� nno norron+ See the Administrative Costs section of the base fee adequately covers the costChapter 1 for a discussion of fee program collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study i s ono p rcen+toe lc Flote +ho adm'ni trativo rhargeassumption.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 996 of 1299 ends

106

City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Table 13.6: Libra
Land Use
rY
Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Capita Density Base Fee' Charge'' 2 Total Fee' Sq. Ft.3 Residential Dwelling Unit $ 121 3.22
$ 390 $ 4
$ 394 $ 0.15
1 FPe 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 dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 13.4.

Land Use
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Fee' Charge'' 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Feel 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 dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 13.4.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 997 of 1299 ends

107

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. /WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 998 of 1299 ends

108

City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Table 14.1: Emergency Preparedness Facilities Service Population A
Persons
B
Weighting
Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
56,070

1.00 56,070
New Development
23,930

1.00 23,930
Total (2040)
80,000
80,000
Workers
Existing (2023)
6,215

0.31 1,927
New Development
16,753

0.31 5 193
Total (2040)
22,968
7,120
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
57,997
New Development
29,123
Total (2040)
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.

A
Persons
B
Weighting
Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
56,070 1.00
41,074 1.00
97,144
6,215 0.31
21,675 0.31
27,890
56,070
41,074
97,144
1,927
6,719
8,646
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
57,997
47,793
105,790
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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 999 of 1299 ends

109

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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.

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.

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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1000 of 1299 ends

110

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 14.3: Emergency Preparedness Facilities —
System Standard
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (2040)
$ 695,153
$ 695,153
Future Service Population (2040) 87,120
is per -pita
Cost Allocation per Resident
Cost Allocation per Worker' 2
$ 8
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 14.1 and 14.2.

Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (Buildout)
$ 695,153
$ 695,153
Future Service Population (Buildout) 105,790
Cost per Capita $ 7
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 7
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 20i10buildout. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $'162,000$360,604 in non - fee funding will be needed to complete the planned emergency preparedness facilities.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1001 of 1299 ends

111

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 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.

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.

Cost per Capita $ 7
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Revenue
$ 334,549
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 695,153
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (360,604)
Sources: Tables 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3.

Fee Schedule
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. See the Administrative Costs section of Chapter 1 for a discussion of this assumption.

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 (1) legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1002 of 1299 ends

112

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Im Wil rs--expe-rience vw#h—i-mpact fee grams n ent See the Administrative Costs section of the base fee adequately covers the costChapter 1 for a discussion of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two p ent of this study
i s nno percent to Gatc -I to Oho adm'niotratye nhorgeassumption.

Table 14.5: Emergenc
y
Preparedness Facilities 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 Charge1' 2 Total Fee 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 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.
'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 14.3.

Land Use
Residential Dwelling Unit
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
$ 7 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 2 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 2 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 2 0.88
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge1' 2
$ 23 $
$ 4 $
6 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
$ 23 $ 0.01
$ 4 0.004
6 0.006
2 0.002
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.
'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 14.3.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1003 of 1299 ends

//3

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 20'10buildout.

New development will generate approximately 6,49711,752 new EDUs, representing 2639.5 percent of total storm drain demand in 2040at buildout. /WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1004 of 1299 ends

114

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 1.00 16,583 16,583
Multifamily 0.31 2,136 662
Subtotal 18,719 17,245
Nonresidential - per 1, 000
2,425 2,425
4,403 1,365
6,828 3,790
19,008 19,008
6,539 2,027
25,547 21,035
Commercial 0.22 1,792 394 4,052 892 5,844 1,286
Office 0.17 352 60 376 64 728 124
Industrial 0.22 1,511 333 7,962 1,751 9,473 2,084
Subtotal 3,656 787 12,389 2,707 16,045 3,494
Total 18,032

73.5%
6,497

26.5%
24,529
100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 15.1.

Land Use
2023
EDU Units /
Factor 1,000 SF EDUs
Buildout
Units/
1,000 SF EDUs
Total - Buildout
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 16,583 16,583 6,498 6,498 23,081 23,081 Multifamily 0.31 2,136 662 5,804 1,799 7,940 2,461
Subtotal 18,719 17,245 12,302 8,297 31,021 25,542
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

60.5%
5,304 1,167 7,096 1,561
532 90 884 150
9,991 2,198 11,502 2,531
15,827 3,455 19,483 4,242
11,752

39.5%
29,784
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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1005 of 1299 ends

/15

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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.

Table 15.4: Preliminary Planned Storm Drain Facilities
Total Project
CIP No. Description 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 Wastewater 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
Existing EDUs
$ 78,628,659
18,032
Cost per EDU
$ 4,361
Sources: Tables 15.2 and 15.3.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1006 of 1299 ends

116

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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.

Cost per EDU $ 4,361
Projected Growth in EDUs 11,752
Projected Fee Revenue $ 51,250,472
Preliminary Planned Facility Costs $ 6,513,000
Additional Facilities To Be Identified $ 44,737,472
Sources: Tables 15.2 and 15.5.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for storm drain facilities is shown in 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, revenues and cost accountings mandated public reporting and fee justification analyses. See the Administrative Costs section of Chapter 1 for a discussion of this assumption. wWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1007 of 1299 ends

//7

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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 (1) legal, accounting, and other departmental —and —administrative support; and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenues and cost accounting and, mandated public reporting- ., Wilidan experience with impact fee p one percen+ and fee justification analyses.

See the Administrative Costs section of the base fee adequately covers the costChapter 1 for a discussion of fee administr ;--Impact fee r eests t tally —range f om—^one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with thc City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate thc administrative charg assumption.

Table 15.7: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/Average
Cost Per EDU Base Admin Fee per
EDU Factor Feel Charge' 2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4
$ 4,361 0.56 $ 2,442 $ 24 $ 2,466 $ 0.92
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 4,361
Industrial/Business Park 4,361
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 4 361

0.22 0.17

0.22 $ 959 $ 10
741 7
959 10
$ 969 $ 0.97
748 0.75
969 0.97
1 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.
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 dwelling unit weighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 15.1 and 15.4.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1008 of 1299 ends

118

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update A B
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Base Admin
Fee' Charge'°Z
E = C + D E / Average
Fee per
Total Feel Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4
$ 4,361 0.67
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
$ 2,922 $ 29
$ 959 $ 10
741 7
959 10
$ 2,951 $ 1.10
$ 969 $ 0.97
748 0.75
969 0.97
1 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.
'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 EDU factor per residential dwelling unit weighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 15.1 and 15.4.
wWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1009 of 1299 ends

119

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

Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
56,070
41,074
97,144
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.
/WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1010 of 1299 ends

120

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 Porten) Walking Trail 3,300 linear feet 78 257,400
Total 39,850 linear feet $ 3,108,300
1 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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1011 of 1299 ends

/21

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)
$ 312,000
23,930
Cost per Resident
$ 13
Sources: Tables 16.1 and 16.3.

Cost of Planned Facilities
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout)
Cost per Resident
$ 312,000
41,074
$ 8
Sources: Tables 16.1 and 16.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use trails fee revenues for the construction or purchase of trails, 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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1012 of 1299 ends

/22

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule
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. See the Administrative Costs section of Chapter 1 for a discussion of this assumption.

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.

Table 16.6: Trails Fee
Land Use
--System-Standard
A 8 C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Capita Density Base Fee' Charge' 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 13 3.22
$ 42 $
$ 42 $ 0.02
1 Fae per a\/eraga sizad dw elling 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 dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 16.4.

Land Use
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Capita Density Base Fee' Charge'' 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 8 3.22
$ 24 $
$ 24 $ 0.01
1 Fee per average sized dw elling 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 dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 16.4.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1013 of 1299 ends

/23

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 planplanned facilities 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.
/WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1014 of 1299 ends

124

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) 56,070

1.00 56,070
New Development 23,930

1.00 23,930
Total (2040) 80,000
80,000
Workers
Existing (2023) 6,215

0.31 1,927
New Development 16,753

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1015 of 1299 ends

/25

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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.

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. wWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1016 of 1299 ends

126

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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 incr scd the City's shown in Table 17.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has - adequate facilities to maintain the City's infrastructure. The planned facilities were identified in the City's most rcccnt (SID
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 weighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 17.1 and 17.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 17.5 shows new development's projectedcost per capita investment in maintenance equipment atneeded to fully fund the planning horizon.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 existing and planned facilities by the serviccincrease in population at the planning horizon The vaiueresulting cost per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per workerdrives the fee calculation.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1017 of 1299 ends

/27

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

Sources: Tables 17.1, 17.2 and 17.3.

Cost of Planned Facilities $ 493,000
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Cost per Capita $ 10
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 10
Cost Allocation per Worker' 3
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 17.1 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.

Non Fee Funding RequiredRevenue Projection
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 reg ,;rod throe gh 2040 Af+e.- accounting fo.- 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 existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants. wWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1018 of 1299 ends

128

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 47 6: Rev ue Projec - System Standard
crei�u�rrvJcr. vrrccnTvcmTa'arcr
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.

The City plans to use maintenance equipment facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of maintenance equipment to serve new development. The City plans to acquire the facilities in Table 17.3. By using the planned facilities cost allocation method, the cost of the planned facilities is equal to the projected impact fee revenue for this facility category.

Table 17.6 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 (1) legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support; and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Wil rsexperience with impact fee ograms n ent See the Administrative Costs section of the base fee adequately covers the costChapter 1 for a discussion of fee program administration. Impact fce 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 on& pefcenl to calru Clot& +h& ad m'nictratiye nharg&assumption.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1019 of 1299 ends

129

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 17.6: Maintenance Equipment Fee Schedule
Land Use
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feet Charge1' 2
E=C+D
Total Fee
F = E / Average
Fee per
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
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 17.5.

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

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 10 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 3 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 3 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 3 0.88
$ 33 $
$ 6 $
9 3
$ 33 $ 0.01
$ 6 $ 0.01
9 0.01
3 0.003
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.
'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 17.4.
wWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1020 of 1299 ends

130

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, fire facilities, maintenance facilities, and trails facility fees. AllTransportation 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. For the fire, maintenance facilities and trails fees, the planned facilities represent a lower level of service than current exists, so new development can fully fund the identified facilities. The sewer facilities needed to serve new development were identified in the City's Wastewater Master Plan as necessary to serve new development at an acceptable level of service.

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 /WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1021 of 1299 ends

131

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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.
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 a planning horizon of 2040 as opposed to General Plan Buildout y staff felt that, which has been updated based on the 2010 projcction from thcCity's 2020 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 DewIopment 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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1022 of 1299 ends

/32

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.
/WILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1023 of 1299 ends

133

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

Page 1024 of 1299 ends

A-134

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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1025 of 1299 ends

135

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.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

Page 1026 of 1299 ends

A-1

Table 1: Residential Development Impact Fee Schedule Scenarios Land Use
Maximum
Current Maximum Maximum Justified Fee
Equivalent Fee Justified Fee Justified Fee Schedule
Schedule (per Schedule (May Schedule (August (Priority Trans. Year 1 of 4 -Year Square Foot)1 31, 2024 Report) 19 Draft) Projects) Phase in Park Land In Lieu (Subdivisions)2 $ 0.81 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 Park Land Acquisition (Non Subdivisions)3 0.81 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Community Park Improvements 0.78 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
Neighborhood Park Improvements 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Recreation Facilities 0.30 1.12 0.93 0.93 0.46
Fire Protection Facilities 0.26 0.38 0.28 0.28 0.27
Police Facilities 0.23 1.33 0.87 0.87 0.39
Public Facilities 0.19 0.60 0.28 0.28 0.21
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee 1.03 1.80 1.70 0.99 1.20
Traffic Signal Impact Fee 0.11 - -
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee 0.12 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.22
Sewer Facilities4 0.18 2.57 0.92 0.92 0.37
Sewer Capacity 2.41 4.72 4.72 4.72 2.99
Recycled Water 0.29 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.29
General Plan 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Library District - 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.04
Emergency Preparedness Facilities 0.27 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Storm Drains - 0.92 0.55 0.55 0.14
Trails - 0.02 0.01 0.01 -
Maintenance Equipment 0.02 0.01 0.01
Total (Subdivisions) $ 7.60 $ 16.42 $ 13.17 $ 12.46 $ 8.52 Total (Inn) $ 7.60 $ 16.40 $ 13.15 $ 12.44 $ 8.50
1 Assumes 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit.
2 Fee in lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act. 3 Fee for parkland acquisition charged under the Mitigation Fee Act. 4 Current fee show n is average fee per EDU for Area of Benefit sew er fees. 5 Maximum Justified Fee Schedule (August 19 Draft) is show n at on 50% of the maximum justified fee per staff recommendation.

DRAFT for Discussion Only
August 19, 2024

Page 1027 of 1299 ends

Table 2: Commercial Development Impact Fee Schedule Scenarios Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Maximum
Justified Fee
Schedule (May
31, 2024 Report)
Maximum
Justified Fee
Schedule (August
19 Draft)
Maximum
Justified Fee
Schedule Year 1 of 4 -Year
(Priority Trans. Phase in
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Commercial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Commercial Medium Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Commercial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain4
Maintenance Equipment
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with Medium Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.26 $

0.14 0.12

3.43 0.38

0.41 0.15

0.24 0.80

0.92 1.86

0.05 0.22

0.47 $

0.73 0.33

18.18 5.29

1.34 0.17

1.56 1.80

3.65 0.01

0.004

0.97 0.01

6.20 $

6.32 $

7.26 $

0.34 $

0.48 0.15

15.59 4.78

0.45 0.14

1.56 1.80

3.65 0.01

0.004

0.49 0.01

29.06 $

29.30 $

31.15 $

24.00 24.24

26.09 0.34 $

0.48 0.15

9.09 4.78

0.45 0.14

1.56 1.80

3.65 0.01

0.004

0.49 0.01

17.50 17.74

19.59 0.28

0.23 0.13

6.47 1.50

0.23 0.14

0.99 1.14

2.31 0.01

0.004

0.12 10.10

10.25 11.42
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EE 4 Maximum Justified Fee Schedule (August 19 Draft) is show n at on 50% of the maximum justified fee per staff recommendation.

DRAFT for Discussion Only
August 19, 2024

Page 1028 of 1299 ends

Table 3: Industrial/Business Park Development Impact Fee Schedule Scenarios Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Maximum
Justified Fee
Schedule (May
31, 2024 Report)
Maximum
Justified Fee
Schedule (August
19 Draft)
Maximum
Justified Fee
Schedule
(Priority Trans. Year 1 of 4 -Year
Projects) Phase in
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain4
Maintenance Equipment
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.22 $

0.09 0.08

2.36 0.26

0.28 0.11

0.18 1.17

1.69 0.05

0.22 0.68 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.29

1.06 0.69 0.69 0.24

0.48 0.22 0.22 0.12

8.22 7.04 4.11 3.53

2.39 2.16 2.16 0.75

0.99 0.33 0.33 0.17

0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10

2.29 2.29 2.29 1.45

3.33 3.33 3.33 2.10

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.75 0.38 0.38 0.10

0.01 0.01 0.01 -

5.02 $

5.54 $

17.02 $

18.06 $

13.75 14.79

10.82 $ 6.78

11.86 $ 7.43
Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 1.0. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 1.0. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EE 4 Maximum Justified Fee Schedule (August 19 Draft) is show n at on 50% of the maximum justified fee per staff recommendation.

DRAFT for Discussion Only
August 19, 2024

Page 1029 of 1299 ends

Table 4: Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse Development Impact Fee Schedule Scenarios Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Maximum
Justified Fee
Schedule (May
31, 2024 Report)
Maximum
Justified Fee
Schedule (August
19 Draft)
Maximum
Justified Fee
Schedule Year 1 of 4 -Year
(Priority Trans. Phase in
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain4
Maintenance Equipment
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.16 0.05

0.05 0.33

0.04 0.04

0.15 0.24

1.17 1.69

0.05 0.22

0.19 $

0.30 0.14

4.78 1.39

2.06 0.26

2.29 3.33

0.01 0.00

0.97 0.00

2.50 $

3.02 $

0.14 $

0.20 0.06

1.85 0.57

0.68 0.21

2.29 3.33

0.00 0.00

0.49 0.003

12.40 $

13.44 $

6.50 7.54

0.14 $

0.20 0.06

1.08 0.57

0.68 0.21

2.29 3.33

0.00 0.00

0.49 0.003

5.73 6.77

0.14 0.09

0.05 0.71

0.17 0.28

0.21 1.45

2.10 0.00

0.00 0.12

3.23 3.88
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EL 4 Maximum Justified Fee Schedule (August 19 Draft) is show n at on 50% of the maximum justified fee per staff recommendation.

DRAFT for Discussion Only
August 19, 2024

Page 1030 of 1299 ends

UFI
August 6, 2024
Jennifer Ustation
Finance Director
City of Beaumont
550 East 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Financial Solutions
Re: Review of Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (dated May 31, 2024) In 2024, the City of Beaumont (City) retained Willdan Financial Services to update the City's Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (Nexus Study) in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (section 66000 et. seq. of the California Government Code) and other applicable laws. The central purpose of the Nexus Study is two -fold: (1) to analyze the impacts of new development on public facilities and other capital assets needed by the City to provide municipal services, and (2) to calculate fees based on that analysis that offset the costs of the facility impacts from new development. The Nexus Study documents the data, procedures and methodologies used in the impact analysis and fee calculations. The overall policy objective of the Nexus Study is to establish a public facilities program that ensures new development pays the capital costs associated with growth.

In July 2024, the City requested Urban Futures, Inc. (UFI) perform a review of the final version of the Nexus Study, dated May 31, 2024. As confirmed with the City, the scope of UFI's engagement is to conduct an independent, third -party assessment and validation of the procedural and methodological approaches used in the Nexus Study. The engagement does not include reviewing or validating the underlying data in the study (growth projections/demographics, public facility plans, cost assumptions, etc.) or the mathematical fee calculations therein.

The Nexus Study provides the analytical basis and calculations for fifteen development impact fees that will help fund public facilities and related capital assets needed by the City to provide its municipal services:
• Park Facilities • Police Facilities
• Recreation Facilities • Public Facilities (City Hall, Corp. Yard, etc.) • Fire Protection Facilities • Transportation Facilities Urban Futures, Inc. • 1470 Maria Lane, Suite 315 • Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 478-7450page4 fjflO1H2gaom • Fax: (925) 478-7697

City of Beaumont, California
Review of Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (dated May 31, 2024)

Page 2 ends

August 6, 2024
• Sewer Conveyance Facilities • Emergency Preparedness Facilities • Sewer Treatment Capacity • Storm Drainage Facilities
• Recycled Water Facilities • Trails
• General Plan • Road Maintenance Equipment
• Library Facilities
While each of the development impact fees has a distinct analysis and fee calculation in the Nexus Study, they all share a common approach and set of methodologies intended to satisfy the requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing development impact fees as prescribed by the Mitigation Fee Act and other applicable laws.

These requirements can be summarized as five required "nexus" findings that must be documented in and supported by the Nexus Study. The findings are:

1. The purpose of the fee is identified.

2. The use to which the fee will be put is identified.

3. There is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of new development on which the fee is imposed.

4. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of new development on which the fee is imposed.

5. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the new development on which the fee is imposed.

If the Nexus Study provides the technical and quantified foundation needed to make the five "nexus" findings for each development impact fee, then it provides a valid and defensible basis for imposing and collecting the development impact fees calculated in the study. As such, the central inquiry for our assessment and validation of the Nexus Study can be stated as follows:

Does the Nexus Study provide the technical and quantified foundation, using appropriate and defensible procedures and methodologies, that support the required "nexus" findings?
To answer this question, UFI divided the analytical approach needed to support the "nexus" findings into five steps, and then assessed if the Nexus Study satisfactorily completes each step using appropriate and defensible methods. Our assessment relies upon both our in-house expertise in public finance and development impact fees, and on our peer -review of a variety of nexus fee studies prepared within the past four years by various consulting firms for cities throughout California.

Additionally, we utilized some the standardized language, methodological definitions and fee UFI
Financial Solutions

Page 1032 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont, California
Review of Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (dated May 31, 2024)

Page 3 ends

August 6, 2024
analysis approaches found in the "Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates" developed by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley.' Step 1: Identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee will be applied.

Assessment: The analytical section for each impact fee in the Nexus Study contains a written statement identifying the purpose of the fee. Typical of most nexus fee study updates, the fee purpose statements are concise because the purpose of the fees are largely self-evident from the description of the fee, the stated uses of fee, and type(s) of public facilities the fee helps to fund.

To identify the use(s) to which each fee will be applied, the Nexus Study employs one or more of the following methods: a description of the type of public facilities and/or capital assets needed by the City for the associated municipal service; a list (inventory) of existing public facilities for which the fee will be used to help maintain, repair, and/or replace; and a description of any additional, expanded or improved public facilities planned by the City that will be funded in -part by the fee. Additionally, the analytical section for each impact fee states the generally permissible uses of the fee revenue.

Finally, Section 20 of the Nexus Study provides additional language supporting the purpose of the fees and use of the fee revenue.

Conclusion: The Nexus Study utilizes appropriate and defensible methods to satisfy Step 1 needed for the nexus findings.

Step 2: Project new growth by the various types of development.

Assessment: Section 2 of the Nexus Study contains the growth projections that are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development and among various land use types. To create the growth projections, the Nexus Study develops demographic assumptions for growth in residents, employment 1 Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates: Nexus Study and Residential Feasibility Calculation Templates in Fulfillment of AB 602, Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, December 2023. The Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates are an outgrowth of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation's in-depth research series that examines the array of costs associated with building housing in California —from construction costs to impact and service fees, regulation, and affordable housing requirements —and how they have changed over time. See also, Improving Impact Fees in California: Rethinking the Nexus Study Requirements, Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, November 2020; Residential Impact Fees in California:

Current Practices and Policy Considerations to Improve implementation of Fees Governed by the Mitigation Fee Act, Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, August 2019 (Raetz, Garcia and Decker).

UFI
Financial Sululina

Page 1033 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont, California
Review of Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (dated May 31, 2024)

Page 4 ends

August 6, 2024
and building square feet based on the following data sources: land use plans and buildout projections in the City's General Plan; base year employment data from the United States Census Bureau; and base year estimates of residents and dwelling units from the Department of Finance. The data sources used in the Nexus Study are standard sources of data for developing growth projections in nexus fee studies.

The Nexus Study disaggregates the growth projections among four different types of development within the City: residential, commercial, industrial/business park, and industrial/high-cube warehouse (see Table 2.1, Nexus Study).

Conclusion: The Nexus Study utilizes appropriate and defensible methods to satisfy Step 2 needed for the nexus findings.

Step 3: Identify the city standard or metric used to determine the scale of city facilities (size, amount, capacity, etc.) needed to provide the established level of city service to new development, accounting for the differing impact/demand on public facilities due to the type and size of new development.

Assessment: Because the demands placed on public facilities differ among various types of development, the Nexus Study utilizes several methods to ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee. First, the Nexus Study develops a common "occupancy density" metric that allows for the differing demands on the public facilities to be stated in relative terms across the four types of development identified in Step 2 (see Table 2.2, Nexus Study). "Occupant density" is an appropriate common metric because most of the fees in the Nexus Study are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Using an occupant density calculated for each type of development creates a "per capita demand standard" that ensures a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population and public facility demand created by the project, and the amount of the fee. As stated in the Nexus Study, the occupant density metric and resulting per capita demand standard "ensure[s] that the fee per unit of new development is roughly proportional to the demand for facilities from various types of development" (see Page 17, Nexus Study).

Second, for three distinct public facilities, the Nexus Study identifies and uses demand metrics more strongly correlated with the unique service impacts/demands on these public facilities from various types of development. For transportation related facilities, the Nexus Study uses demand metrics based on trip generation by development type. For storm drainage facilities, the Nexus Study uses a demand metric based on impervious surface UFI
Financial Solution~

Page 1034 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont, California
Review of Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (dated May 31, 2024)

Page 5 ends

August 6, 2024
generated by development type. For sewer and recycled water facilities, the Nexus Study uses a demand metric based on increased wastewater flow generated by development type.

Conclusion: The Nexus Study utilizes appropriate and defensible methods to satisfy Step 3 needed for the nexus findings.

Step 4: Based on the projected new development and the city's facility standard, determine total facilities needed and the costs thereof.

Step 5: Allocate the fair (proportionate) share of the total facilities costs to the projected new development and calculate the maximum justified fee per applicable unit/increment of new development.

Assessment: Steps 4 and 5 are assessed collectively because the Nexus Study accomplishes these steps by utilizing four different methodologies, depending on the characteristics of city service, the relationship of service provision to the public facilities requirements, and the planning requirements for the design, construction and expansion of such public facilities.

Section 1 of Nexus Study contains a detailed description of each methodology and the considerations used in determining which methodology to use for the various public facilities.

Importantly, each methodology describes the input variables and formula for calculating the total facility costs attributable to new development and the associated fee per unit of new development. This is often referred to as the facility "cost per unit of demand" or "cost per unit of development" (CUD) and it is a critical component for ensuring the fee study appropriately and defensibly allocates only the fair (proportionate) share of public facility costs attributable to the new development.
o System Plan Method. Used for public facilities that are part of an integrated city-wide system of existing and future planned public facilities that serve/benefit both existing and new development. In this method, the CUD is a ratio of the cost of existing and planned facilities to demand from existing and new development. The proportional costs of facility improvements that address an existing deficiency or provide improved service levels to existing development are removed from consideration. o Planned Facilities Method. Used for new public facilities or discrete expansions of existing public facilities that will only serve projected new development. In this method, the CUD is the ratio of the costs of the new facilities to the demand for the new facilities created by the new development.
o Existing Inventory Method. Used for existing public facilities expected to scale and serve both existing and new development but for which no long-range plan is currently available. In this method, the CUD is a ratio of the value of existing facilities (e.g., replacement cost) to demand from existing development.

UFI
Financial SUllllIna

Page 1035 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont, California
Review of Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (dated May 31, 2024)

Page 6 ends

August 6, 2024
o Buy -in Method. Used for existing public facilities that have existing capacity to serve new development. In this method, the CUD is a ratio of the depreciated value of existing facilities to existing system capacity. While this method is similar to the Existing Inventory Method, it is used to improve fee accuracy for public facilities that have discrete service capacities and limits (e.g., utility infrastructure).

All four methodologies used in the Nexus Study are commonly used in development impact fee nexus studies throughout California. The Nexus Study explains and applies appropriate criteria for determining which methodology is used to determine the impact fee for the City's various types of public facilities. UFI has reviewed the methodology selected for each impact fee in the Nexus Study and agrees with the rationale for its use and the specifics of its application.

Finally, the Nexus Study consistently utilizes the following analytical approach for each impact fee calculation that satisfies important substantive and procedural requirements:

1. Existing and Projected Service Population. The existing and projected future service populations for the affected service/public facilities are separately described, quantified and disaggregated by development type (if applicable).

2. Existing and Planned Facilities. A description and/or inventory of the existing public facilities is provided with the associated costs (e.g., replacement cost, depreciated value, etc.), and any planned new facilities or discrete facility expansions are identified with the associated costs and existing dedicated fund balance for facility acquisition/construction.

3. Existing Level and Future Level of Service. The existing level of service provided by the existing public facilities is expressed as a function of the applicable facility standard. As discussed above, for most impact fees, the facility standard is a cost per capita, but for transportation, storm drainage, and sewer/recycled water facilities, more appropriate and refined facility standards are used. For public facilities with planned additional improvements or expansions, the future level of service provided by the existing and planned facilities is separately expressed as a function of the applicable facility standard. This methodology of separately determining the existing level of service and any planned future level of service is important to satisfying Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 602). This section of the Act requires that the level of service used in an impact fee study must be the level of service provided by existing public facilities. If the service level used in the impact fee study exceeds the existing level of service (i.e., additional facility improvements or expansions are planned), an explanation is required, and the impact fee can only include the fair (proportionate) share of the increased level of service attributable to new development. It should also be noted, Section 18 of the Nexus Study contains a separate and complete analysis of how the Nexus Study complies with Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act.

UFI
Financial Solution~

Page 1036 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont, California
Review of Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (dated May 31, 2024)

Page 7 ends

August 6, 2024

4. Non -Fee Funding Required. Although not required, as a best practice and to enhance compliance with Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act, for each impact fee that is calculated based on a planned improved level of service, the Nexus Study provides a separate calculation of the additional facility costs attributable existing development for which the City must use alternative (non -fee) sources of funds.

5. Fee Schedule. Each impact fee is represented as a cost per unit/increment of new development to ensure the total fee scales proportionately to size and impact of the proposed new development. The inputs and calculation of the maximum justified impact fee (including any administrative charge) are shown clearly and concisely, and where applicable, separately for each type of development.

Conclusion: The Nexus Study utilizes appropriate and defensible methods to satisfy Steps 4 and 5 needed for the nexus findings.

Overall Conclusion and Validation: The Nexus Study satisfies the key elements and requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, using appropriate and defensible methods, to establish the maximum amount of fifteen development impact fees that can be imposed and collected by the City on new development as applicable. The approach and methodologies used in Nexus Study provide a strong foundation for supporting the five required "nexus" findings as established by the Mitigation Fee Act and other applicable laws. Finally, please be advised that our technical assessment and validation of the Nexus Study is not intended to replace the need for specific legal review and advice on the legal adequacy and sufficiency of the Nexus Study.

Please contact us with any questions, concerns or additional follow-up that may be needed from this review and validation summary. We appreciate the opportunity to continue serving the City of Beaumont.

Sincerel ,
James P. Morris
Managing Director
cc: Michael Busch, Chief Strategy Officer, Urban Futures, Inc. !JUFI

Page 1037 of 1299 ends

Financial Soh i'

Transportation Impact Fee Alternative
Projects are categorized according to priority in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3: Transportation Project List
Less Allocation to Cost Allocated to
Total Project Alternative Net Project New New
Project No. Project Title Cost Funding Cost Development Development Priority Streets and Bridges
R-01 Oak Valley Pkwy Expansion 110 -Desert Lawn Phase 2 $ 600,000 $ - $ 600,000 54.4% $ 326,400 R-12 2nd Street Extension Construction 4,800,000 - 4,800,000 54.4% 2,611,200 Priority 2017-027 Oak Valley/I-10 Interchange Design 85,000,000 11,660,000 73,340,000 54.4% 39,896,960 Priority 2017-001 Pennsylvania Interchange 85,000,000 - 85,000,000 54.4% 46,240,000 Priority R-37 Beaumont Avenue/1-10 Interchange Project 125,000,000 5,869,000 119,131,000 54.4% 64,807,264 Highland Springs (Beaumont Share) 60,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 54.4% 16,320,000 Priority R-02 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 1 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R-11 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 2 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R-13 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 3 274,400 - 274,400 54.4% 149,274 R25-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY25 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R26-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY26 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R27-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY27 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R28-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY28 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R-34 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY24 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location 600,000 - 600,000 54.4% 326,400 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location 600,000 - 600,000 54.4% 326,400 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location 600,000 - 600,000 54.4% 326,400 Citywide Traffic Signal System Upgrade 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 54.4% 1,088,000 Subtotal $ 365,524,400 $ 47,529,000 $ 317,995,400 $ 172,989,498 Railroad
2017-012
Subtotal
Pennsylvania Ave/UPR Grade Separation
California URP Grade Separation'
$ 73,700,000 $ 8,678,556 $ 65,021,444 54.4% $ 35,371,666 Priority 100,000,000 70,000,000 30,000,000 54.4% 16,320,000 Priority $ 173,700,000 $ 78,678,556 $ 95,021,444 $ 51,691,666
Assumes 70% of this project w ill be funded w ith grants.

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

August 19, 2024
11Page

Page 1038 of 1299 ends

The table below shows the alternative funding required to fully fund the identified projects within each category.

Additional Funding Required
All Projects Priority Projects
Project Cost $ 396,744,869 $ 273,261,235
Projected Fee Revenue 208,409,189 141,859,617
Additional Funding Required $ 188,335,681 $ 131,401,618 1 Net of identified alternative funding and existing fund balances.

August 19, 2024
2'Page

Page 1039 of 1299 ends

Alternative: Impact Fee Funding Only Priority Projects
Table 8.4 calculates the cost per trip for only the priority projects.

Table 8.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth - Priority Projects Road and
Bridge Railroad Crossings
Costs Allocated to New Development $ 105,068,160 $ 51,691,666 Les Existing Fund Balance 12,090,363 2,809,846
Net Costs Allocated to New Development $ 92,977,797 $ 48,881,819 Growth in Trip Demand (2023 to Buildout) 27,907 27,907
Cost per Trip
$ 3,332 $
1,752
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.

Table 8.5 calculates the fee schedule if the impact fee only funds the priority projects.

August 19, 2024
3IPage

Page 1040 of 1299 ends

Table 8.5: Maximum Justified Transportation Impact Fee Schedule - Priority Projects Land Use
A
Cost Per
Trip
B
Trip
Demand
Factor
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge' 2
E=C+D E/1,000
Fee
per Sq.

Total Feel Ft.

Road and Bridge
Residential Dwelling Unit
$ 3,332
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 3,332
Industrial/Business Park 3,332
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 3,332
Railroad Crossings
Residential Dwelling Unit
$ 1,752
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1,752
Industrial/Business Park 1,752
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,752

0.79 2.70

1.22 0.32

0.79 2.70

1.22 0.32
$ 2,632 $ 26
$ 8,996 $
4,065
1,066
90 41
11 $ 1,384 $ 14
$ 4,730 $
2,137
561
47 21
6 $ 2,658 $ 0.99
$ 9,086 $ 9.09
4,106 4.11
1,077 1.08
$ 1,398 $ 0.52
$ 4,777 $ 4.78
2,158 2.16
567 0.57
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.

August 19, 2024
4IPage

Page 1041 of 1299 ends

Table 1: Residential Development Impact Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase In Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Single Family
Unit)
Current
Equivalent Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)'
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
(Maximum
Justified Fee
Schedule)
Park Land In Lieu (Subdivisions)2
Park Land Acquisition (Non Subdivisions)3
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Recreation Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities4
Sewer Capacity
Recycled Water
General Plan
Library District
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drains
Trails
Maintenance Equipment
Total (Subdivisions)
Total (Infill)
Assumes 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit.
2 Fee in lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act. 3 Fee for parkland acquisition charged under the Mitigation Fee Act. 4 Current fee show n is average fee per EDU for Area of Benefit sewer fees. 5 Year 4 is calculated based on 50% of the maximum justified fee per staff recommendation. $ 2,175.53 $ 0.81 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79
2,175.53 0.81 0.77 0.77 0.77
2,086.17 0.78 0.53 0.53 0.53
1,606.57 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59
811.17 0.30 0.46 0.62 0.78
706.18 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29
609.77 0.23 0.39 0.55 0.71
519.84 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25
2,779.52 1.03 1.20 1.37 1.54
305.29 0.11 - -
328.08 0.12 0.22 0.32 0.42
495.00 0.18 0.37 0.56 0.75
6,467.97 2.41 2.99 3.57 4.15
786.64 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29

50.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
- - 0.04 0.08 0.12
729.63 0.27 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.14 0.28 0.42
$ 20,457.36 $
$ 20,457.36 $

7.60 $

8.52 $

8.50 $

10.09 $

10.07 $
$ 0.79

0.77 0.53

0.59 0.93

0.28 0.87

0.28 1.70

0.52 0.92

4.72 0.29

0.02 0.15

0.01 0.55

0.01 0.01

11.66 $

11.64 $

13.17 13.15
September 17, 2024
11Page

Page 1042 of 1299 ends

Table 2: Commercial Development Impact Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase In Land Use
Year 4
Current Fee (Maximum
Schedule (per Justified Fee
Square Foot) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Schedule)
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Commercial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Commercial Medium Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Commercial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain4
Maintenance Equipment
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with Medium Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.26 $ 0.28 $ 0.30 $ 0.32 $ 0.34

0.14 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.48

0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15

3.43 6.47 8.75 11.03 15.59

0.38 -

0.41 1.50 2.32 3.14 4.78

0.15 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.45

0.24 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

0.80 0.99 1.13 1.27 1.56

0.92 1.14 1.31 1.48 1.80

1.86 2.31 2.65 2.99 3.65

0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.22 0.00 - 0.00

0.12 0.21 0.30 0.49
- 0.01

6.20 $ 10.10 $ 13.58 $ 17.06 $ 24.00

6.32 $ 10.25 $ 13.76 $ 17.27 $ 24.24

7.26 $ 11.42 $ 15.10 $ 18.78 $ 26.09
Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.
4 Year 4 is calculated based on 50% of the maximum justified fee per staff recorrrrr ndation.

September 17, 2024
2IPage

Page 1043 of 1299 ends

Table 3: Industrial/Business Park Development Impact Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase In Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Year 1
Year 4
(Maximum
Justified Fee
Year 2 Year 3 Schedule)
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain4
Maintenance Equipment
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.22 $ 0.29 $ 0.34 $ 0.39 $

0.09 0.24 0.35 0.46

0.08 0.12 0.15 0.18

2.36 3.53 4.41 5.29

0.26 -

0.28 0.75 1.10 1.45

0.11 0.17 0.21 0.25

0.18 0.10 0.10 0.10

1.17 1.45 1.66 1.87

1.69 2.10 2.41 2.72

0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02

0.22 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.10 0.17 0.24

5.02 $

5.54 $

6.78 $ 8.52 $

7.43 $ 9.27 $

0.50 0.69

0.22 7.04

2.16 0.33

0.10 2.29

3.33 0.02

0.01 0.38

0.01 10.26 $

11.11 $

13.75 14.79
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 1.0. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 1.0. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.
4 Year 4 is calculated based on 50% of the maximum justified fee per staff recommendation.

September 17, 2024
3IPage

Page 1044 of 1299 ends

Table 4: Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse Development Impact Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase In Year 4
Current Fee (Maximum
Schedule (per Justified Fee
Land Use Square Foot) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Schedule)
Fire Protection Facilities $ 0.16 $
Police Facilities 0.05
Public Facilities 0.05
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee 0.33
Traffic Signal Impact Fee 0.04
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee 0.04
Sewer Facilities 0.15
Recycled Water2 0.24
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3 1.17
Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3 1.69
General Plan 0.05
Emergency Preparedness Facilities 0.22
Storm Drain4
Maintenance Equipment
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14

0.09 0.12 0.15 0.20

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06

0.71 1.00 1.29 1.85

0.17 0.27 0.37 0.57

0.28 0.38 0.48 0.68

0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

1.45 1.66 1.87 2.29

2.10 2.41 2.72 3.33

0.00 - 0.00

0.12 0.21 0.30 0.49

0.003

2.50 $ 3.23 $ 4.04 $ 4.86 $ 6.50

3.02 $ 3.88 $ 4.79 $ 5.71 $ 7.54
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.
4 Year 4 is calculated based on 50% of the maximum justified fee per staff recommendation.

September 17, 2024
4IPage

Page 1045 of 1299 ends

Estimated Revenue Loss From Four Year Impact Fee Phase In Fee Category
Annual Fee Phase in Fee
Revenue Fee Revenue Revenue (75%
Development (100% Fee (100% - Four of Annual for
Fee Revenue Schedule)' Years) Four Years)
Maximum
Loss from
Four Year
Phase In
Park Land
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Recreation Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets and Bridges
Railroad Crossings
Sewer Facilities
Sewer Capacity2
Recycled Water
General Plan
Library District
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain3
Trails
Maintenance Equipment
Total
$ 26,127,072 $ 816,471 $ 3,265,884 $ 2,449,413 $
18,072,000 564,750 2,259,000 1,694,250
19,969,000 624,031 2,496,125 1,872,094
31,421,365 981,918 3,927,671 2,945,753
12,965,326 405,166 1,620,666 1,215,499
34,267,352 1,070,855 4,283,419 3,212,564
10,944,524 342,016 1,368,066 1,026,049
159,527,369 4,985,230 19,940,921 14,955,691
48,881,819 1,527,557 6,110,227 4,582,671
39,532,250 1,235,383 4,941,531 3,706,148
107,499,800 3,359,369 13,437,475 10,078,106
12,321,396 385,044 1,540,175 1,155,131
764,683 23,896 95,585 71,689
5,807,961 181,499 725,995 544,496
334,549 10,455 41,819 31,364
25,625,236 800,789 3,203,155 2,402,366
312,000 9,750 39,000 29,250
573,512 17,922 71,689 53,767
$ 554,947,214
$ 17,342,100 $ 69,368,402 $ 52,026,301
816,471
564,750
624,031
981,918
405,166
1,070,855
342,016
4,985,230
1,527,557
1,235,383
3,359,369
385,044
23,896
181,499
10,455
800,789
9,750
17,922
$ 17,342,100
Assumes buildout in 32 years, with equal growth per year across all land use categories.

Maximum revenue assumes 1,990,000 gallons of capacity remaining. This overestimates the potential fee revenue.

Total fee revenue assumes 50% of maximum justified fee revenue

Page 1046 of 1299 ends

THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE

KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE 'PRISE
pe.com
3512 14 Street
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 368-9229
[email protected]
City of Beaumont
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, California 92223
Account Number:

Ad Order Number:

Customer's Reference/PO Number:

Publication:

Publication Dates:

Total Amount:

Payment Amount:

Amount Due:

Notice ID:

Invoice Text:
5209298
0011689632
The Press -Enterprise
09/01/2024
$211.90
$0.00
$211.90
KmyoR101zx3cagG0obb0
LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City of Beaumont will conduct a public hearing to consider the matter described below. The City of Beaumont's public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, California. In association with a Development Fee Update, an Impact Fee Nexus Study will be presented for adoption. In accordance with California Government Code Section 66016.5 this notice shall serve as a 30 -day notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study. This meeting will be open to the public and will be recorded for live streaming. Please use the following link during the meeting for live stream access: BeaumontCa.gov/Livestream Public comments will be accepted using the following options: 1. Emailed comments will be read aloud during the corresponding item of the meeting. Please submit your comments to [email protected] 2. In person public comments. 3. Call -in comments using a teleconference phone line (951) 922-4845. City Council will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony and comments from all interested persons. Public comments shall not exceed three minutes unless otherwise authorized by City Council. Comments can be submitted any time prior to the meeting as well as during the meeting until the end of the corresponding item. Dated: August 28, 2024

Page 1047 of 1299 ends

DIF Nexus Study - Page 1 of 1

THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE

KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE 'PRISE
The Press -Enterprise
3512 14 Street
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 368-9229
City of Beaumont
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, California 92223
Publication: The Press -Enterprise

PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
Ad Desc: 0011689632
FILE NO. 0011689632

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
I am a citizen of the United States. I
am over the age of eighteen years and
not party to or interested in the above -
entitled matter. I am an authorized
representative of THE PRESS -
ENTERPRISE, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published daily
in the County of Riverside, and which
newspaper has been adjudicated a
newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of
Riverside, State of California, under
date of April 25, 1952, Case Number
54446, under date of March 29, 1957,
Case Number 65673, under date of
August 25, 1995, Case Number
267864, and under date of September
16, 2013, Case Number RIC 1309013;
that the notice, of which the annexed is
a printed copy, has been published in
said newspaper in accordance with the
instructions of the person(s) requesting
publication, and not in any supplement
thereof on the following dates, to wit:
09101/2024
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Date: September 1, 2024.

At: Riverside, California
Signature

LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City of Beaumont will conduct a public hearing to consider the matter described below. The City of Beaumont's public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, California.

In association with a Development Fee Update, an Impact Fee Nexus Study will be presented for adoption. i n accordance with California Government Code Section 66016.5 this notice shall serve as a 30 -day notice of intent to begin an impact tee nexus study.

This meeting will be open to the public and will be recorded far live streaming. Please use the following link during the meeting for Ilve stream access:

Bea u m o ntCa.g ov/Livestrea m
Public comments will be accepted using the following options:

1. Emalled comments will be read aloud during the corresponding item of the meeting. Please submit your comments to
[email protected]

2. In person public comments.

3. Call -in comments using a teleconference phone line (951) 922-4845.

City Council will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony and comments from all interested persons. Public comments shall not exceed three minutes unless otherwise authorized by City Council.

Comments can be submitted any time prior to the meeting as well as during the meeting until the end of the corresponding item.

Dated: August 28, 2024
The Press -Enterprise
Published: 9/1/24

Page 1048 of 1299 ends

DIF Nexus Study - Page 1 of 1

THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE

KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE 'PRISE
pe.com
3512 14 Street
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 368-9229
[email protected]
City of Beaumont
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, California 92223
Account Number:

Ad Order Number:

Customer's Reference/PO Number:

Publication:

Publication Dates:

Total Amount:

Payment Amount:

Amount Due:

Notice ID:

Invoice Text:
5209298
0011692698
The Press -Enterprise
09/20/2024
$243.07
$0.00
$243.07
vrxTog3tnvWkgZL1Gtzc
LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City of Beaumont will conduct a public hearing to consider the matter described below. The City of Beaumont's public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, California regarding the following: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Adopting the City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Update (Final) Dated September 6, 2024, and A resolution of the City of Beaumont, California, Adopting the City of Beaumont 2024 Development Impact Fee Schedule Based on the Findings set forth in the City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Update (Final) Dated September 6, 2024.

This meeting will be open to the public and will be recorded for live streaming. Please use the following link during the meeting for live stream access:

BeaumontCa.gov/Livestream Public comments will be accepted using the following options: 1. Emailed comments will be read aloud during the corresponding item of the meeting. Please submit your comments to NicoleW©BeaumontCa.gov 2. In person public comments. 3. Call -in comments using a teleconference phone line (951) 922- 4845. City Council will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony and comments from all interested persons. Public comments shall not exceed three minutes unless otherwise authorized by City Council. Comments can be submitted any time prior to the meeting as well as during the meeting until the end of the corresponding item.

Dated: September 17, 2024

Page 1049 of 1299 ends

DIF Nexus Study 2 - Page 1 of 1

THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE

PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
Ad Desc: 0011692698
FILE NO. 0011692698

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
I am a citizen of the United States. I
am over the age of eighteen years and
not party to or interested in the above -
entitled matter. I am an authorized
representative of THE PRESS -
ENTERPRISE, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published daily
in the County of Riverside, and which
newspaper has been adjudicated a
newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of
Riverside, State of California, under
date of April 25, 1952, Case Number
54446, under date of March 29, 1957,
Case Number 65673, under date of
August 25, 1995, Case Number
267864, and under date of September
16, 2013, Case Number RIC 1309013;
that the notice, of which the annexed is
a printed copy, has been published in
said newspaper in accordance with the
instructions of the person(s) requesting
publication, and not in any supplement
thereof on the following dates, to wit:
09120/2024
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Date: September 20, 2024.

At: Riverside, California
Signature

A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Adopting the City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Update (Final) Dated September 6, 2024, and
A resolution of the City of Beaumont, California, Adopting the City of Beaumont 2024 Development Impact Fee Schedute Based on the Findings set forth in the City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Update (Final) Dated September 6, 2024.

This meeting will be open to the public and will be recorded for live streaming. Please use the following link during the meeting for live stream access:

BeaumontCa.gov/Livestream
Public comments will be accepted using the following options:

1. Emailed comments will be read aloud during the corresponding item of the meeting. Please submit your comments to NlcoleW@ BeaumontCa.gov

2. In person public comments.

3. Call -in comments using a teleconference phone line (951) 922-4845.

City Council will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony and comments from all Interested persons. Public comments shall not exceed three minutes unless otherwise authorized by City Council.

Comments can be submitted any time prior to the meeting as well as during the meeting until the end of the corresponding Item.

Dated: September 17, 2024
The Press -Enterprise
Published: 9/20/24

Page 1050 of 1299 ends

DIF Nexus Study 2 - Page 1 of 1

BEAUMOF O R N NT
C A L 1 1 A
September 17, 2024
Southern California Gas Co.
25620 Jefferson Ave
Murrieta, Ca 92562

CITY OF BEAUMONT
550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223
Phone (951) 769-8520 Fax (951) 769-8526
BeaumontCa.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to begin an Impact Fee Nexus Study Attn: Mr. Adam Eventov,
As requested, please see the below notice:

NOTICE I5 HEREBY GIVEN, that the City of Beaumont will conduct a public hearing to consider the matter described below. The City of Beaumont's public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, California.

In association with a Development Fee Update, an Impact Fee Nexus Study will be presented for adoption. In accordance with California Government Code Section 66016 this letter shall serve as a 14 - day notice.

This meeting will be open to the public and will be recorded for live streaming. Please use the following link during the meeting for live stream access:

BeaumontCa.gov/Livestream
Public comments will be accepted using the following options:

1. Emailed comments will be read aloud during the corresponding item of the meeting. Please submit your comments to [email protected]

2. In person public comments.

3. Call -in comments using a teleconference phone line (951) 922-4845.

For further information on this item, please contact the Finance Director at (951) 769-8520.

Nicole Wheelwright
Deputy City Clerk
[email protected]
Incorporated November 18, 19/2

Page 1051 of 1299 ends

BEAUMOF O R N NT
C A L 1 1 A
September 17, 2024
Desert Valleys Builders Association
34360 Gateway Drive
Palm Desert, Ca 92211

CITY OF BEAUMONT
550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223
Phone (951) 769-8520 Fax (951) 769-8526
BeaumontCa.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to begin an Impact Fee Nexus Study Attn: Gretchen Guttierrez,
As requested, please see the below notice:

NOTICE I5 HEREBY GIVEN, that the City of Beaumont will conduct a public hearing to consider the matter described below. The City of Beaumont's public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 7, 2024, at 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, California.

This meeting will be open to the public and will be recorded for live streaming. Please use the following link during the meeting for live stream access:

BeaumontCa.gov/Livestream
Public comments will be accepted using the following options:

1. Emailed comments will be read aloud during the corresponding item of the meeting. Please submit your comments to [email protected]

2. In person public comments.

3. Call -in comments using a teleconference phone line (951) 922-4845.

For further information on this item, please contact the Finance Director at (951) 769-8520.

Nicole Wheelwright
Deputy City Clerk
[email protected]
Incorporated November 18, 19/2

Page 1052 of 1299 ends

BEAUMONT
C A L 1 F O R N 1 A -
September 17, 2024
Riverside Building Industry Association
17192 Murphy Ave #14445
Irvine, Ca 92623
(Via Email: EO(a�riversidebia.orq)

CITY OF BEAUMONT
550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223
Phone (951) 769-8520 Fax (951) 769-8526
BeaumontCa.gov
Re: Notice of Intent to begin an Impact Fee Nexus Study Attn: Lou Monville,
As requested, please see the below notice:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City of Beaumont will conduct a public hearing to consider the matter described below. The City of Beaumont's public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, California.

This meeting will be open to the public and will be recorded for live streaming. Please use the following link during the meeting for live stream access:

BeaumontCa.gov/Livestream
Public comments will be accepted using the following options:

1. Emailed comments will be read aloud during the corresponding item of the meeting. Please submit your comments to [email protected]

2. In person public comments.

3. Call -in comments using a teleconference phone line (951) 922-4845.

For further information on this item, please contact, the Finance Director at (951) 769-8520.

Nicole Wheelwright
Deputy City Clerk
[email protected]
Incorporated November 18, 19/2

Page 1053 of 1299 ends

BAUME ONTA -C A L I F O R N I
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
DATE October 1, 2024
SUBJECT: Continue a Public Hearing of Request to Appeal Notice of Finding Under Development Agreement
Description Tri Pointe Homes has requested an appeal of the City Manager's Notice of Finding Under Development Agreement dated August 17, 2004.

Background and Analysis:

On September 25, 2024, via written request, Tri Pointe Homes requested that City Council continue the public hearing to November 5, 2024. On going discussions continue between the City and Tri Pointe and by continuing the public hearing, both parties will have further opportunities to meet and confer.

Fiscal Impact:

Staff estimates the cost to prepare this staff report is approximately $187. This is no fiscal impact.

Recommended Action:

Continue the Public Hearing of Request to Appeal Notice of Finding Under Development Agreement dated August 17, 2004 to the November 5, 2024, City Council Meeting.

Page 1054 of 1299 ends

BAUME ONTA -C A L I F O R N I
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Joel Belding, Economic Development Manager
DATE October 1, 2024
SUBJECT: Business Incentive Program Update
Description Update on Business Incentive Program use and proposal of new incentives.

Background and Analysis:

This report provides a summary of the Downtown Incentive Program (Program) utilization and a recommendation for new incentives for business establishment, expansion, or retention and for residential front yard improvements.

At its December 6, 2022, the City Council approved the Downtown Business Incentive Program, with an initial funding allocation of $500,000. A second allocation of $500,000 was made as a part of the 2023-2024 budget process. The following is an update on the overall usage of the Incentive Program and a proposed new incentive to assist with business establishment and expansion.

The current suite of business incentives include:
• The Business Attraction and Expansion Loan Program: a forgivable loan program with a maximum funding amount of $50,000.
• Facade Improvement Program: A 1:1 matching program to assist with aesthetic improvements to businesses, with a maximum funding amount of $50,000. • Fire Sprinkler Installation Program: a 1:1 matching program to assist with the installation of fire sprinklers in commercial buildings, with a maximum funding amount of $50,000.
• Grease Interceptor Program: a 1:1 matching program to assist with the installation of a grease interceptor for existing and new restaurant in commercial buildings, with a maximum funding amount of $15,000.
• Downtown Fee Waiver Program: A program waiver of certain City fees related to proposal reviews and building investigations.
• Sewer Connection Fee Waiver Program: A two-year fee deferral to assist with new development.

Page 1055 of 1299 ends

These incentives are on the City's website at https://beaumontcabusiness.gov/ , the City's social media accounts, through the Chamber of Commerce direct engagement with existing and prospective businesses and on two billboards on the 10 Freeway.

The City receives a few calls per week from interested individuals, but very few initial calls translate to application submittals.

To date, the City has received 28 applications for the incentive programs:
• 5 for the Business and Attraction Loan Program
• 11 for the Facade Improvement Grant Program
• 2 for fee waivers
• 7 for the Grease Interceptor Grant Program
Of these applications, only three (3) have been funded, all for grease interceptors, with three (3) others in various stages of development of the funding agreements in preparations for City Council consideration.

Of the original $1 million allocated to the Business Incentive Programs, $34,675 has been spent on funding to date, with $92,368 in active funding requests. This allocation also provided $230,175.49 in funding for costs associated with Beaumont Nights, leaving $651,132.51 of available funding.

Proposed Business Incentive
In the interest of increasing the options available to the City and to existing and future businesses, staff proposes to add one more incentive program, which would be focused on the jobs created by a new business or expansion of existing business. There may be sites that do not require any of the existing incentives focused on construction related activities or where the owner is incapable of seeking the City's new business grant incentive. This new incentive would create a more direct incentive focused on the employees of the business, providing funding to businesses that are creating jobs in certain sectors identified in the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan as being key to the City's economic success. The incentive program would utilize a forgivable loan as the funding mechanism, with a minimum one-year commitment to retain and staff the created jobs.

Key Features:
• Eligibility: To qualify, businesses must be located in Beaumont or, for a new business, provide a lease or purchase agreement for a location in the city, not have any outstanding debts or code violations, possess a valid business license, and provide necessary documentation, including a business plan and liability insurance.

Page 1056 of 1299 ends

• Loan Forgiveness: The program operates as an interest -free loan that can be fully forgiven if the new full-time equivalent position is maintained for at least one year.
• Application Process: Businesses must submit a pre -application, which will be reviewed and possibly entered into a lottery for full application consideration.

Only one application is permitted per business, and previous participants in other city programs within the last year are ineligible. Because of the potential for a large number of applicants for this program and to keep the awarding of the funding objective, staff proposes a lottery system for those applicants that successfully complete the program application in a six-month application cycle or once the city has received ten applications, whichever occurs first.
• Job Creation Requirement: The program defines a "job created" as a permanent full-time position (40 hours per week), with certain conditions for part-time and seasonal roles.
• Ineligible Businesses: Several types of businesses are excluded from the program, including home -based businesses, national chains (not locally franchised), adult -oriented businesses, and those engaged in illegal activities. • Program Evaluation: Applications will be scored based on criteria such as the number of jobs created, the quality of the business plan, and the impact on the local economy. A minimum score is required for approval. • Reporting and Compliance: Participants must submit monthly payroll reports and a close-out report at the end of the funding period to verify compliance with program requirements.

The incentive program would prioritize the hiring of Beaumont residents, veterans, high wage employees, jobs within targeted industry sectors, as well as factor in the overall economic and/or social benefit of these jobs. A detailed business plan would be required to justify the City's expenditure of funds and to confirm the viability of the business.

The projected grant amount per employee is proposed to be $20,000. For new or expanding businesses, the grant recipient would guarantee the creation of new jobs one year of the grant disbursement. For existing businesses, a guarantee by the business owner to retain this job for a period of no less than one year, would be required. These requirements would be documented in the Program Agreement and failure to meet these terms could subject the loan recipient to repayment requirements.

The program would require City Council consideration for each application and would require a Program Agreement to document and guarantee compliance with the particular elements of an applicant's funding agreement.

Page 1057 of 1299 ends

While the existing suite of incentives is focused on the downtown area, this program could be available citywide for high priority business attraction or retention, should the City Council direct this.

Residential Front Yard Beautification Grant
While the City offers a suite of incentives for downtown businesses, there are residential properties mixed in with the commercial uses and their appearance is just as important to the overall character of the area in terms of first impressions for visitors and prospective businesses. The City Council could expand its incentive offerings to include these residences with a grant to fund new front yard clean up and landscaping. A grant of approximately $1,500-$2,000 for a typical residential front yard would be adequate to provide new drought tolerant landscaping and ground cover for a typical residential front yard. This funding could be provided as a reimbursement, with receipts for the purchases and an inspection to confirm that all plants and materials were installed. In instances of economic hardship, the City could arrange a direct payment(s) to vendors for the plants and materials, with a commitment from the property owner to complete installation within a specified timeframe. The funding could also involve a pledge from the property owner to maintain the plants and materials for a period of three to five years, including replacing plants that died during this period.

Should the City Council approve these new incentives, staff will fully develop program parameters, application forms, and associated agreements. Additionally, there is no new financial impact to the City from either of these incentive concepts. Funding for any approved applications would be from the existing Business Incentive Program Account 100-1235-7096-0000.

Staff will continue to evaluate methods to expand awareness of the Incentive Program with existing and prospective businesses, and expand the incentives offered to ensure the funding allocated by the City Council is being utilized by the business community and maximizing the benefit to the City.

Fiscal Impact:

The estimated cost to prepare this report is $300.

Recommended Action:

Authorize the City Manager to develop and implement the Job Creation and Retention Incentive Program. Provide additional direction to staff on the Business Incentive programs, as appropriate.

Page 1058 of 1299 ends

Attachments:

A. Business Grant Incentive

Page 1059 of 1299 ends

CITY OF BEAUMONT
Business Assistance Job Creation Program
Program Description & Guideline
Program Description
The City of Beaumont Business Assistance Job Creation Program (Program) is designed to assist eligible commercial businesses within the City of Beaumont by offsetting the staffing costs of newly hired, employees and creating jobs to assist members of the community in obtaining employment. The City Council has determined there is a public benefit to the residents and businesses of Beaumont by facilitating the hiring of employees working for Beaumont businesses, which therefore adds jobs to the local economy.

The job created must be a permanent full-time equivalent employment. The program requires that the new full-time employment position remain in effect for one year or more.

While it is a loan program, if the applicant has maintained compliance with the Program Guidelines during the one-year loan term, the interest -free loan will be 100% forgiven.

Owners of equity interest(s) of twenty percent (20%) or more in the Applicant shall be required to guaranty the forgivable loan. The 2025 funding amount per job through this Program is $20,000.

A pre -application submitted by interested businesses will be required for participation in the program. Applications will be accepted and evaluated on qualifications and program focus.

Only one application per business will be considered. Owners of multiple businesses may only submit one application for one of their businesses located within the City. Applicants who have participated in other City economic development programs within the last year are not eligible to apply for assistance again.

Program Eligibility Criteria
To be eligible for the Program, the business must be located in the City of Beaumont and meet all of the following requirements:

1. The business must not be delinquent on any existing debt obligations to the U.S government (no past defaults).

2. No outstanding code violations.

3. Business must meet all State and local building and zoning codes.

4. Building must directly front/face a public right-of-way.

5. A Beaumont business license or a pending application.

6. Business will need to provide liability insurance.

7. The business will need to provide a business plan that includes a budget, initial start- up costs, fixed costs, variable costs, and critical/optional expenses, and profit margins. Please refer to Attachment B for Business Plan Outline.

8. The business must provide copies of official filing with the California Secretary of State, if applicable, or local municipality for the business such as one of the following:

Articles of Incorporation, Certificate of Organization, Fictitious Business Name of Registration or Government -Issued Business License.
1

Page 1060 of 1299 ends

9. All business owners with a 20% or greater ownership will need to submit a copy of an acceptable form of government issued identification and execute a guaranty of the forgivable loan.

Ineligible Businesses
• Businesses not visible from the public right-of-way or publicly owned space. • Home -based businesses.
• Independent contractors (i.e., consignment booths, salon chairs, etc.). • Any national chain that is not locally franchised.
• Massage parlors and bail bond services.
• Corporate -owned fast-food restaurants (franchisees are eligible). • Check cashing, liquor stores, smoke/cannabis shops, firearms retailers, pawnshops. • Non-profit organizations or service providers.
• Religious institutions.
• Real estate salespersons.
• Financial businesses primarily engaged in the business of lending, such as banks and finance companies.
• Passive businesses owned by developers and landlords that do not operate an active business or occupy a storefront in the Downtown Area.
• Life insurance companies.
• Businesses located in a foreign country (businesses in the U.S. owned by aliens may qualify).
• Pyramid sale distribution plans. (i.e. Amway, Herbalife, Mary Kay). • Businesses deriving more than one-third of gross annual revenue from legal gambling activities.
• Businesses engaged in any illegal activity.
• Private clubs and businesses which limit entrance or memberships for reasons other than capacity.
• Government -owned entities.
• Businesses principally engaged in teaching, instructing, or counseling religion or religious beliefs, whether in a religious or secular setting. • Loan packagers earning more than one-third of their gross annual revenue from packaging SBA loans.
• Businesses with an Associate who is incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or has been indicted for a felony or a crime of moral turpitude. • Businesses in which the city or any of its Associates owns an equity interest. • Multi -national or publicly traded businesses are not eligible for this program. • Adult oriented businesses.
• Business owned by a person listed on the Federal Excluded Parties List (EPLS) maintained on www.sam.gov .
• Business owned by City of Beaumont employees or members of the City Council.

Program Procedure
Pre -applications for participation in the Program are available by emailing [email protected].
2

Page 1061 of 1299 ends

Pre -Applications will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. of the first Friday of February and August each year the program is in effect; or until 10 pre -applications have been received in each six-month period, whichever is first. Pre -applications will be reviewed for qualifications and those that meet the basic qualifications will be entered into a lottery. Applicants entered into the lottery will be contacted to complete a full application and move forward in the evaluation process in the order of the lottery selection until program slots are fulfilled and based on the availability of Program funding.

The full applications will be scored based on program focus areas. If an applicant scores below 70 points on their application, they will be deemed ineligible to continue. All applicants will need to score 70 and above on their application and have completed their application in its entirety, signed and submitted with all required documents as listed in the application. Applications will be reviewed in the order in which they are received.

Incomplete applications will not be processed. An appointment is required with program staff to submit the application. To request an appointment, contact the Economic Development Department at [email protected].

Program staff's eligibility determination is not a commitment of funds. Funds shall only be committed upon approval by the City Council and the full execution of the Contract Agreement and other pertinent documents.

Application and Award Process
Step 1. Pre -Applications will be accepted until the 5:00 p.m. of the first Friday of February and August each year the program is in effect, or until 10 pre -applications have been received for each six-month period, whichever is first. Pre -applications will be reviewed for qualifications and those that meet the basic qualifications will be entered into a lottery.

Pre -Application Requirements
The pre -application consists of a letter from the applicant detailing the following:

1. The location of the new or expanded business

2. The type of business the applicant intends to establish or expand

3. The applicant's experience in operating this type of business

4. How many jobs this establishment or expansion will create

5. How this business will meet the goals of the Program (hiring of Beaumont residents, veterans, high wage employees, businesses of the type identified in Attachment A, businesses in priority locations and overall beneficial impacts)

6. Confirmation that the business and applicant meet the Eligibility Criteria Step 2. Applicants entered into the lottery will move forward in the evaluation process in the order of the lottery selection until program slots are fulfilled and based on the availability of Program funding. Applicants who are selected will be contacted to complete a full application with all required within (2) weeks of notification of eligibility by the City.

Full Application Requirements
3

Page 1062 of 1299 ends

1. The preselected applicants will be invited to complete a full application with all documentation. All documentation will need to be returned to the City within (2) weeks of notification of eligibility by the City. The documentation criteria are as follows:

2. Must provide a copy of their current lease agreement/mortgage statement for the commercial space their business occupies.

3. Provide completed vendor forms (W-9 and CA 590 form).

4. Organizational documents such as fictitious business statements, articles of incorporation, operating agreements, etc.
i. For corporations: copy of recorded Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. ii. For partnerships (general or limited): copy of Partnership Agreement and GP - 1 or LP -1. For LLCs: copy of recorded Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement.
iii. For sole proprietorships: recorded Fictitious Name filing, if available. iv. If a trust is involved: Trust Agreement and names of trustees and signers.

5. All business owners with a 20% or greater ownership must submit the following:
i. An acceptable form of government issued identification. ii. A completed Authorization to Release Information form.

6. A copy of current Beaumont Business License.

7. A copy of business liability insurance.

8. Document which specifies what person/s in a corporation or partnership is authorized to sign documents and assume debt on behalf of the business.

9. A Business Plan as outlined in Attachment B.

Application Evaluation and Scoring Process

1. Applications will be accepted and evaluated for completeness and Applicant eligibility.

2. Applications will be evaluated in accordance with the scoring criteria as listed below.

Rating/Scoring Criteria of Application
Criteria
Points
Description
Score
Jobs
Created/Retained
40 Points awarded for number of jobs
created or retained.

Business Plan
10 Points awarded for thoroughness of
business plan.

Preferential hiring for
City residents
10 Points awarded for priority hiring of
Beaumont residents.

Preferential hiring for
veterans
5 Points awarded for targeting hiring of
veterans.

High Wage employees
15 Points awarded for hiring of employees
with wages above County average.

Targeted Industry
Jobs
10 Points awarded for the establishment or
retention of a business identified in the
City's Economic Development Strategic
Plan as Targets for Business Attraction
Priority Location
5 Points awarded for establishment or
retention of a business in a priority
location (e.g. Town Center)
Overall Economic
and/or Social Impact
5 Points awarded for overall benefit to the
City.
4

Page 1063 of 1299 ends

Total
Step 3. Applications that are complete, with all of the required documentation, will be reviewed for eligibility. Program staff will review application information and provide an eligibility determination within 14 business days. Program staff will advise Applicants of any deficiencies within incomplete applications, and indicate corrective measures required.

Applications will be reviewed for qualifications and scored. Those with a passing score of 70 and above on their application will be notified of approval.

Step 4. Upon approval of application, Program staff shall schedule an appointment with each qualified Applicant to review program requirements, hiring goals, and reporting and documentation requirements. Applicant will review and sign the Contract Agreement and all other pertinent documents. Program staff will schedule the Contract Agreement for City Council consideration.

Step 5. Should the City Council approve the Contract Agreement, a single distribution payment of the total contract dollar amount will be made. The approximate processing time between executed Contract Agreement and fund disbursement is 4 weeks.

Step 6. Applicant will have three months from the date the Contract Agreement was executed to fulfill the employment position, or if for three consecutive months the required position has remained vacant, the forgivable loan agreement will be terminated, and the loan balance will be due and payable. An Applicant may request an extension of time to complete recruitment based on demonstration of good faith efforts to fill the position(s) without success.

Step 7. During the Participation Period, the Participant is responsible for providing:

A. Monthly payroll of all employees under program. The payroll shall include at a minimum the following for each required employment position: employee name, job title, hours worked per week, the hourly rate for participating employees, plus any other documentation as determined by Staff. Monthly payroll will be due on the 15th of each month from when full-time equivalent employment started.

B. A Close Out report is due along with final payroll submission. The Close Out Report will indicate the number of jobs created and a short narrative of accomplishments for the program. If documentation of expenditure is not provided, funds must be returned to the City. The template is provided in Attachment C.

Upon approval of application, the business will need to maintain employee(s) hired under this program for at least one (1) year. A close-out report will be required for review to determine compliance with Program requirements.

All of the above criteria are important, and the absence of any one of these elements may be sufficient to reject an application. Please note that Participant may be required to submit 5

Page 1064 of 1299 ends

additional documentation, as requested by Program staff, in instances where additional application clarification is required.

Job Creation Requirement & Term
Program Participation Period:

The required period of time for program compliance and loan forgiveness is one year (Participation Period) from the hiring date of the eligible job created. The Applicant is responsible for retaining any documentation evidencing eligible expense use and subject to an audit to evidence such use of loans. Should the Applicant not meet the obligations as required in the Contract Agreement, loaned funds will be due and payable to the City.

Sale of Business During Program Term
Any business receiving program funding shall disclose the information and details of the loan upon sale or transfer of the business to any subsequent owner. In the case of sale of a participating business during the one-year program term, the new buyer must provide a complete application and written agreement to the City affirming assumption of all conditions of the Program for the remainder of the term.

Close of Business
Any business receiving program funding shall disclose the information and details of close of business 30 days in advanced. The City may require the business to return a portion of or the entire loan, including but not limited to any fees or costs incurred.

Created Jobs Defined:
"Jobs created" is defined as a full-time equivalent position or positions which are filled by a person or persons who are not a current or previous employee. Full-time is defined as 40 hours of work per week. The following additional policies apply for new employment positions:
• Multiple part-time positions may equal full-time equivalents (i.e., two new part-time positions each working 20 hours per week would be considered one full-time equivalent).
• Only permanent positions count. Temporary jobs may not be included. • Seasonal jobs may be counted only if the season is long enough for the job to be considered as the employee's principal occupation.

Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Defined:

For the purposes of this program, Full -Time Equivalent (FTE) is defined as forty (40) hours of paid full-time work in a seven-day period. In the medical field, the industry practice defines full-time positions as 32 to 36 hours of work in a seven-day period. Therefore, the only exception to the forty -hour definition of FTE position requirement will be for positions created in the medical field, when the written personnel policy of the participating business states clearly the number of hours that constitutes full-time positions as 32 hours or more. 6

Page 1065 of 1299 ends

ATTACHMENT A

TYPE OF PROJECT
Funding priority will be recommended for projects that meet the overall design scope and criteria for the location, create jobs, expand economic opportunities, and generate sales tax. The following project types will be considered for project funding:

Appliance and Furniture Sales
Apparel Sales
Electronic/computers Sales
Kitchen equipment
Gift stores
Health and Sporting Goods stores
Book and Entertainment stores
Musical instruments and sound equipment store
Upscale grocery and import stores
Dinner houses/restaurants
Coffee Shops
Bakeries
Cafes
Gastropubs
Microbrewery
Aerospace
Computer/Technology
Bio-Tech
Medical
Manufacturing
Vehicle Dealership
7

Page 1066 of 1299 ends

ATTACHMENT B

BUSINESS PLAN OUTLINE

BUSINESS PLAN
Please provide a written description of the business as justification for the funding request to address the following:

1. Executive Summary
A. Overview of the Business: Provide a brief description of the business, including its mission statement, vision, and values.

B. Key Objectives: Outline the primary goals of the business over the next 3-5 years.

C. Summary of the Funding Request: Explain how the business plans to use the Program funding, including the number of jobs it expects to create or retain.

2. Company Description
A. Business History: Provide a brief history of the business, including the year it was founded and major milestones.

B. Legal Structure: Describe the legal structure (e.g., LLC, Corporation, Partnership).

C. Location: Detail the business's current location and any plans for relocation or expansion.

D. Ownership: List the owners or major stakeholders and their respective shares.

3. Market Analysis
A. Industry Overview: Describe the industry in which the business operates, including trends and market size.

B. Target Market: Identify the specific customer segments the business targets, including demographics, needs, and purchasing behaviors.

C. Competitive Analysis: Provide an analysis of key competitors, including their strengths and weaknesses relative to the business.

4. Organization and Management
A. Organizational Structure: Provide an organizational chart or description of the company's structure.

B. Management Team: List key members of the management team, including their backgrounds, roles, and responsibilities.

C. Advisors and Consultants: Mention any external advisors or consultants the business works with, including their contributions.

5. Products or Services
8

Page 1067 of 1299 ends

A. Product/Service Description: Describe the products or services offered by the business, including any unique selling propositions (USPs).

B. Development Stage: Explain the current stage of development of the products or services (e.g., concept, prototype, fully developed).

C. Research & Development: Outline any ongoing R&D efforts related to the products or services.

6. Marketing and Sales Strategy
A. Marketing Plan: Describe the marketing strategies the business will use to reach its target market, including pricing, promotion, and distribution strategies.

C. Sales Strategy: Outline the sales tactics and channels the business will use to generate revenue.

D. Customer Relationship Management (CRM): Explain how the business plans to manage relationships with customers.

7. Operations Plan
A. Operational Workflow: Describe the daily operations of the business, including production, delivery, and quality control processes.

B. Facilities and Equipment: Detail the facilities and equipment required to operate the business.

C. Technology and Systems: Outline the technology and systems used to manage the business, including any plans for upgrades or enhancements.

8. Financial Plan
A. Financial Projections: Provide financial projections for the next 3-5 years, including income statements, cash flow statements, and balance sheets.

B. Break -Even Analysis: Include an analysis of the break-even point for the business.

C. Assumptions: List the key assumptions underlying the financial projections.

9. Job Creation/Retention Plan
A. Job Descriptions: Provide descriptions of the new or retained positions, including required skills and expected compensation.

B. Hiring Plan: Outline the timeline and process for hiring new employees, with a focus on city residents, veterans, and high -wage positions.

C. Employee Development: Describe any training or development programs planned for employees.

10. Risk Analysis
9

Page 1068 of 1299 ends

A. SWOT Analysis: Include a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis of the business.

B. Contingency Plans: Detail any contingency plans for managing potential risks, such as economic downturns or industry changes.

11. Appendix
A. Resumes of Key Personnel: Include the resumes of key management personnel.

B. Legal Documents: Attach any relevant legal documents, such as incorporation papers or partnership agreements.

C. Supporting Data: Include any additional data, charts, or research that supports the business plan.
10

Page 1069 of 1299 ends

ATTACHMENT C

CLOSE OUT REPORT TEMPLATE
Business Name:

Business Address:

Submitted by:

Date Submitted:

Progress Report Narrative
Please provide a short narrative of accomplishments for the program.

Jobs Created
Month
Position/Title
Name of Employee
Full or Part Time
11

Page 1070 of 1299 ends

BAUME ONTA -c A L I F O R N I
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Robert L. Vestal, Director of Public Works
DATE: October 1, 2024
SUBJECT: Amended and Restated Agreement with IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc. for the Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation Project (CIP 2017-012) Description Award an Amended and Restated Agreement to IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc. to complete the design for the Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation Project (CIP 2017-012). Strategic Plan Target #2- Infrastructure/Projects/Traffic; Priority Level 1; Goal #4 — Develop Penn Grade Separation Background and Analysis:

On June 19, 2018, City Council awarded a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) to IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc. (IDC) to perform 35% level design for the Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation Project.

On August 28, 2018, City Council approved Amendment No. 1, which incorporated additional surveying for the railroad shoofly track. The 35% Level design was completed in 2019. The project was put on hold for some time due to lack of funding.

On July 19, 2022, City Council approved Amendment No. 2, which increased the contract amount for IDC to complete the final design. However, Amendment No. 2 did not include all the necessary scope to complete the project.

Current Status of Project
A summary of the current project design status is as follows:
• UPRR — Bridge structural design is at 60% and track design at 25% design • Caltrans — GAD is at 60% and type selection for walls is in final approval • Civil — Civil drawings are at 50% design level
Proposed Scope and Fee

Page 1071 of 1299 ends

In August 2024, City Staff hired MNS Engineers, Inc. (MNS) to review the performance of IDC and provide guidance to the City regarding Caltrans and UPRR. Subsequently, MNS, IDC, and City staff reviewed the schedule and outstanding issues and found several deficiencies with the final design scope from IDC, including the following:
• Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD) for Caltrans walls • Updated Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD)
• Sewer Relocation Design
• Utility Coordination
• Updated UPRR bridge and track layout
• Right -of -Way Acquisition
• Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE)
• Updated Traffic Impact Study
The project review was intended to ensure that IDC includes all City, Caltrans, and UPRR components necessary for a Ready to List (RTL) project in September 2025.

Refer to Attachment A for IDC proposal listing all the additional tasks. IDC submitted a scope and fee to perform the additional task. The proposed fee for the additional scope is $1,209,191. The following table summarizes the current PSA and proposed scope:

Agreement summary
Amount
txpenaea
Remaining
Original Agreement
$617,584
$617,584
$0
Amendment No. 1
$12,500
$12,500
$0
Amendment No. 2
$1,294,849
$619,558
$675,291
Subtotal
$1,924,933
$1,249,642
$675,291
Proposed Scope & Fee
$1,209,191
--
$1,209,191
Total
$3,134,124
$1,249,642
$1,884,482
New PSA
Per Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 3.02.070 — Term of Professional Services, the term of any professional services contract awarded shall be a maximum of five years, with two one-year renewals, subject to City Council approval.

Consequently, IDC's PSA has expired and cannot be extended. Based on the City Attorney's guidance, City staff recommends awarding IDC an Amended and Restated Agreement. An Amended and Restated Agreement consolidates and replaces the previous PSA and subsequent amendments, creating a new, integrated, and updated agreement.

City staff is recommending issuing the Amended and Restated Agreement per Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 3.02.050(c.)— Exemptions to competitive

Page 1072 of 1299 ends

procurement procedure, which states, "Upon obtaining approval from the City Council, the Purchasing Officer may engage services of a professional firm or individual without complying with the competitive procurement procedures in the following circumstances:

C. Public exigency or emergency will not permit delay"
Public exigency is needed to avoid serious financial harm to the City. Award of an Amended and Restated Agreement allows the current design consultant to complete the design, avoids costly delays, and prevents the City from missing upcoming opportunities for federal funding.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost of preparing the staff report is estimated to be $1,500.

The total amount for the Amended and Restated Agreement is $1,884,482, which includes the cost for the additional work items ($1,209,191) plus the unexpended amount remaining on the original contract ($675,291).

The Amended and Restated Agreement will be funded by the Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation Project (CIP2017-012). Please refer to the following project accounting chart and table for a summary of project funding and budget:

CIP 2017- 012 Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation Project Funding Summary
Estimated Total Project Budget= $77,883,900
Current Project Budget= $8,678,556

Page 1073 of 1299 ends

CIP 2017- 012 Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation Project Budget Summary
Project
Component
Est. Total
Budget
Current
Budget
Paid to Date Remaining
Budget
Project Mart
Preliminary Services
Environmental
Design
Permits
Right -of -Way
C
Construction Management
Recommended Action:
$78,500 $78,500 W $(8,476)1-
$7,400 $7,400
$298,000, 998,000
$4,000,000 $4,000,000
$2,500,000 $2,500,000
$2,000,000
$64,000,000
$5,000,000
$77,883,900
di1,794,656
1 $8,678,556
$(7,400)
$(110,2M,.. ,011
$(1,249,642) $2,009,817
$(64,211111 ,000
_An $1,794,656
$(1,440,079)
$5,915,508
Award an Amended and Restated Agreement to IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc. to complete the design for the Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation Project for an amount not to exceed $1,884,482.

Attachments:

A. Amended and Restated Agreement with IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc.

B. Original Agreement and Previous Amendments
C. Levine Act Statement - IDC

Page 1074 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont Agreement #
C18-48.3

AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

THIS AMENDED AND RESTATEDAGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR ("Agreement") is made and effective as of the 1st day of October 2024, by and between the CITY OF BEAUMONT ("CITY") whose address is 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, California 92223 and, IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc., a California Corporation whose address is 300 S. Harbor Boulevard, Suite 710, Anaheim CA 92805 ("CONTRACTOR").

RECITALS
This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties to this Agreement:

A. On June 19, 2018, CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into an agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional Services by Independent Contractor" ("Original Agreement") in which CONTRACTOR was to provide Engineering Design Services for the Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation Project; and
B. On August 29, 2018, CITY and CONTRACTOR amended the Original Agreement by that certain "First Amendment to Agreement for Independent Contractor" ("First Amendment" hereinafter referenced with the Original Agreement as "Original Agreement"); and C. On July 19, 2022, CITY and CONTRACTOR amended the Original Agreement by that certain "Second Amendment to Agreement for Independent Contractor" ("Second Amendment" hereinafter referenced with the Original Agreement as "Original Agreement"); and D. The Original Agreement expired on June 19, 2020 but the parties continued to operate under the Original Agreement; and
E. CONTRACTOR has proposed additional services ("Proposal") with the CITY, which Proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference; and F. CONTRACTOR agrees to provide such services pursuant to, and in accordance with, the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and represents and warrants to CITY that CONTRACTOR possesses the necessary skills, licenses, certifications, qualifications, personnel and equipment to provide such services; and
G. An Amended and Restated Agreement is necessary for the CONTRACTOR to have sufficient time to complete the remainder of the work; and H. This Agreement does not relieve either party of their rights and obligations of the Original Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals and mutual covenants

Page 10715 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont Agreement #
C18-48.3
contained herein, CITY and CONTRACTOR agree as follows:

1. Term of Agreement. This Agreement is effective as of the date first above written and shall continue until terminated as provided for herein. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, this Agreement shall automatically terminate after three (3) year(s) unless extended by the parties with the approval of the City Council of the CITY.

2. Services to be Performed. CONTRACTOR agrees to provide the services ("Services") per Exhibit "A". All Services shall be performed in the manner and according to the timeframe set forth in the Proposal. CONTRACTOR designates Wendy Li as CONTRACTOR'S professional(s) responsible for overseeing the Services provided by CONTRACTOR.

3. Associates and Subcontractors. CONTRACTOR may, at CONTRACTOR's sole cost and expense, employ such competent and qualified independent associates, subcontractors and consultants as CONTRACTOR deems necessary to perform the Services; provided, however, that CONTRACTOR shall not subcontract any of the Services without the written consent of CITY.

4. Compensation.

4.01 CONTRACTOR shall be paid at the rates set forth in the Proposal and shall not increase any rate without the prior written consent of the CITY. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, total fees and charges paid by CITY to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall not exceed one million, eight hundred eighty- four thousand, four hundred eighty-two dollars ($1,884,482).

4.02 CONTRACTOR shall not be compensated for any Services rendered nor reimbursed for any expenses incurred in excess of those authorized unless approved in advance by the CITY, in writing.

4.03 CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, on or before the fifteenth (15th) of each month, itemized invoices for the Services rendered in the previous month. The CITY shall not be obligated to pay any invoice that is submitted more than sixty (60) days after the due date of such invoice. CITY shall have the right to review and audit all invoices prior to or after payment to CONTRACTOR. This review and audit may include, but not be limited to CITY' s:
a. Determination that any hourly fee charged is consistent with this Agreement's approved hourly rate schedule;
b. Determination that the multiplication of the hours billed times the approved rate schedule dollars is correct;
c. Determination that each item charged is the usual, customary, and reasonable charge for the particular item. If CITY determines an item charged is greater than usual, customary, or reasonable, or is duplicative, ambiguous, excessive, or inappropriate, CITY shall either return the bill to CONTRACTOR with a request for explanation or adjust the payment accordingly, and give notice to CONTRACTOR of the adjustment.

Page 10 ends

City of Beaumont Agreement #
C18-48.3

4.04 If the work is satisfactorily completed, CITY shall pay such invoice within thirty (30) days of its receipt. Should CITY dispute any portion of any invoice, CITY shall pay the undisputed portion within the time stated above, and at the same time advise CONTRACTOR in writing of the disputed portion.

5. Obligations of CONTRACTOR.

5.01 CONTRACTOR agrees to perform all Services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Proposal. In the event that the terms of the Proposal shall conflict with the terms of this Agreement or contain additional terms that purport to bind the CITY other than the Services to be rendered and the price for the Services, the terms of this Agreement shall govern and said additional or conflicting terms shall be of no force or effect.

5.02 Except as otherwise agreed by the parties, CONTRACTOR will supply all personnel, materials and equipment required to perform the Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide its own offices, telephones, vehicles and computers and set its own work hours. CONTRACTOR will determine the method, details, and means of performing the Services under this Agreement.

5.03 CONTRACTOR shall keep CITY informed as to the progress of the Services by means of regular and frequent consultations. Additionally, when requested by CITY, CONTRACTOR shall prepare written status reports.

5.04 CONTRACTOR is responsible for paying, when due, all income and other taxes, fees and withholding, including withholding state and federal taxes, social security, unemployment and worker's compensation, incurred as a result of the compensation paid under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY for any claims, costs, losses, fees, penalties, interest, or damages suffered by CITY resulting from CONTRACTOR's failure to comply with this provision.

5.05 In the event CONTRACTOR is required to prepare plans, drawings, specifications and/or estimates, the same shall be furnished in conformance with local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.

5.06 CONTRACTOR represents that it possesses all required licenses necessary or applicable to the performance of Services under this Agreement and the Proposal and shall obtain and keep in full force and effect all permits and approvals required to perform the Services herein. In the event CITY is required to obtain an approval or permit from another governmental entity, CONTRACTOR shall provide all necessary supporting documents to be filed with such entity.

5.07 CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for obtaining Employment Eligibility Verification information from CONTRACTOR's employees, in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-603 (8 U.S.C. 1324a), and shall ensure that CONTRACTOR's employees are eligible to work in the United States.

Page 10 ends

City of Beaumont Agreement #
C18-48.3

5.08 In the event that CONTRACTOR employs, contracts with, or otherwise utilizes any Ca1PERS retirees in completing any of the Services performed hereunder, such instances shall be disclosed in advance to the CITY and shall be subject to the CITY's advance written approval.

5.09 Drug -free Workplace Certification. By signing this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR hereby certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the CONTRACTOR will comply with the requirements of the Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Government Code, Section 8350 et seq.) and will provide a drug - free workplace.

5.10 CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, entitlements and/or permits applicable to, or governing the Services authorized hereunder.

6. Insurance. CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to be solely responsible for the health and safety of its employees and agents in performing the Services under this Agreement and shall comply with all laws applicable to worker safety including but not limited to Cal -OSHA.

Therefore, throughout the duration of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR hereby covenants and agrees to maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" are copies of Certificates of Insurance and endorsements as required by Section 7.02. If existing coverage does not meet the requirements set forth herein, CONTRACTOR agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so.

CONTRACTOR shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:

6.01 Commercial general liability insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate; CONTRACTOR agrees to have its insurer endorse the general liability coverage required herein to include as additional insured's CITY, its officials, employees and agents. CONTRACTOR also agrees to require all contractors and subcontractors to provide the same coverage required under this Section 6.

6.02 Business Auto Coverage in an amount no less than $1 million per accident.

If CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR's employees will use personal autos in performance of the Services hereunder, CONTRACTOR shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person.

6.03 Workers' Compensation coverage for any of CONTRACTOR'S employees that will be providing any Services hereunder. CONTRACTOR will have a state -approved policy form providing statutory benefits as required by California law. The provisions of any workers' compensation will not limit the obligations of CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR expressly agrees not to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to CITY, its employees, officials and agents.

6.04 Optional Insurance Coverage. Choose and check one: Required X /Not Required _; Errors and omissions insurance in a minimum amount of $2 million per occurrence to cover any negligent acts or omissions committed by CONTRACTOR, its

Page 10748 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont Agreement #
C18-48.3
employees and/or agents in the performance of any Services for CITY.

7. General Conditions pertaining to Insurance Coverage

7.01 No liability insurance coverage provided shall prohibit CONTRACTOR from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. CONTRACTOR waives all rights of subrogation against CITY regardless of the applicability of insurance proceeds and shall require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.

7.02. Prior to beginning the Services under this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall furnish CITY with certificates of insurance, endorsements, and upon request, complete copies of all policies, including complete copies of all endorsements. All copies of policies and endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.

7.03. All required policies shall be issued by a highly rated insurer with a minimum A.M. Best rating of "A:VII"). The insurer(s) shall be admitted and licensed to do business in California. The certificates of insurance hereunder shall state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice has been given to CITY.

7.04 Self-insurance does not comply with these insurance specifications.

CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees that that all insurance coverage required to be provided by CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor, shall apply first and on a primary, non- contributing basis in relation to any other insurance, indemnity or self-insurance available to CITY.

7.05 All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and additional requirements by CITY, as the need arises. CONTRACTOR shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect CITY' s protection without CITY's prior written consent.

7.06 CONTRACTOR agrees to provide immediate notice to CITY of any claim or loss against CONTRACTOR or arising out of the Services performed under this Agreement. CITY assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve CITY.

8. Indemnification.

8.01 CONTRACTOR and CITY agree that CITY, its employees, agents and officials should, to the extent permitted by law, be fully protected from any loss, injury, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost, expense, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, defense costs, court costs or any other costs arising out of or in any way related to the performance of this Agreement by CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor or agent of either as set forth herein.

Accordingly, the provisions of this indemnity are intended by the parties to be interpreted and construed to provide the fullest protection possible under the law to CITY.

Page 109 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont Agreement #
C18-48.3
CONTRACTOR acknowledges that CITY would not enter into this Agreement in the absence of the commitment of CONTRACTOR to indemnify and protect CITY as set forth herein.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its employees, agents and officials, from any liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses, damages or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, actual attorneys' fees incurred by CITY, court costs, interest, defense costs, including expert witness fees and any other costs or expenses of any kind whatsoever without restriction or limitation incurred in relation to, as a consequence of or arising out of, or in any way attributable actually, allegedly or impliedly, in whole or in part to the performance of this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR's obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless shall include any and all claims, suits and proceedings in which CONTRACTOR (and/or CONTRACTOR's agents and/or employees) is alleged to be an employee of CITY.

All obligations under this provision are to be paid by CONTRACTOR as they are incurred by CITY.
b. Without affecting the rights of CITY under any provision of this Agreement or this Section, CONTRACTOR shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless CITY as set forth above for liability attributable solely to the fault of CITY, provided such fault is determined by agreement between the parties or the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction.
8A. Indemnification Design Professionals.
8A.01 In the event that CONTRACTOR is a design professional under California Civil Code Section 2782.8 this Section 8A shall apply instead of Section 8. To the fullest extent permitted by California law and in accordance with California Civil Code section 2782.8, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, trustees and members ("Indemnified Parties") from any and all actions, assessments, counts, citations, claims, costs, damages, demands, judgments, liabilities (legal, administrative or otherwise), losses, notices, expenses, fines, penalties, proceedings, responsibilities, violations, attorney's and consultants' fees and causes of action including, but not limited to those for, injury to property or persons, including personal injury and/or death ("Claim(s)"), to the extent that the Claim(s) arises out of, pertains to, or relates to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONTRACTOR, its directors, officials, officers, employees and consultants arising out of, connected with, or resulting from the performance of the Services, the Project, or this Agreement. This indemnity excludes liability caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of any of the Indemnified Parties.

The cost to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend charged to CONTRACTOR shall not exceed CONTRACTOR'S proportionate percentage of fault.

9. Additional Services, Changes and Deletions.

9.01 In the event CONTRACTOR performs additional or different services than those described herein without the prior written approval of the City Manager and/or City Council of CITY, CONTRACTOR shall not be compensated for such services.

Page 10 ends

1 of 1299

City of Beaumont Agreement #
C18-48.3
CONTRACTOR expressly waives any right to be compensated for services and materials not covered by the scope of this Agreement or authorized by the CITY in writing.

9.02 CONTRACTOR shall promptly advise the City Manager and Finance Director of CITY as soon as reasonably practicable upon gaining knowledge of a condition, event or accumulation of events which may affect the scope and/or cost of Services. All proposed changes, modifications, deletions and/or requests for additional services shall be reduced to writing for review and approval by the CITY and/or City Council.

10. Termination of Agreement.

10.01 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, CITY, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement with or without cause, or for no cause, at any time by giving twenty (20) days' written notice to CONTRACTOR.

10.02 In the event of termination, the payment of monies due CONTRACTOR for undisputed Services performed prior to the effective date of such termination shall be paid within thirty (30) business days after receipt of an invoice as provided in this Agreement.

Immediately upon termination, CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly provide and deliver to CITY all original documents, reports, studies, plans, specifications and the like which are in the possession or control of CONTRACTOR and pertain to CITY.

11. Status of CONTRACTOR.

11.01 CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services in CONTRACTOR's own way as an independent contractor, and in pursuit of CONTRACTOR's independent calling, and not as an employee of CITY. However, CONTRACTOR shall regularly confer with CITY's City Manager as provided for in this Agreement.

11.02 CONTRACTOR agrees that it is not entitled to the rights and benefits afforded to CITY's employees, including disability or unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, retirement, CalPERS, medical insurance, sick leave, or any other employment benefit. CONTRACTOR is responsible for providing, at its own expense, disability, unemployment, workers' compensation and other insurance, training, permits, and licenses for itself and its employees and subcontractors.

11.03 CONTRACTOR hereby specifically represents and warrants to CITY that it possesses the qualifications and skills necessary to perform the Services under this Agreement in a competent, professional manner, without the advice or direction of CITY and that the Services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance with the standards customarily applicable to an experienced and competent professional rendering the same or similar services in the same geographic area where the CITY is located. Further, CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that the individual signing this Agreement on behalf of CONTRACTOR has the full authority to bind CONTRACTOR to this Agreement.

12. Ownership of Documents; Audit.

Page 10 ends

City of Beaumont Agreement #
C18-48.3

12.01 All draft and final reports, plans, drawings, studies, maps, photographs, specifications, data, notes, manuals, warranties and all other documents of any kind or nature prepared, developed or obtained by CONTRACTOR in connection with the performance of Services performed for the CITY shall become the sole property of CITY, and CONTRACTOR shall promptly deliver all such materials to CITY upon request. At the CITY's sole discretion, CONTRACTOR may be permitted to retain original documents, and furnish reproductions to CITY upon request, at no cost to CITY.

12.02 Subject to applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations, CITY shall hold all intellectual property rights to any materials developed pursuant to this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not such use data or documents for purposes other than the performance of this Agreement, nor shall CONTRACTOR release, reproduce, distribute, publish, adapt for future use or any other purposes, or otherwise use, any data or other materials first produced in the performance of this Agreement, nor authorize others to do so, without the prior written consent of CITY.

12.03 CONTRACTOR shall retain and maintain, for a period not less than four years following termination of this Agreement, all-time records, accounting records and vouchers and all other records with respect to all matters concerning Services performed, compensation paid and expenses reimbursed. At any time during normal business hours and as often as CITY may deem necessary, CONTRACTOR shall make available to CITY's agents for examination all of such records and shall permit CITY's agents to audit, examine and reproduce such records.

13. Miscellaneous Provisions.

13.01 This Agreement, which includes all attached exhibits, supersedes any and all previous agreements, either oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the rendering of Services by CONTRACTOR for CITY and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to the rendering of such Services in any manner whatsoever. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing signed by both parties.

13.02 CONTRACTOR shall not assign or otherwise transfer any rights or interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of CITY. Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement.

13.03 CONTRACTOR shall timely file FPPC Form 700 Conflict of Interest Statements with CITY if required by California law and/or the CITY's conflict of interest policy.

13.04 If any legal action or proceeding, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.

13.05 This Agreement is made, entered into and shall be performed in the County Page loh of 1299

City of Beaumont Agreement #
C18-48.3
of Riverside in the State of California and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced and governed under the laws of the State of California. The parties agree that venue in any litigation between them shall be in Riverside County, California.

13.06 CONTRACTOR covenants that neither it nor any officer or principal of its firm has any interest, nor shall they acquire any interest, either directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of their Services hereunder.

CONTRACTOR further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent, or subcontractor.

13.07 CONTRACTOR has read and is aware of the provisions of Section 1090 et seq. and Section 87100 et seq. of the Government Code relating to conflicts of interest of public officers and employees. CONTRACTOR agrees that they are unaware of any financial or economic interest of any public officer or employee of the CITY relating to this Agreement. It is further understood and agreed that if such a financial interest does exist at the inception of this Agreement, the CITY may immediately terminate this Agreement by giving notice thereof. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the requirements of Government Code section 87100 et seq. and section 1090 in the performance of and during the term of this Agreement.

13.08 Improper Consideration. CONTRACTOR shall not offer (either directly or through an intermediary) any improper consideration such as, but not limited to, cash, discounts, services, the provision of travel or entertainment, or any items of value to any officer, employee or agent of the CITY in an attempt to secure favorable treatment regarding this Agreement or any contract awarded by CITY. The CITY, by notice, may immediately terminate this Agreement if it determines that any improper consideration as described in the preceding sentence was offered to any officer, employee or agent of the CITY with respect to the proposal and award process of this Agreement or any CITY contract. This prohibition shall apply to any amendment, extension or evaluation process once this Agreement or any CITY contract has been awarded. CONTRACTOR shall immediately report any attempt by any CITY officer, employee or agent to solicit (either directly or through an intermediary) improper consideration from CONTRACTOR.

13.09 Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the entire balance of this Agreement not so affected shall remain in full force and effect.

Page 103 of 1299 ends

City of Beaumont Agreement #
C18-48.3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have made and executed this Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first above written.

CITY: CONTRACTOR:

CITY OF BEAUMONT IDC CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.

By: By:

Print Name: WENDY LI
Title: President / CEO

Page 1 ends

City of Beaumont Agreement #
C18-48.3
EXHIBIT "A"

PROPOSAL
(insert behind this page)

Page 1085 of 1299 ends

41 IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc.

September 10, 2024
Mr. Dustin Christensen
Principal Engineer
City of Beaumont
Via Email: [email protected]
Re: Amendment request to complete design for the Pennsylvania Grade Separation project_ Amendment #3
Dear Mr. Christensen,
I am writing to you regarding the Pennsylvania Grades Project, for which IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc. has been diligently working to deliver. Our commitment to the City is to delivery the 100% Plan, Specification and Estimate (PS&E) by the later part of 2024 to support City's effort to secure additional state and federal funds for the project.

To provide a complete project, several additional tasks need to be added to the project that were not part of the original scope.

We greatly value our partnership with the City and remain committed to the success of the Pennsylvania Grades Project. We believe that the proposed amendment will enable us to allocate the necessary resources and expertise to effectively address the additional scope items and deliver a project that meets your expectations.

Please feel free to contact me at 909.451.1338 if you have any questions regarding this request. Thank you for your understanding and continued support.

Best regards,
Wendy Li
Project Manager
President and CEO
IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc.
[email protected]

Page 1 of 4 ends

5 Corporate Park Suite 200, CA 91606

Page 1086 of 1299 ends

SA: IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Summary of Additional Tasks

1. None -standard Walls in front of the existing 1-10 Pennsylvania Interchange Underpass abutments IDC will design non-standard walls for Caltrans approval. Work tasks include:
• Prepare Type Selection Report
• Attend Type Selection Meeting and Address Comments
• 65% Unchecked Details
• Final PS&E

2. Accommodate 5% Grade Design Option required by Caltrans IDC will revise the initial 50% Plans (7% grades) to accommodate Maximum of 5% grade (within Caltrans access control) to satisfy Caltrans requirement. The original scope include two proposed grades similar to Sunset Crossing.

3. Master Drainage Design Coordination with EXP
IDC will coordinate with EXP to ensure grade separation will not be flooded under the 100 year flood event. Original scope includes drainage system to capture off -site conditions with no future increase.

The City's master drainage project was awarded after Grade Separation project. Master drainage project focuses on designing system to capture various flow demands include five years, 10 years, and 20 years.

Extensive coordination required to ensure the grade separation will not be flooded under 100 flood events.

4. Sewer Relocation Design
IDC will coordinate with City Sewer and provide design for the sewer line relocation.

5. Utility Coordination:

IDC's utility coordination team Monument will provide Utility Coordination service for AT&T, MCI, SEC and Southern California Gas Company.
b. Utility Coordination Activities:
• Primary Point of Contact
• Relocation Claim Letters
• Monthly PDT meeting
• Conflict Identification

Page 2 of 4 ends

5 Corporate Park Suite 200, CA 91606

Page 1087 of 1299 ends

AM) Consulting Engineers, Inc.
• Liability Determination
• Relocation Plans (AT&T, MCI, SEC Socal Gas)
• Utility Certifications

6. Track Design —To accommodate wider structure required by UPRR:

IDC's Track Design Team will revise the original track design to accommodate wider bridge to accommodate two additional future tracks. Per UPRR requirement, the structure must accommodate four tracks plus one access road. The original scope was established to provide one additional track similar to Sunset Grade Separation.

7. Right -of -Way Acquisition:

IDC's Right of Way team will provide property acquisition and management services to clear right of way constraints for the project. Major tasks include:
• Identify parcels and easements impacted by the project • Prepare right-of-way acquisition documents and exhibit • Assist the City in negotiations with property owners
• Coordinate with the City's right-of-way team to ensure timely acquisition • Right of Way Certification

8. Additional Borings Required for Special walls and Prevailing Wage Adjustments for Direct Labor / Materials
IDC's geotechnical team EMI will provide field boring services and associated geotechnical reports for the special walls and borings for sewer relocations.

9. Traffic Signals Design Service
IDC's traffic design team Lin Consulting will provide traffic signals design if needed subject to the intersection evaluation analysis at the intersection of 1-10 Pennsylvania Ave Interchange WB off ramp and Pennsylvania Avenue.

10. Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) and Traffic Impact Study IDC's traffic design team Fehr Peers will provide ICE and Traffic Impact Study to satisfy Caltrans review comments regarding the project impact to the Pennsylvania Interchange.

Page 3 of 4 ends

5 Corporate Park Suite 200, CA 91606

Page 1088 of 1299 ends

S� IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Amendment 3 - Summar
Prepared by:

IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Date:
9/10/2024
Service Breakdown
Original Contract
Amendment#3
Total
% Increase
Reasons for Amendment
1 Civil/Structure/Utility Relocation Design
(Drainage/Sewer/Water)
$ 1,313,575
$ 258,630
$ 1,572,205
20%
Larger Structure, additional special
retaining walls require Caltrans full
oversights; additional sewer
relocation design; additional
drainage coordination
2 Track Design/UPRR/Track Drainage/Construction
Phasing/CUPC APP/C&M
$ 333,000
$ 438,000
$ 771,000
132%
Previous track design obsolete due
to bridge dimention change;
additional review cycles; additional
missed scope includes track
drainage; and other detail tasks.
3 Geotechnical Engineering
$ 123,758
$ 70,000
$ 193,758
57%
Additional borings for specal wall
design, prevailing wage adjustment
and drilling rigs material changes
4 Right of Way Services
$ 147,000
$ 147,000
100%
Added scope
5 Utility Coordination
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
100%
Added scope
6 Survey
$ 60,000
$ 45,000
$ 105,000
75%
Additional survey needed for sewer
and track design
7 Bridge Aesthetic
$ 94,600
$ 18,920
$ 113,520
20%
Additional aesthetic treatment for
special walls and railings
8 Traffic Signals Design
$ 67,393
$ 67,393
100%
Required by Caltrans (subject to CE)
9 Intersection Control Evaluation
$ 90,000
$ 90,000
100%
Required by Caltrans
$ 1,924,933
$ 1,184,943
$ 3,109,876
Construction Cost
$60,000,000
PAED/PSE Cost (excluding ENV and Design Support during
construction)
Phase 1, 2 & 3 - Original Contract and Amendment #3
5%
Original
Amendment#3
Total
Expended
Remaining
TRC
$ 230,050.00
$ 230,050.00
$ 230,050.00
$ -
MOFFATT & NICHOL (Rail Alignment Design and Coordination) $ 333,000.00
$ (90,000.00)
$ 243,000.00
$ 243,000.00
$ -

DEA - LANDSCAPE
$ 94,600.00
$ 18,920.00
$ 113,520.00
$ 20,770.92
$ 92,749.08

SURVEY - DEA
$ 60,000.00
$ -
$ 60,000.00
$ 60,000.00
$ -
SURVEY - CL Survey (New)
$ -
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ -
$ 15,000.00

EMI - GEOTECHNICAL
$ 106,000.00
$ 70,000.00
$ 176,000.00
$ 17,758.80
$ 158,241.20

EMI - ADL
$ 17,758.00
$ -
$ 17,758.00
$ -
$ 17,758.00
HDR (Track / UPRR Coordination/CUPC APP/C&M AGR/Track Drainage Plans) $ 528,000.00
$ 528,000.00
$ -
$ 528,000.00
Monument (Right of Way)
$ 147,000.00
$ 147,000.00
$ -
$ 147,000.00
Monument (Utility Coordination / Edison)
$ 50,000.00
$ 50,000.00
$ -
$ 50,000.00
Survey - MISC (Required as necessary)
$ 50,000.00
$ 50,000.00
$ -
$ 50,000.00
Lin Consulting In.c (Traffic Signal Design)
$ 67,393.00
$ 67,393.00
$ -
$ 67,393.00
Fehr & Peers (ICE and Traffic Impact Study)
$ 90,000.00
$ 90,000.00
$ -
$ 90,000.00
IDC
$1,083,525.22
$ 262,877.78
$1,346,403.00
$ 678,062.96
$ 668,340.04
Total
$1,924,933.22
$ 1,209,190.78
$3,134,124.00
$ 1,249,642.68
$ 1,884,481.32
Phase 4 - Not Included in the Amendment #3
Bid Support

OPTIONAL
$ 15,000.00
Design Support During Construction

OPTIONAL
$ 200,000.00
Total Optional Task
Not included in Amendment #3
$ 215,000.00

Page 4 of 4 ends

5 Corporate Park Suite 200, CA 91606

Page 1089 of 1299 ends

PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION
Contract Number
Firm: MC CsanninlEngII)NNMC.

WORK DESCRIPTION FEE PROPOSAL FOR PHASE 1, 2 & 3 Reviewed By:

PREPARED BY: Wendy Li DATE: 8/21/2024
WBS
NO.

SUB -TASK DESCRIPTION

LABOR HOURS
Total Hours
Role
Sr. Project Manager -
Wendy Li
Sr. Bridge Design Lead
- Xiaouun Wu
Project Engineer 3 -
Edwin Viray and David
Wang
Structure Engineer 2 -
Lei Lui
Design/Civil Engineer -
Chris Rivera / Zack Fok
/ Ping Zhang
Assistant Project
Manager - Julia and
Louis
Engineering Technician
(CADD) - Gary Wei
Administration /
Accounting - Helen
0 PHASE I - GEOMETRIC APPROVAL /PROJECTMAPS
812
107
so
129
50 179
80 171
16 Research and Data Galherin•
32 36
33 13
45 20
43 Perform Pro'ect Man;•ement and ens Cordina0on Ac ties 16 16
Bridge and Retailing Wall Concert Develo•ment
40 44
96 37
134
60 128
Pnelimina P.'ect Estimate Develorment
6 Project Risk Management Plan Development
13 PHASE 2 - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES 35%
1347
99 30
200
252
250
80 344
16 Research and Data Gathering
20 8
65 63
85 20
44 Perform Project Man. gement Activities
20 10
18 PreliminarySSucore Design (bridge and walls)
40 20
195
189
193
60 300
Preliminary Estimate (bridge and walls)
8 Project Risk Management
13 PHASE 3 - FINAL DESIGN SERVICES 65% 100% FINAL
7127
226
150
1600
1040
2570
118
1373
40 Research and Data Gatherin• u -dates
21 20
51 83
73 20
370
Perform Proact Man. •ement Activities
91 50
40 85% and Final Structre/Civil/Drain -re Design
80 1484
898
2408
862
Engineering Estimate
30 36
40 40
40 80
Engineering Srecilcadon
8 40
50 49
49 8
71 P ect Risk Man . gement
8 Agreement (Wide.)
100

TOTAL LABOR HOURS
9286
434
268
1989
1350
3007
278
1888
72 0
0 0
0 RATE ($IHR)
$96.50
$96.50
$71.00
$50.00
$45.00
$45.00
$51.00
$28.00
Fully Loaded Rate - For Invoice
$244.15
$244.15
$179.63
$126.50
0113.85
0113.85
0129.03
$70.84
LABOR COSTS (Si
$41,881
$25,882
$141,219
$67,500
$135,315
012,510
096,288
$2,016
SeeB ow
50 $0

EXPENSES
COMMENTS ASSUMPTIONS:
1) Fee updated base on 2018 proposal adjusted to new structure size base on UPRR approved TSR and Caltrans GAD (5%/6%) with interchange foundation. See amendment request for details. coordination, and right of way.
design.

ITEM(S)
Unit of Measure

QUANTITY

UNIT PRICE

TOTAL PRICE
Printing and Reproduction
LS
1 $5.000.00
85,000.00
special elevated sidewalk and special retaining walls to protect

2. Added sewer relocation per sewer plans (as of May 2024), utility 3 Added additional survey for sewer design.

4. The Fee include $50,000 optional additional survey for finalizing 5 Added traffic signal design.

6. Added Caltrans ICE and Traffic Impact Study.

Computer
uterExpenses
Hour
$0.00
Vehicle
$O.00
Mileage
Mlles
7200
$0.54
$3,888.00
Ground Transportation (Train/cab)
Each
$0.00
Auto Parking
Each
$0.00
Delivery Services
Each
6 $60.00
$360.00
Communications
Each
$0.00
Air Travel
Each
$0.00
Travel and Per -Diem Costs
Each
$0.00
UPRR Permitting lInsurance/ Flagging
Each
3 $5,000.00
515,000.00
DIRECT LABOR. OVERHEAD ® 130.00% PROFIT© 10%
91,322,155
$0.00
Total Hours 9,286
TOTAL EXPENSES: 924348

FIRM'S TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES
524,24e
SUB.CONTRACTORS:

SUBCONSULTANT
$ 1,787,721.00
FIRM:

TRC
9230,050

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$3,134,124
MOFFATT 8 NICHOL (Rail Alignment Design and Coordination) $243,000

DEA-LANDSCAPE
$113,520

SURVEY - DEA
560,000
NEW
SURVEY -CL Survey (New)
$15,000
EMI. GEOTECHNICAL
$176,000

EMI -ADL
$17,758
NEW
HDR (Track) UPRR COordlnationlCUPC APPICBM AGRITrack Drainage Plans) $528,000
NEW
Monument (Right of Way)
$147,000
NEW
Monument (Utility Coordination I Edison)
$50,000
NEW
Lin Consulting Inc (Traffic Signals)
$67,393
Survey -MISC (Required as necessary)
$50,000
NEW
Fehr B Peers- ICE Report and Traffic Impact Study
$90,000
Sub Consultants Total
$1,707,721
AMOUNT:
$0
SO
$0
$0
50 $0
Total Fee 0
93,134,124

Page 1090 of 1299 ends

Beaumont City CouncilOctober 1, 2024

Beaumont City Council
October 1, 2024