Impact Fee and legal support for the required findings that must be made to justify the amount of each Development Impact Fee, based on existing deficiencies of certain public facilities and the projected burdens on those facilities caused by prospective development in the City; and I. The City's last Development Impact Fee Nexus Studies took place in 2017, and since that time, the City has approved a Capital Improvement Plan, and has seen significant development activity in the recent years; and
J. The City retained the professional services of Wildan Financial Services to prepare the Fee Study and
K. By notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the Fee Study and the Fee proposed thereunder, and at least ten days prior to the hearing, the City made the Fee Study available to the public on May 31, 2024, September 16, 2024, and October 31, 2024.
L. At the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered the data and information provided by the public relative to the costs for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing.
M. The City Council found that the Fee Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of the improvements and facilities, and specifically:
1. That the Fee Study identifies the purpose of each Development Impact Fee;
2. That the Fee Study identifies the use to which each Development Impact Fee is to be put;
3. That the Fee Study identifies all public facilities that will be financed by the respective Development Impact Fee;
4. That the Fee Study determines how there is a reasonable relationship between each Development Impact Fee's use and the type of development project on which the respective Development Impact Fee will be imposed; and
5. That the Fee Study determines how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for each public facility and the type of development project on which the particular Development Impact Fee will be imposed;
6. That the Fee Study includes all the requisite information to support the adoption of the Fee Study as required under subdivision (a) of Section 66001 of the California Government Code.
7. That the Fee Study supports all increases of existing Development Impact Fees and the assumptions contained in the Fee Study supporting the original fees were properly reviewed and amount of the fees collected under the original fees were properly reviewed and amount of the fees collected under the original fee 2
were properly evaluated pursuant to subdivision (a)(4) of Section 66016.5 of the California Government Code.
8. That pursuant to subdivision (a)(5)(A) of Section 66016.5 of the California Government Code, since the Fee Study calculates the Development Impact Fees imposed on housing based on the square footage of the proposed number of units, it is deemed to be a valid method of establishing a reasonable relationship between the Development Impact Fee charged and the burden imposed by housing development;
That proper notice of the November 5, 2024, Public Hearing was provided pursuant to Sections 66002 and 60016.5 of the California Government Code for the Fee Study.
N. The City Council adopted the Fee Study and findings incorporated therein, and incorporates it herein as though set forth in full.
O. The levying of the Fee has been reviewed by the City Council and staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines and it has been determined that the adoption of this resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Beaumont does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Fee Schedule. There is hereby adopted the fee schedule for the Fees as contained in Table E.1 in the Fee Study and attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective at least sixty (60) days from the date of approval on January 6, 2025.
ADOPTED this 5th day of November 2024.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
By:
David Fenn, Mayor, City of Beaumont
3
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
By:
4
EXHIBIT "A"
5
Public Works - Fee Schedule
City of Beaumont
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Based on Nexus Study Dated 10/31/2024
Service Name
Fee Description
Fee
Emergency Preparedness Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$0.013
Commercial
Square Foot
$0.002
Industrial/Business Park
Square Foot
$0.003
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Square Foot
$0.001
Fire Protection Facilities Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$0.36
Commercial
Square Foot
$0.43
Industrial/Business Park
Square Foot
$0.63
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Square Foot
$0.18
General/Advanced Planning Impact Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$0.02
Commercial
Square Foot
$0.01
Industrial/Business Park
Square Foot
$0.02
Industrial/High-Cube Ware
Square Foot
$0.004
Park Facilities Fee Schedule
Park Land in Lieu (Subdivisions)
Square Foot
$0.79
Park Land Acquisition (Non -Subdivisions)
Square Foot
$0.76
Community Park Improvements
Square Foot
$0.49
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Square Foot
$0.60
Police Facilities Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$0.64
Commercial
Square Foot
$0.35
Industrial/Business Park
Square Foot
$0.51
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Square Foot
$0.15
Public Facilities Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$0.28
Commercial
Square Foot
$0.16
Industrial/Business Park
Square Foot
$0.23
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Square Foot
$0.07
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$0.52
Commercial
Square Foot
$4.24
Industrial/Business Park
Square Foot
$2.31
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Transload & Short -Term Storage Warehouse
Square Foot
$0.19
Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort
Square Foot
$0.30
Parcel Hub Warehouse
Square Foot
$1.21
Cold Storage Warehouse
Square Foot
$0.23
Recreation Facilities Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$0.93
Recycled Water Facility Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$0.30
Commercial
Square Foot
$0.14
Industrial/Business Park
Square Foot
$0.24
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Square Foot
$0.24
Sewer Capacity Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$2.83
Public Works - Fee Schedule
City of Beaumont
Commercial
Square Foot
$1.08
Industrial /Business Park
Square Foot
$4.28
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Square Foot
$1.47
Sewer Facilities Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$0.65
Commercial
Square Foot
$0.31
Industrial/Business Park
Square Foot
$0.52
Industrial/High-Cube Ware
Square Foot
$0.52
Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$0.02
Commercial
Square Foot
$0.02
Industrial/Business Park
Square Foot
$0.02
Industrial/High-Cube Ware
Square Foot
$0.02
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$1.85
Commercial
Square Foot
$15.05
Industrial/Business Park
Square Foot
$8.20
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Transload & Short -Term Storage Warehouse
Square Foot
$0.67
Fulfillment Center Warehouse — Non -Sort
Square Foot
$1.08
Parcel Hub Warehouse
Square Foot
$4.30
Cold Storage Warehouse
Square Foot
$0.81
Trails Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$0.01
Non -City Fees
Library Facilities Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit
Square Foot
$0.15
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)*
Refer to RCA/MSHCP for actual
Fees
Residential -Less than 8 du per acre
Dwelling Unit
Residential -Between 8 and 14 du per acre
Dwelling Unit
$1,766
Residential - More than 14 du per acre
Dwelling Unit
$781
Commercial/Industrial
Per Acre
$19,066
* Fee Subject to change per RCA
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)*
Refer to WRCOG/TUMF for actual Fees
Residential -Single Family
Dwelling Unit
Residential -Multi -Family
Dwelling Unit
$6,580
Commercial -Retail
Square Foot
$7.72
Commercial -Service
Square Foot
$4.89
Commercial -Service Class A & B Office
Square Foot
$2.45
Industrial
Square Foot
$1.86
CITY OF BEAUMONT
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS
STUDY UPDATE
REVISED REPORT
OCTOBER 31, 2024
IVFinancial Services
Oakland Office
66 Franklin Street
Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel: (510) 832-0899
WILLDAN
Corporate Office
27368 Via Industria
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
Tel: (800) 755-6864
Fax: (888) 326-6864
www.willdan.com
Other Regional Offices
Aurora, CO
Orlando, FL
Phoenix, AZ
Plano, TX
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
Background and Study Objectives 5
Facility Standards and Costs 6
Use of Fee Revenues 6
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 7
Other Funding Needed 9
1. INTRODUCTION 10
Public Facilities Financing in California 10
Study Objectives 10
Fee Program Maintenance 11
Administrative Costs 11
Study Methodology 11
Types of Facility Standards 12
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 12
Organization of the Report 14
2. GROWTH FORECASTS 15
Land Use Types 15
Existing and Future Development 16
Occupant Densities 17
3. PARK FACILITIES 19
Service Population 19
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory 19
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 20
Parkland and Park Facility Standards 21
Mitigation Fee Act 21
Quimby Act 21
City of Beaumont Parkland and Park Facilities Standards 22 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 22
Park Facilities Cost per Capita 24
Use of Fee Revenue 25
Fee Schedule 25
4. RECREATION FACILITIES 27
Service Population 27
Existing Recreation Facilities Inventory 27
Planned Recreation Facilities 28
Cost Allocation 28
Existing Level of Service 28
Future Level of Service 29
Use of Fee Revenue 29
Non -Fee Funding Required 29
WILLDAN I
Financial Services
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule 30
5. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES 31
Service Population 31
Facility Inventories and Standards 32
Existing Inventory 32
Planned Facilities 33
Cost Allocation 34
Existing Level of Service 34
Future Level of Service 34
Use of Fee Revenue 35
Non -Fee Funding Required 35
Fee Schedule 36
6. POLICE FACILITIES 37
Service Population 37
Facility Inventories and Standards 38
Existing Inventory 38
Planned Facilities 39
Cost Allocation 40
Existing Level of Service 40
Future Level of Service 40
Use of Fee Revenue 41
Non -Fee Funding Required 41
Fee Schedule 42
7. PUBLIC FACILITIES 43
Service Population 43
Facility Inventories and Standards 44
Existing Inventory 44
Planned Facilities 45
Cost Allocation 46
Existing Level of Service 46
Future Level of Service 46
Use of Fee Revenue 47
Non -Fee Funding Required 47
Fee Schedule 48
8. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 49
Fee Structure Changes 49
Trip Demand 49
Trip Growth 50
Project Costs 51
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 53
Fee Schedule 53
9. SEWER FACILITIES 55
Sewer Demand 55
WILLDAN
Financial Services
ii
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update EDU Generation by New Development 56
Facility Needs and Costs 56
Cost per EDU 61
Fee Schedule 61
10. SEWER CAPACITY 63
Current Demand for Wastewater Treatment 63
Current Sewer System Asset Valuation 63
Adjusted System Valuation 64
Fee per Gallon per Day 64
Nonresidential Fee Schedule 65
1 1 . RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES 67
Recycled Water Demand 67
Planned Facilities 67
Cost per EDU 67
Fee Schedule 68
12. GENERAL PLAN 70
Service Population 70
Planned Costs 71
Facility Standard 72
Fee Revenue Projection 72
Fee Schedule 73
13. LIBRARY FACILITIES 74
Service Population 74
Existing Library Facilities 74
Planned Facilities 75
Cost Allocation 75
Existing Level of Service 75
Use of Fee Revenue 76
Fee Revenue Projection 76
Fee Schedule 76
14. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FACILITIES 78
Service Population 78
Planned Facilities and Standards 79
Planned Facilities 79
Cost Allocation 80
Future Level of Service 80
Use of Fee Revenue 80
Non -Fee Funding Required 80
Fee Schedule 81
15. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES 82
Storm Drain Demand 82
10VWILLDAN
Financial Services
i i i
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update EDU Generation by New Development 82
Existing Inventory 83
Planned Facilities 83
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 84
Planned Facilities Cost per EDU 84
Projected Fee Revenue 84
Fee Schedule 85
16. TRAILS 86
Service Population 86
Existing Trails Inventory 86
Planned Trails 87
Cost Allocation 87
Existing Level of Service 87
Future Level of Service 88
Use of Fee Revenue 88
Fee Revenue Projection 88
Fee Schedule 88
17. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS 90
Compliance with AB 602 90
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 90
66016.5. (a) (4) — Review of Original Fee Assumptions 91 66016.5. (a) (5) — Residential Fees per Square Foot 91
66016.5. (a) (6) — Capital Improvement Plan 91
18. IMPLEMENTATION 92
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 92
Inflation Adjustment 92
Reporting Requirements 92
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 92
19. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS 93
Purpose of Fee 93
Use of Fee Revenues 93
Benefit Relationship 93
Burden Relationship 94
Proportionality 94
APPENDIX A-1
WILLDAN
Financial Services
iv
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Beaumont through buildout of the City's General Plan. It is the City's intent that the costs representing future development's share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
• Parks • Sewer Capacity
• Recreation Facilities • Recycled Water
• Fire Protection Facilities • General Plan
• Police Facilities • Library District
• Public Facilities • Emergency Preparedness Facilities • Transportation Facilities • Storm Drain
• Sewer Facilities • Trails
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.
The Mitigation Fee Act findings required to implement impact fees in California demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and a fee to fund facilities needed to serve that development. The term essential nexus refers to the relationship between new development and the need for facilities (and corresponding impact fees) to serve that development. The findings also require that this study demonstrates rough proportionality of the fees- meaning that the amount of the exactions must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government, resulting from the proposed development project. To ensure that fees are roughly proportional to demand for facilities from new development, this study first allocates facilities costs to new development using the allocation methods described below, then to individual units of new development based on the demand characteristics of each unit, by land use type. This is described in detail in each chapter and summarized in Chapter 19.
All development impact fee -funded capital projects should be programmed through the City's five- year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
5 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Facility Standards and Costs
There are several approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements.
The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development's fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non -impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development's fair share of planned facilities. This approach is used for the recreation, fire protection, police, recycled water, general plan, emergency preparedness, and public facility fees in this report.
The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the transportation -related, sewer facilities, and trails facility fees in this report.
The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City's existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City's annual capital improvement plan and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is to calculate the parks, library, and storm drainage facilities fees in this report.
The buy -in method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now and into the future. Under the buy -in methodology, new development "buys" a proportionate share of existing capacity at the current value of the existing facilities. This approach is typically used for utility fees, where existing facilities are built with excess capacity to serve future development. This approach is used for the sewer capacity fees in this report.
Use of Fee Revenues
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that this analysis "Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged."1 Each chapter in this report identifies the appropriate use of impact fee revenues for each particular impact fee category.
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, infrastructure, 1 California Government Code §66001 (a) (2).
WILLDAN
Financial Services
6
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City's identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
7
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update E.1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule - per Square Foot Fee Category
Park Land In Lieu (Subdivisions)
Park Land Acquisition (Non Subdivisions)2
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Recreation Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets and Bridges
Railroad Crossings
Sewer Facilities
Sewer Capacity3
Recycled Water
General Plan
Library District
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Trails
Total (Subdivisions)
Total (Inn)
Residential
Dwelling
Unit
$ 0.79 $
0.76 0.49
0.60 0.93
0.36 0.64
0.28 1.85
0.52 0.65
2.83 0.30
0.02 0.15
0.013
0.02 0.01
10.45 10.42
Industrial/
Commercial Business Park
0.43 0.35
0.16 15.05
4.24 0.31
1.08 0.14
0.01 0.002
0.02 Industrial / High Cube Warehouse
Transload
and Short- Fulfillment
Term Center
Storage Warehouse - Parcel Hub
Warehouse Non -Sort Warehouse
0.63 0.18
0.51 0.15
0.23 0.07
8.20 0.67
2.31 0.19
0.52 0.52
4.28 1.47
0.24 0.24
0.02 0.004
0.003 0.001
0.02 0.02
21.79 $
21.79 $
16.96 $
16.96 $
0.18 0.15
0.07 1.08
0.30 0.52
1.47 0.24
0.004
0.001
0.02 0.18
0.15 0.07
4.30 1.21
0.52 1.47
0.24 0.004
0.001
0.02 3.52 $ 4.04 $
3.52 $ 4.04 $
Cold
Storage
Warehouse
0.18 0.15
0.07 0.81
0.23 0.52
1.47 0.24
0.004
0.001
0.02 8.17 $ 3.70
8.17 $ 3.70
Fee in lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act. 2 Fee for parkland acquisition charged under the Mitigation Fee Act. 3 "Commercial medium strength" fee show n for commercial. "Industrial high strength" fee show n for industrial/business park. "Industrial low strength" fee show n for industrial/high cube warehouse. Refer to Table 10.5 for full sew er capacity nonresidential fee schedule.
Sources: Tables 3.8, 4.7, 5.6, 6.7, 7.7, 8.5, 9.5, 10.4, 10.5, 11.3, 12.5, 13.6, 14.5, 15.7 and 16.6. .WILLDAN
Financial Services
8
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Beaumont.
They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E.2, approximately $321.7 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. The "Additional Funding Required" column shows non -impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non -fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development.
The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
Table E.2: Non -Impact Fee Funding Required
Fee Category
Net Project Development
Cost Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Park Land
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Recreation Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets and Bridges
Railroad Crossings
Sewer Facilities
Sewer Capacity'
Recycled Water
General Plan
Library District
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Trails
Total
$ 25,858,194
16, 526, 000
20, 242, 000
62, 506, 334
17, 007, 587
52, 292, 457
23, 889, 646
308,153, 612
87, 716, 550
70, 382,100
30, 742, 438
1,691,250
5,807,961
372,411
1,000,000
312,000
$ 724,500,541
$ 25, 858,194
16, 526, 000
20, 242, 000
31, 462, 439
16, 472, 432
25, 282, 328
11,231,280
161, 004, 317
45,316,450
28, 337, 773
12, 998, 453
764,683
5,807,961
191,171
1,000,000
312,000
$ 402,807,480
31, 043, 895
535,155
27, 010,129
12, 658, 366
147,149, 296
42,400,100
42, 044, 327
17, 743, 985
926,567
181,240
$ 321, 693, 061
1 No project costs show n. Capacity fee revenue is used to pay back City for excess capacity used to serve new development at WWTP.
Sources: Tables 3.5, 3.6, 4.6, 5.3, 6.6, 7.6, 8.3, 8.4, 9.3, 9.4, 11.2, 12.4, 13.5, 14.4, 15.6 and 16.3.
WI LLDAN
Financial Services
9 1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Beaumont. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
• Public Facilities Financing in California;
• Study Objectives;
• Fee Program Maintenance;
• Study Methodology; and,
• Organization of the Report.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 45 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;
• Unfunded state and federal mandates; and,
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of "growth pays its own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction -wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Implementation Policy LUCD6 of the City's General Plan states "Development Fees. Update citywide development impact fees for infrastructure, affordable housing, other community benefits, and long range planning." The primary purpose of this report is to update the City's impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policy stated above.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act to demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and the impact fees needed to support that development. The findings demonstrate
W'WILLDAN
Financial Services
10 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update that the fees are proportional to demand for facilities from new development and are necessary to allow the City to adopt the fee schedules presented in this report.
Beaumont is forecast to have significant growth through this study's planning horizon of General Plan buildout, which is not assigned to a particular year. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Beaumont has decided to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and capital facilities planning documents to update the City's existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.
Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the California Construction Cost Index, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 19.
Administrative Costs
Administration of an impact fee program to comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act imposes costs on the City for capital budgeting, fee adjustments, mandated annual reports and 5 - year reviews of the impact fee program, as well as periodic impact fee update studies and legal review. It is common practice in California for cities to add a small administrative charge to impact fees to cover those costs.
This study uses an assumption of 1`)/0 of the maximum justified fee to estimate the administrative costs associated with the fee program, consistent with the last impact fee study. To validate this assumption, City staff prepared an analysis of the administrative costs of the fee program from FY 2022-23. These costs were conservatively estimated at $108,282 compared to fee revenue of $8,184,833, equal to 1.32% of collected revenue. Note that this analysis excluded the administrative costs (and corresponding revenues) of the recycled water and sewer -related fees, as the administrative costs of those fee components were not tracked separately.
Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:
1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;
2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;
W'WILLDAN
Financial Services
11 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;
4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;
5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and
6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non -fee funding is required to complete projects.
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.
Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
• Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. • Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City's facility design standards.
• Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.
This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
WILLDAN
Financial Services
12 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy -based standard. The local agency must secure non -fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This approach is used for the recreation, fire protection, police, recycled water, general plan, emergency preparedness, and public facility fees in this report. = $/unit of demand
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long- range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.
This approach is to calculate the parks, library, and storm drainage facilities fees in this report.
Planned Facilities Method
= $/unit of demand
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is a portion of a roadway that has been identified as necessary to mitigate the impact from new development through traffic modeling analysis. Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the transportation -related, sewer conveyance facilities, and trails facility fees in this report.
- $/unit of demand
Buy -In Method
The buy -in method is based on the value of the existing system's capacity. This method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now and into the future. Under the buy -in methodology, new development "buys" a proportionate share of existing capacity at the current value of the existing facilities.
The buy -in fee is determined by taking the current value of assets (replacement cost new, less depreciation) divided by the current capacity provided by the system. Responsibility for new Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
13 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update capital improvements is then shared equally by all customers. A simplified version of the calculation equation is:
Present Value of Existing Facilities
= cost per unit of demand
Existing System Capacity
This approach is typically used for utility fees, where existing facilities are built with excess capacity to serve future development. This approach is used for the sewer capacity fees in this report.
Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.
Chapters 3 through 16 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
• Parks • Sewer Capacity
• Recreation Facilities • Recycled Water
• Fire Protection Facilities • General Plan
• Police Facilities • Library District
• Public Facilities • Emergency Preparedness Facilities • Transportation Facilities • Storm Drain
• Sewer Conveyance • Trails
Chapter 17 describes how this study complies with the requirements of AB 602.
Chapter 18 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 19.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
14 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2023 base year and a planning horizon of General Plan buildout, which is not assigned a particular year.
Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2023 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The estimate of total development at buildout is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any.
• Estimates of growth from 2023 through buildout are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.
The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Residential: All residential dwelling units. Fees charged per square foot of living space.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development. • Industrial/Business Park: A business park consists of a group of flex -type or incubator one- or two-story buildings served by a common roadway system. The space may include offices, retail and wholesale stores, restaurants, recreational areas and warehousing, manufacturing, light industrial, or scientific research functions.
• Industrial/High Cube Warehouse (HCW): All warehouse and distribution center development. Note that for the transportation facilities fee, this land -use category is further divided into subcategories as follows
o Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse: A transload facility has the primary function of consolidation and distribution of pallet loads (or larger) for manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers. A transload facility typically has little storage duration, high throughput, and its operations are high efficiency.
o Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort: A non -sort facility is a fulfillment center that ships large box items that are processed primarily with automation rather than through manual means.
o Parcel Hub Warehouse: A high -cube parcel hub warehouse typically serves as a regional and local freight -forwarder facility for time sensitive shipments via airfreight and ground carriers.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
15 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update o Cold Storage Warehouse: A high -cube cold store warehouse has substantial temperature -controlled environments for frozen food and other perishable products.
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed -use development with both residential and commercial uses. Another similar situation would be a warehousing facility that contains office space. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type included within the building.
The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project's characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use.
Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Beaumont, both in 2023 and at buildout. The base year estimates of residents and dwelling units come from the California Department of Finance. The projection of total dwelling units at buildout is identified in Table 3.2b of the City's General Plan. Total dwelling units at buildout is then used to estimate population at building by multiplying the count of units by the occupant densities of 3.28 residents per single family unit and 2.70 residents per multifamily unit, based on data for Beaumont from the American Community Survey.
Base year employees were estimated based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau's OnTheMap Application. Estimated building square feet in 2023 was calculated based on the current employment count and density factors in Table 2.2. Building square feet at buildout is identified in Table 3.2b of the General Plan.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
16 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions
2023 Buildout Increase
Residents 56,070 97,144 41,074
Dwelling Units 2
Single Family 16,583 23,081 6,498
Multifamily 2,136 7,940 5,804
Total 18,719 31,021 12,302
Employment 3
Commercial 3,800 15,044 11,244
Industrial/Business Park 1,085 2,723 1,638
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,330 10,122 8,792
Total 6,215 27,890 21,675
Building Square Feet (000s) 4
Commercial 1,792 7,096 5,304
Industrial/Business Park 352 884 532
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,511 11,502 9,991
Total 3,656 19,483 15,827
1 Current household population from California Department of Finance. Projection based on total dw elling units in City multiplied by assumption of residents per single farrily (3.28) and multifarrily (2.70) unit calculated from American Community Survey data. 2 Current values from California Department of Finance. Projection of total dw elling units at buildout identified in Table 3.2b of the General Ran. 3 Current estimates of primary jobs from the US Census' OnTheMap. Projection based on total building square feet identified in Table 3.2b of the General Ran, multiplied by employment densities from Table 2.2.
4 Estimated building square feet in 2023 calculated based on employment count and density factors in Table 2.2. Building square feet at buildout identified in Table 3.2b of the General Ran.
Sources: California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2023; City of Beaumont, California Final General Ran, 2020; OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.
Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. The densities ensure that the fee per unit of new development is roughly proportional to the demand for facilities from various types of development.
Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.
The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factor was calculated using the most recent data from the American Community Survey Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
17 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update specifically for the City of Beaumont. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition for commercial and industrial/business park land uses. The occupancy density factor for industrial/highOcube warehouse uses was calculated based on data provided by the City for use in this analysis.
Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential - All Units 3.22 Residents per dwelling unit Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial/Business Park 3.08 Employees per 1,000 square feet Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 0.88 Employees per 1,000 square feet Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITETrip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.
Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services
18 3. Park Facilities
The purpose of the park facilities impact fee is to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of park facilities per capita. Fee revenue would be used to expand the provision of parks to meet demand from future development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for City parks from the projected increase in residents and the additional parks needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the City's existing ratio of park acres to residents, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit. A fee in -lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act is also included in this chapter.
Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in Beaumont primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City's residential population. Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park facilities.
Table 3.1: Park Facilities Service
Population
Residents
Census (2020)
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
53,036
56,070
41,074
97,144
Source: Table 2.1.
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory
The City of Beaumont maintains several parks throughout the city. Table 3.2 summarizes the City's existing parkland inventory in 2023. All facilities are owned by the City. In total, the inventory includes a total of 154.27 acres of City -owned parkland.
WI LLDAN
Financial Services
19 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.2: Park Land Inventory
Developed
Name Acres
Community Parks
Beaumont Sports Park
Stewart Park
Subtotal
Neighborhood Parks
Aspen Creek Park
De Forge Park
Fallen Heroes Park
Mickelson Park
Mountain View Park
Nicklaus Park
Palmer Park
Rangal Park
Seneca Springs Park
Shadow Hills Park
Stetson Park
Sundance Bowl
Sundance PA 51
Sunny Hills Park
Three Rings Ranch Park
Trevino Park
Veteran's Park
Wild Flower Park
Subtotal
22.66 13.21
35.87 1.18
15.10 16.61
6.68 5.00
18.06 3.62
1.58 2.14
3.90 11.82
16.51 1.40
0.32 6.02
5.36 0.13
2.97 118.40
Total 154.27
Source: City of Beaumont.
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 3.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Beaumont. The cost of improving a acre of community and neighborhood parkland with standard park improvements is based on the assumed cost of park improvements from the City's prior impact fee study, adjusted for inflation into 2023 dollars. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. In total, this analysis assumes that it costs $847,200 to acquire and develop an acre of community parkland and $438,600 to acquire and develop an acre of neighborhood parkland, respectively, in Beaumont.
At/WILLDAN
Financial Services
20 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Community Neighborhood
Parks Parks
Standard Park Improvements
Land Acquisition
Total Cost per Acre
$ 628,600 $ 220,000
218,600 218,600
$ 847,200 $ 438,600
Sources: City of Beaumont; CoStar; Willdan Financial Services.
Parkland and Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded parkland and park facilities. Information regarding the City's existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.
The most common measure in calculating new development's demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act (using a city's existing inventory of parkland and park facilities), or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.2 In this case, the City will use the Mitigation Fee Act to impose park impact fees for development not occurring in subdivisions and will use the Quimby Act for development occurring in subdivisions.
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to existing development.3 In this case, the fees will be set to maintain the City's existing parkland standard of acres per 1,000 residents.
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three -acre minimum if the jurisdiction's existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).
The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction's adopted general or specific plan standards.
The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.
The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund the acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated. 2 California Government Code §66477.
3 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Background Report.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
21 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update The Quimby Act allows use of in -lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.
Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements, and rehabilitation of existing parks.
City of Beaumont Parkland and Park Facilities Standards Table 3.4 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. Once accounting for impact fee fund balances, the City has an existing parkland standard of 2.88 acres per 1,000 residents, which is less than the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The impact fee analysis in this report will be based on maintaining the City's 2.88 acre per 1,000 resident standard as new development adds demand for parks in Beaumont. Fees in -lieu of land dedication for subdivisions are calculated at the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. Note that the existing improvement standard is allocated to community and neighborhood parkland, respectively.
Table 3.4: Park Standards
Community Neighborhood
Parks Parks
Total
Developed Park Acreage
Fund Balance Equivalent
Total Park Acres
Existing Service Population (2023)
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)
Quimby Act Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)
35.87 118.40
6.95 35.87 125.35
56,070 56,070
0.64 2.24
154.27
161.22
56,070
2.88 3.00
1 Existing community and neighborhood park fund balance divided by cost per acre from Table 3.3 to determine equivalent park acres, respectively.
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 3.5 shows the park improvements needed to accommodate new development at the existing acre per 1,000 resident standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, new residential development must fund the improvement of 26.39 community park acres and 92.01 neighborhood park acres, at a total cost of $36.8 million.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
22 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.5: Park Improvements to Accommodate New Development Calculation Community Neighborhood
Total
Park Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 0.64 2.24
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) B 41,074 41,074 Facility Needs (acres) c =Ax 8/1000 26.29 92.01
Average Unit Cost (per acre)
Total
D $ 628,600 $ 220,000
E=CxD $ 16,526,000 $ 20,242,000
2.88 118.30
$ 36,768,000
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.
Table 3.6 shows the park land needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard and Quimby standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, new development must fund the acquisition of between 118.29 and 123.22 parkland acres, at a total cost ranging between $25.9 and $26.9 million.
The facility standards and resulting fees under the Quimby Act are higher because development will be charged to provide 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 2.88 acres of improvements, whereas development not subject to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide only 2.88 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 2.88 acres of improvements. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 3.6 presents the range of total land costs that may be incurred depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act.
Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services
23 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.6: Park Land to Accommodate New Development
Calculation Parkland Total Ranger
Subdivisions
Parkland Dedication In -Lieu (Quimby Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 3.00
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 8 41,074 Facility Needs (acres) C =A x 8/1000 123.22
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 218,600
Total - Subdivisions2
E = C x D $ 26, 935, 892
Non -Subdivisions
Parkland Acquisition (Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 2.88
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 8 41.074 Facility Needs (acres) C =Ax 8/1000 118.29
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 218.600
Total - Infill3
E = C x D $ 25, 858,194
1 Values in this column show the range of the cost of parkland acquisition and development should all development be either subject to the Quimby Act, or to the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. 2 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Quimby Act (Subdivisions of 50 units or more). Fee in -lieu of parkland dedication charged at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. 3 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Acquisition fee charged at the existing standard.
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.
Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 3.7 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the existing facility standard, and at the Quimby standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of four fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of land dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition. This fee is payable by residential and nonresidential development not occurring in subdivisions. • A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for neighborhood park improvements. This fee is payable by all development.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for community park improvements. This fee is payable by all development.
A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, not both. All development projects pay both Mitigation Fee Act fees for park improvements.
WI LLDAN
Financial Services
24 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.7: Cost per Capita
Land
Mitigation
Calculation Quimby Fee OR Fee Act Fee
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 218,600 $ 218,600
Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 3.00 2.88
Total Cost per 1,000 capita C=axe $ 655,800 $ 629,568
Cost per Resident D= C//,000
$ 656 $ 630
Improvements
Community Neighborhood
AND Parks Parks
$ 628,600 $ 220,000
0.64 2.24
$ 402,304 $ 492,800
$ 402 $ 493
Sources: Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use parkland and park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.
Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per capita basis for both land acquisition and improvement. These cost factors (shown in Table 3.7) are cost per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards. The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
Table 3.8 shows the maximum justified park fees based on the Quimby Act standard and based on the existing park standards under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively.
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. See the Administrative Costs section of Chapter 1 for a discussion of this assumption.
WI LLDAN
Financial Services
25 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.8: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB
Base
Feel
D=Cx0.01
Admin
Charge1' 2
Total Fee
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Subdivisions
Parkland
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Total
Non -Subdivisions
Parkland
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Total
$ 656 3.22 $ 2,112 $ 21 $ 2,133 $ 0.79
402 3.22 1,294 13 1,307 0.49
493 3.22 1,587 16 1,603 0.60
$ 1,551 $ 4,993 $ 50 $ 5,043 $ 1.88
$ 630 3.22 $ 2,029 $ 20 $ 2,049 $ 0.76
402 3.22 1,294 13 1,307 0.49
493 3.22 1,587 16 1,603 0.60
$ 1,525 $ 4,910 $ 49 $ 4,959 $ 1.85
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.7.
WWILLDAN
Financial Services
26 4. Recreation Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new recreation facilities demanded by new development. A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of recreation facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new recreation facilities from the projected increase in residents and the additional recreation facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit.
Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in Beaumont primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City's residential population. Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for recreation facilities.
Table 4.1: Recreation Facilities
Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
56,070
41.074
97,144
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
Existing Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of Beaumont owns a community recreation center. Table 4.2 summarizes the City's existing recreation facilities inventory. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. In total, the City owns approximately $11.9 million in recreation facilities.
Table 4.2: Existing Recreation Facilities
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Community Recreation Center - Land
Community Recreation Center - Building
Total Value - Existing Facilities
3.20 acres $ 218,600 $ 699,520
24,857 sq. ft. 450 11,185,650
$ 11, 885,170
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.
wWILLDAN
Financial Services
27 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Planned Recreation Facilities
The City has planned several recreation facilities to serve new development. Included in the plans are both expansions to existing facilities and the new construction of facilities. In total, the City has identified $62.5 million worth of new recreation facilities to serve existing and new development, net of existing unreserved fund balances. Table 4.3 details the City's planned recreation facilities.
Table 4.3: Planned Recreation Facilities
CIP No. Description Cost
FUTO2 Community Center $ 48,439,900
FUTO3 Splash Pads (3) 4,450,000
FUTO4 Gym 11,676,400
Total $ 64,566,300
Less Existing Fund Balance 2,059,966
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 62,506,334
Source: City of Beaumont FY25 Capital Improvement Ran.
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 4.4 expresses the City's current recreation facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 4.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City can fund the planned recreation facilities identified in Table 4.3.
Table 4.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Resident
$ 11, 885,170
56.070
$ 212
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.3.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
28 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Future Level of Service
Table 4.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in recreation facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.
Table 4.5: Recreation Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities
Cost of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (Buildout)
$ 11, 885,170
62, 506, 334
$ 74,391,504
Future Service Population (Buildout) 97,144
Cost per Resident
$ 766
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use recreation facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are part of the system of recreation facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 4.3.
Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned recreation facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 4.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through buildout. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $31 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned recreation facilities. The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
29 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 4.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 766
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 41,074
Fee Revenue $ 31,462,439
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified
62, 506, 334
$ (31,043,895)
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4.
Fee Schedule
Table 4.7 shows the maximum justified recreation facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (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 4.7: Recreation Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Capita Density Base Feel Charge'' 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 766 3.22
$ 2,467 $ 25
$ 2,492 $ 0.93
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.5.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
30 5. Fire Protection Facilities
The purpose of the fire impact fee is to fund the fire facilities needed to serve new development.
A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the system plan facilities standard of fire facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new fire protection facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional fire protection facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.
Service Population
Fire facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses. The service population used to determine the demand for fire facilities includes both residents and workers.
Table 5.1 shows the current fire facilities service population and the estimated service population at the planning horizon of General Plan buildout.
To calculate service population for fire protection facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. A worker is weighted at 0.69 of one resident to reflect the lower per capita need for fire services associated with businesses. The 0.69 factor is consistent with the factor used by Riverside County in its development impact fee study, as the City of Beaumont is part of the Riverside County fire protection service area. The worker weighting factor used in the Riverside County study was based on an analysis of call data response by land use type, which indicated varying levels of demand for fire protection services between residential and nonresidential land uses. 'WILLDAN
Financial Services
31 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.1: Fire Facilities Service Population
A B
Weighting
Persons Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
56,070 1.00
41,074 1.00
97,144
6,215 0.69
21,675 0.69
27,890
56,070
41.074
97,144
4,288
14.955
19,243
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
60,358
56.029
116,387
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.69 of residents to be consistent w ith Riverside County's development impact fee analysis.
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's fire facility inventory and facility standards.
Existing Inventory
Table 5.2 summarizes the City's current inventory of land, apparatus and vehicles. Fire protection services are provided from two stations located throughout the City. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. The replacement cost for the station buildings is based on the City's recent fire station construction costs. The replacement costs of vehicles and apparatus were provided by the City for use in this analysis.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
32 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.2: Existing Fire Facilities Land and Building Inventory Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Fire Station 66 - 628 Maple Avenue
Land 0.36 acres $ 218,600 $ 77,785
Station 6,425 sq. ft. 827 5,314,359
Subtotal $ 5,392,144
Fire Station No. 106
Land 1.59 acres 218,600 $ 347,574
Station 10,760 sq. ft. 827 8,900,000
Subtotal $ 9,247,574
Vehicles
2004 Ford F550 $ 65,000
2022 Hyundai Santa Fe 40,000
2023 SUBARU CROSSTEK 30,848
Spartan Quint TDA Truck 2,205,647
Squad 282,449
Subtotal $ 2,623,944
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 17,263,662
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 5.3 summarizes the planned facilities needed to serve the City through buildout, consistent with the City's prior development impact fee study. Primarily, the City plans to build two new fire stations. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $17 million through buildout, net of existing unreserved impact fee fund balances.
Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services
33 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.3: Planned Fire Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New Station: N of I -10/E of Beaumont Av
Land 1.59 acres $ 218,600 $ 347,574
Building 10,760 sq. ft. 827 8,900,000
Subtotal $ 9,247,574
New Station: S of I -10/E of Beaumont Av
Land 1.59 acres $ 218,600 $ 347,574
Building 10,760 sq. ft. 827 8,900,000
Subtotal $ 9,247,574
Total
Less Existing Fund Balance
$ 18,495,148
1,487,561
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 17,007,587
Source: City of Beaumont FY25 Capital Improvement Ran; City of Beaumont.
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 5.4 expresses the City's current fire facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
Table 5.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker
$ 17,263,662
60,358
$ 286
$ 286
197
1 Based on the w eighing factor of 0.69.
Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.3.
Future Level of Service
Table 5.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in fire protection facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon..
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
34 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.5: Fire Protection Facilities System Plan
Facilities Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 17,263,662
Value of Planned Facilities 17,007,587
Total System Value (Buildout) $ 34,271,249
Future Service Population (Buildout) 116,387
Cost per Capita $ 294
Cost Allocation per Resident
Cost Allocation per Worker' 203
$ 294
1 Based on the w eighing factor of 0.69.
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use fire facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles, apparatus and fire protection equipment that are part of the system of fire facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 5.3.
Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned fire protection facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 5.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through buildout. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, $535,155 in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned fire protection facilities. The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned 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.
WI LLDAN
Financial Services
35 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.6: Revenue Projection - System Plan Standard
Cost per Capita $ 294
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 56,029
Fee Revenue $ 16,472,432
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 17,007,587
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ 535,155
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.5.
Fee Schedule
Table 5.7 shows the maximum justified fire facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).
The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (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 5.7: Fire Protection Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Densi
ty
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge. 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 294 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial $ 203 2.12 $ 430 $ 4 $ 434 $ 0.43
Industrial/Business Park 203 3.08 625 6 631 0.63
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 203 0.88 179 2 181 0.18
$ 947 $ 9
$ 956 $ 0.36
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.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.5.
Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services
36 6. Police Facilities
The purpose of the police impact fee is to fund the police facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the system plan standard of police facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new police facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional police facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.
Service Population
Police facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.
Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for police facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.
WWI LLDAN
Financial Services
37 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.1: Police Facilities Service Population
A B
Weighting
Persons Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (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.
Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's police facility inventory and facility standards.
Existing Inventory
This study uses the system plan methodology to calculate fees for police facilities. Police services in the City of Beaumont are presently based out of two facilities. Table 6.2 summarizes the City's current inventory of police land, buildings and vehicles. The City recently acquired 30 acres of land to be used for various City purposes. Eight acres of that parcel will be used to site the future police station. The unit cost for that parcel is based on the cost that the City paid for the parcel.
For other City owned properties, the assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. The unit cost assumption for the replacement cost of buildings is based on a survey of recent police facility construction costs from several other jurisdictions in California 2023.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
38 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.2: Existing Police Facilities Inventory
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Land
Police Department - 660 Orange Avenue 1.94 Acres $218,600 $ 424,084 Police Department Annex Building - 1580 E. 8th Street 0.08 Acres 218,600 16,837 New Police Land Acquisition 8.00 Acres 126,667 1,013,333 Subtotal $ 1,454,254
Buildings 2
Police Department - 660 Orange Avenue 10,780 Sq. ft. $ $ Police Department Annex Building - 1580 E. 8th Street 3,355 Sq. ft.
Subtotal $
Vehicles
Explorer Interceptor 27 Vehicles $ 49,186 $ 1,328,022
Prius 1 Vehicles 42,525 42,525
Fusion 1 Vehicles 30,000 30,000
Tahoe 7 Vehicles 44,922 314,454
Escape 2 Vehicles 26,360 52,720
Model Y 1 Vehicles 55,290 55,290
Model 3 1 Vehicles 41,290 41,290
Rav4 2 Vehicles 32,526 65,052
Sienna 1 Vehicles 50,800 50,800
M2 1 Vehicles 52,500 52,500
F150 1 Vehicles 50,427 50,427
Malibu 5 Vehicles 21,051 105,255
Subtotal 50 $ 2,188,335
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 3,642,589
1 Based on City purchase of 30 acres for $3.8 million. Eight acres from this parcel w ill be used for the future police station. 2 No value is show n for these buildings because they w ill be replaced by the planned facility.
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 6.3 summarizes the planned police facilities needed to serve the City through buildout. The City plans to design and construct a new police station, including land acquisition and radio upgrades. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $52.3 million through buildout, net of existing unreserved impact fee fund balances.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
39 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.3: Planned Police Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New Police Station Construction 51,000 Sq. Ft. $ 1,106 $ 56,400,000 Total Cost of Planned Facilities $ 56,400,000
Less Prior Year(s) Funding 2,800,000
Less Existing Fund Balance 1,307,543
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 52,292,457
Source: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 6.4 expresses the City's current police facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 6.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has adequate facilities to provide police services to the City.
Table 6.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
Facility Standard per Resident
$ 3,642,589
57,997
$ 63
$ 63
Facility Standard per Worker 20
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.3.
Future Level of Service
Table 6.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in police facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.
The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
40 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.5: Police Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities
Value of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (Buildout)
$ 3,642,589
52.292.457
$ 55, 935, 046
Future Service Population (Buildout) 105,790
Cost per Capita $ 529
Cost Allocation per Resident
Cost Allocation per Worker' 164
$ 529
1 Based on a weighting factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use police facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of police facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 6.3.
Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned police facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 6.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through buildout. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $27 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned police facilities.
The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned police facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
Table 6.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 529
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Revenue $ 25,282,328
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified
52,292,457
$ (27, 010,129)
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.
WI LLDAN
Financial Services
41 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule
Table 6.7 shows the maximum justified police facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).
The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (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 6.7: Police Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge' 2
E= C+ D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 529 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial $ 164 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 164 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 164 0.88
$ 1,703 $ 17
$ 348 $ 3
505 5
144 1
$ 1,720 $ 0.64
$ 351 $ 0.35
510 0.51
145 0.15
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 adrrinistrative 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 dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.5.
AN/WILLDAN
Financial Services
42 7. Public Facilities
The purpose of the public facilities impact fee is to fund the public facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the system plan standard of public facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new public facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional public facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.
Service Population
Public facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.
Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for public facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.
fWILLDAN
Financial Services
43 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 7.1: Public Facilities Service Population
A B
Weighting
Persons Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (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
Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non -w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31)
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's public facility inventory and facility standards.
Existing Inventory
The City's public facility inventory consists of City Hall and its various auxiliary buildings and the grounds maintenance building. Table 7.2 summarizes the City's current inventory of public land, buildings and vehicles. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. No value is shown for the buildings, because they will be replaced by the planned facilities.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
44 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 7.2: Existing Public Facilities Inventory
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Land (acres)
City Hall - 550 E. Sixth Street
Grounds Maintenance Building - 713 W Fourth Street
Subtotal - Land
4.22 0.01
4.23 acres $218,600 $ 922,492
acres 218,600 2,186
$ 924,678
Buildings (square feet) 1
City Hall - 550 E. Sixth Street 23,283 sq. ft. $ - $ -
Grounds Maintenance Building - 713 W Fourth Street 324 sq. ft. - - City Hall Building D - 650 Magnolia Avenue 4,241 sq. ft.
City Hall Building G (Animal Control) - 650 Magnolia Avenue 3,606 sq. ft.
City Hall Building B - 650 Magnolia Avenue 1,750 sq. ft.
City Hall Building C - 650 Magnolia Avenue 2,240 sq. ft. - - Subtotal - Buildings 35,444 $
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 924,678
1 No value is shown for these buildings because they w ill be replaced by the planned facilities.
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 7.3 summarizes the planned public facilities needed to serve the City through buildout. The City plans for a new City Hall and Corporate Yard, including land acquisition. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $23.9 million through buildout, net of existing unreserved fund balances.
Table 7.3: Planned Public Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New City Hall' 25,000 Sq. Ft. $ 532 $ 13,300,000
Land for New City Hall 2 Acres 218,600 437,200
New Corporate Yard Building 20,000 Sq. Ft. 500 10,000,000 Land for Corporate Yard 6 Acres 218,600 1,311,600
Total $ 25,048,800
Less Existing Fund Balance 1,159,154
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 23,889,646
Unit cost from 2017 Development lmapct Fee Study, adjusted for inflation using the Engineering News Record's Building Cost Index.
Source: City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study, 2017; Willdan Financial Services.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
45 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 7.4 expresses the City's current public facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only. Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 7.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has adequate facilities to provide public services to the City.
Table 7.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker
$ 924,678
57,997
$ 16
$ 16
5 1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.3.
Future Level of Service
Table 7.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in public facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.
The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.
AN/WILLDAN
Financial Services
46 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 7.5: Public Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 924,678
Value of Planned Facilities 23,889,646
Total System Value (Buildout) $ 24,814,324
Future Service Population (Buildout) 105,790
Cost per Capita $ 235
Cost Allocation per Resident
Cost Allocation per Worker 73
$ 235
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 buildout. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $12.7 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned public facilities.
The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned public facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
Table 7.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 235
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Revenue $ 11,231,280
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue to be Identified
23, 889, 646
$ (12,658,366)
Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.3 and 7.4.
WI LLDAN
Financial Services
47 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule
Table 7.7 shows the maximum justified public facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).
The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (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: Public Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge' 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 235 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial $ 73 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 73 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 73 0.88
$ 757 $ 8
$ 155 $ 2
225 2
64 1
$ 765 $ 0.28
$ 157 $ 0.16
227 0.23
65 0.07
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.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.5.
Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services
48 8. Transportation Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for various transportation improvements to accommodate new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new transportation facilities from the projected increase in vehicle trips and the additional transportation facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number trips generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.
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.
Note that the average PM Peak hour trip rate across all high -cube warehouse land use categories found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual is used to estimate existing and future trips for the high - cube warehouse land use category. The fee schedule includes each of the land use categories separately, and new development will pay the fee based on whichever high -cube category most closely aligns with a given development project.
A development project that results in intensification of trip demand will be subject to the corresponding land use fee, and a credit will be provided for any previously paid fee.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
49 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 8.1: Trip Demand Factors
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
ITE Category
Single Family Housing (210)
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (220)
PM Peak
Pass -by Hour Adjusted
Trips1 Trips2 Trip Rate
A 8 C=(1-A)XB
0% 0.94 0.94
0% 0.51 0.51
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial Shopping Center (820) 34% 3.40 2.24
Industrial/Business Park Business Park (770) 0% 1.22 1.22 Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse3 Average 0% 0.26 0.26
Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse High -Cube Transload and Short -Term 0% 0.10 0.10 Storage Warehouse (154)
Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort High -Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse - 0% 0.16 0.16 Non -Sort (155)
Parcel Hub Warehouse High -Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse (156) 0% 0.64 0.64 Cold Storage Warehouse High -Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (157) 0% 0.12 0.12 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 FTE Trip Generation Handbook data. 2 Weekday Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic (One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.) trips per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. 3 Average trip rate for all high -cube w arehouse uses identified in ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
Sources: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition; Willdan Financial Services.
Trip Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is General Plan buildout. Table 8.2 lists the 2023 and buildout 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.
Table 8.2: Land Use Scenario and Total Trips
Land Use
Trip 2023
Demand Units /
Factor 1,000 SF Trips
Growth 2023 to Buildout
Units / 1,000
SF Trips
Total - Buildout
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 0.94 16,583 15,588
Multifamily 0.51 2,136 1,089
Subtotal 18,719 16,677
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 2.24 1,792 4,015
Industrial/Business Park 1.22 352 430
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 0.26 1,511 393
Subtotal 3,656 4,838
Total 21,515
47.1%
6,498 6,108
5,804 2,960
12,302 9,068
5,304 11,881
532 649
9,991 2,598
15,827 15,128
24,196
52.9%
23,081 21,696
7,940 4,049
31,021 25,745
7,096 15,896
884 1,079
11,502 2,991
19,483 19,966
45,711
100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.1.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
50 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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 (52.9%). 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.
AN/WILLDAN
Financial Services
51 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 8.3: Planned Facilities
Project No. Project Title
Streets and Bridges
2017-027 Oak Valley/I-10 Interchange Design
2017-001 Pennsylvania Interchange
R-37
FUTO7
R25-07
R26-03
R27-03
R28-03
R29-03
R26-04
R27-04
R28-04
R26-05
Subtotal
Beaumont Avenue/1-10 Interchange Project
Highland Springs (Beaumont Share)
Traffic Signal at OVP and Palm Avenue1
Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity
Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity
Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity
Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity
Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location
Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location
Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location
Citywide Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
FY26
FY27
FY28
FY29
Less
Total Project Alternative
Cost Funding
$ 85, 000, 000
80, 000, 000
125, 000, 000
60, 000, 000
600,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
2,000,000
$ 355, 000, 000
Allocation to Cost Allocated to
Net Project New New
Cost Development Development
$ 6,412,113 $ 78, 587, 887 52.9% $ 41, 572, 992
80,000,000 52.9% 42,320,000
5,869,000 119,131,000 52.9% 63,020,299
30,000,000 30,000,000 52.9% 15,870,000
300,000 300,000 52.9% 158,700
- 150,000 52.9% 79,350
- 150,000 52.9% 79,350
- 150,000 52.9% 79,350
- 150,000 52.9% 79,350
600,000 52.9% 317,400
- 600,000 52.9% 317,400
- 600,000 52.9% 317,400
- 2,000,000 52.9% 1,058,000
$ 42,581,113 $ 312,418,887 $ 165,269,591
Railroad
2017-012 Pennsylvania Ave/UPR Grade Separation $ 73,700,000 $ 13,678,556 $ 60,021,444 California URP Grade Separation2 100,000,000 70,000,000 30,000,000 Subtotal $ 173,700,000 $ 83,678,556 $ 90,021,444
52.9% $ 31,751,344
52.9% 15,870,000
$ 47,621,344
'Alternative funding show n is $300,000 of traffic signals DIF fund balances programmed to this project in 2025. 2 Assumes 70% of this project w i l l be funded with grants.
Source: City of Beaumont FY25 Capital Improvement Ran; City of Beaumont; Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services. 'WILLDAN
Financial Services
52
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 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.
Table 8.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Streets and
Bridges Railroad Crossings
Costs Allocated to New Development
Less Existing Fund Balance'
Net Costs Allocated to New Development
Growth in Trip Demand (2023 to Buildout)
Cost per Trip
$ 165, 269, 591 $
4,265,275
$ 161,004,317 $
47, 621, 344
2,304,894
45, 316, 450
24,196 24,196
$ 6,654 $
1,873
1 Available fund balance shown for streets and bridges fee includes $4,154,425 from the streets and bridges impact fee fund and $110,849 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.
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.
fWILLDAN
Financial Services
53 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 8.5: Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
A B
Trip
Cost Per Demand
Trip Factor
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Fee' Chargel'2
E=C+D E/1,000
Fee
per Sq.
Total Fee' Ft.
Streets and Bridges
Residential Dwelling Unit 4
$ 6,654 0.74
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial $ 6,654
Industrial/Business Park 6,654
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse $ 6,654
Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort 6,654
Parcel Hub Warehouse 6,654
Cold Storage Warehouse 6,654
Railroad Crossings
Residential Dwelling Unit 4 $ 1,873
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial $ 1,873 2.24 $ 4,196 $ 42 $ 4,238 $ 4.24
Industrial/Business Park 1,873 1.22 2,285 23 2,308 2.31 Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse $ 1,873 0.10 $ 187 $ 2 $ 189 $ 0.19 Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort 1,873 0.16 300 3 303 0.30 Parcel Hub Warehouse 1,873 0.64 1,199 12 1,211 1.21
Cold Storage Warehouse 1,873 0.12 225 2 227 0.23
2.24 1.22
0.10 0.16
0.64 0.12
0.74 $ 4,924 $ 49
$ 14,905 $ 149
8,118 81
$ 665 $ 7
1,065 11
4,259 43
798 8
$ 1,386 $ 14
$ 4,973 $ 1.85
$ 15,054 $ 15.05
8,199 8.20
$ 672 $ 0.67
1,076 1.08
4,302 4.30
806 0.81
$ 1,400 $ 0.52
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. 3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
Average trip demand factor per residential dwelling unit weighted by projected single family and multifamily development.
Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4.
WWILLDAN
Financial Services
54 9. Sewer Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for sewer facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Beaumont. The projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified in the City's Wastewater Master Plan (2021). The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for sewer facilities from the projected increase sewer flow and the additional sewer facilities needed to meet those convey that flow to the City's wastewater treatment plant. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of wastewater flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.
Sewer Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased sewer demand provide the basis for calculating the sewer facilities fee. The need for sewer facilities improvements is based on the sewer demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of sewer improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.
Table 9.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates based on data from the City's Wastewater Master Plan. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the sewer demand generated by each unit of new development.
Table 9.1: Sewer Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation'
Average Flow
Generation per Equivalent
DU or 1,000 Sq. Dwelling Unit
Density2 Ft. (EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial
Industrial/Business Park
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
2,609 17.00
1,175 32.67
1,763 30.49
1,763 30.49
235.00
153.47
35.97 57.82
57.82 1.00
0.65 0.15
0.25 0.25
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 -ratio of 0.75 for commercial, and 0.7 for industrial/business park and industrial/warehouse uses.
Sources: Table 3.3, Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; Willdan Financial Services.
WWI LLDAN
Financial Services
55 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 buildout. 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 13,697 new EDUs through buildout, comprising 42.3% 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 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 0.25 352 88
Industrial 0.25 1,511 378
Subtotal 3,656 735
Total 18,706
57.7%
6,498 6,498
5,804 3,773
12,302 10,271
5,304 795
532 133
9,991 2,498
15,827 3,426
13,697
42.3%
23,081 23,081
7,940 5,161
31,021 28,242
7,096 1,064
884 221
11,502 2,876
19,483 4,161
32,403
100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 9.1.
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 9.3 identifies the planned sewer facilities to be funded by the fee. The new sewer facilities were all identified in the City's 2021 Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP). Note that the costs listed in this table reflect 2021 construction costs. The consultant who prepared the WWMP recommended escalating all the costs by a factor of 15% to reflect the ENR index escalation through October 2024. However, costs have not been adjusted in this analysis.
Projects that are needed to provide capacity to accommodate new development are allocated 100% to the fee. For those sewer facilities projects that benefit both existing development and new development, costs 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.
In circumstances when the sewer facilities impact fees alone will not be sufficient to cover a development project's impacts, project specific impacts will require the project applicant to make upgrades to address identified sewer impacts (via hydraulic and loading studies) through conditions of approval.
WI LLDAN
Financial Services
56 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 Lift Station Replacement
Subtotal
Tukvvet Canyon (New) Lift Station Tributary Area
TC-FM1 New Force Main
TC-FM2 New Force Main
TC-LS New Lift Station
Subtotal
Upper Oak Valley Lift Station Tributary Area
UOV-P1 Future Capacity Increase
UOV-P2 Existing Capacity Deficiency
UOV-P3 Future Capacity Increase
UOV-LS Lift Station Replacement
Subtotal
Olivewood Lift Station Tributary Area
O -P1
O -LS
FM -1
Subtotal
Brookside Avenue (New) Lift Station Tributary Area
BR -P1 New Capacity
BR-FM1 New Force Main
BR -LS New Lift Station
Subtotal
Future Capacity Increase
Lift Station Replacement
Oak ValleyBlvd Embankment Stabilization
Existing
Diameter New/
(in) Replace
15 Replace
Replace
8 8
12 New
New
New
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
10 Replace
- Replace
Capital
Improvement
Cost ($)
$ 202,500
2,003,600
$ 2,206,100
$ 2,578,300
2,578,300
1,404,000
$ 6,560,600
$ 109,200
97,400
898,300
5,449,800
$ 6,554,700
$ 170,300
1,540,800
780,000
$ 2,491,100
New $
New
New
656,400
951,500
1,005,300
$ 2,613,200
Allocation to
Dew
Development
Cost Allocated
to Existing
Development
100% $
0%
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
- $ 202,500
2,003,600
$ 2,003,600 $ 202,500
100% $
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
0%
- $ 2,578,300
2,578,300
1,404,000
- $ 6,560,600
$ - $ 109,200
97,400
5,449,800
898,300
$ 5,547,200 $ 1,007,500
100% $
0%
0%
- $ 170,300
1,540,800
780,000
$ 2,320,800 $ 170,300
100% $ - $ 656,400
100% 951,500
100% 1,005,300
$ 2,613,200
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont.
WWILLDAN
Financial Services
57
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Existing Capital Allocation to Cost Allocated Cost Allocated Type of Diameter New/ Improvement Dew to Existing to New Improv. No. Improvement (in) Replace Cost ($) Development Development Development 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 Existing Capacity Deficiency New 450,000 0% 450,000 - BM-FM1 Existing Capacity Deficiency New 4,000,000 0% 4,000,000 BM -LS Existing Capacity Deficiency New 750,000 0% 750,000 BM -WW Existing Capacity Deficiency New 400,000 0% 400,000 BM -WW Existing Capacity Deficiency New 4,000,000 0% 4,000,000 Subtotal $ 11,711,300 $ 9,600,000 $ 2,111,300
Beaumont Crossroads (New) Lift Station Tributary Area
BC -P1 New Capacity New $ 1,122,900 100% $ $ 1,122,900
Subtotal $ 1,122,900 $ $ 1,122,900
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 Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont. wWILLDAN
Financial Services
58
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Improv. No.
Wastewater
WWTP-P 1
WWTP-P2
WWTP-P3
WWTP-P4
WWTP-P5
WWTP-P18
WWTP-P19
WWTP-P2-
W WTP-P21
Subtotal
Four Seasons
FS -P1
FS -P2
FS -P3
FS -P4
FS -P5
FS -P6
FS -LS
Subtotal
Type of
Improvement
Treatment Plant
Existing Capacity Deficiency
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
R/O 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
Improvement
Cost ($)
$ 138,000
206,700
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
450,000
$ 12,416,200
$ 397,300
210,900
305,500
32,500
587,600
23,400
3,941,100
$ 5,498,300
Allocation to Cost Allocated
Dew to Existing
Development Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
100% $ - $ 138,000
0% 206,700 -
100% 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
42.3% 259,650 190,350
$ 466,350 $ 11, 949,850
100% $ $ 397,300
100% - 210,900
100% - 305,500
0% 32,500 -
100% - 587,600
100% - 23,400
0% 3,941,100 -
$ 3,973,600 $ 1,524,700
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont. wWILLDAN
Financial Services
59
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
Gravity Portion of Wastewater Collection System
S. Beaumont Ave South Future Gravity Mt
S. California Ave South Future Gravity Ma
S. Veile Ave Future Gravity Main
S. Olive Ave Future Gravity Main
Oak Valley Parkway Gravity Main Capacit
Orange St Future Gravity Main
Brookside Ave Future Gravity Main
Oak Valley Pkwy (11-10 to Desert Lawn) Ft
E. Desert Lawn Future Gravity Main
Existing
Diameter
(in)
21 12
12 12
12 15
15 12
8 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/
Replace
New
New
New
New
Replace
New
New
New
New
New
New
Capital
Improvement
Cost ($)
Allocation to Cost Allocated
Dew to Existing
Development Development
$ 350,000 100% $
250,000 100%
150,000 100%
75,000 100%
100,000 100%
140,000 100%
300,000 100%
150,000 100%
50,000 100%
$ 1,565,000 $
$ 750,000 100% $
60,000 100%
$ 810,000 $
$ 3,600,000 0% $
300,000 0%
4,800,000 0%
2,000,000 0%
1,500,000 0%
$ 12, 200, 000 $ 12, 200, 000 $
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
- $ 350,000
250,000
150,000
75,000
100,000
140,000
300,000
150,000
50,000
- $ 1,565,000
- $ 750,000
60,000
- $ 810,000
3,600,000 $
300,000
4,800,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
$ 70,382,100 $ 40,448,050 $ 29,934,050
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont. wWILLDAN
Financial Services
60
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development, net of available fund balances, 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 Existing Fund Balances
Net Cost Allocated to New Development
$ 29, 934, 050
1,596,277
$ 28, 337, 773
Growth in EDUs (2023 to Buildout) 13,697
Cost per EDU $ 2,069
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.
Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for sewer facilities is shown in Table 9.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 9.1.
The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
The total fee includes 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.
wWILLDAN
Financial Services
61 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.5: Maximum Justified Sewer Facilities Fee Schedule A 8
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
C=AxB D=CxO.01
Base Admin
Feel Charge1' 2
E=C+D E/Average
Fee per
Total Feel Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4
$ 2,069 0.83
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial $ 2,069 0.15
Industrial/Business Park 2,069 0.25
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 2,069 0.25
$ 1,717 $ 17
$ 310 $ 3
517 5
517 5
$ 1,734 $ 0.65
$ 313 $ 0.31
522 0.52
522 0.52
Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
' Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.
Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.4.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
62 10. Sewer Capacity
This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a sewer capacity charge to fund sewer facilities that serve new development. It uses a buy -in approach to allocating the cost of excess capacity in the system to new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for wastewater treatment from the projected increase in sewer flow and the excess capacity to process wastewater flow available at the City's wastewater treatment plant. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will buy -in to the excess capacity of the wastewater treatment plant at no more than the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fees are imposed, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.
Current Demand for Wastewater Treatment
Table 10.1 displays the City's historical wastewater flows treated by the wastewater treatment plan. These flows indicate current demand for wastewater treatment.
Table 10.1: Historical Wastewater Flows
Month
2020 2021 2022 2023
Influent Influent Influent Influent
Flows Flows Flows Flows
(MG) (MG) (MG) (MG)
January 115.48 119.25 115.92 127.55
February 109.10 106.17 104.04 108.70
March 121.41 127.61 115.00 124.02
April 119.38 115.07 108.38 117.48
May 118.31 122.10 112.94 122.31
June 114.27 123.06 111.60 120.06
July 121.43 132.62 113.38 125.56
August 113.80 101.28 116.88 127.45
September 121.26 107.70 95.59 121.02
October 125.89 118.18 98.23 122.64
November 115.72 115.72 107.53 120.43
December 118.24 119.09 119.75 128.18
Total Annual 1,414.27 1,407.84 1,319.25 1,465.40
Average per Day (MG)
3.87 3.86 3.61 4.01
Source: City of Beaumont.
Current Sewer System Asset Valuation
In this case, Replacement New Cost Less Depreciation (RCNLD) is the appropriate method to determine the current value of the sewer systems. RCNLD is a commonly used method, and it is often preferred to alternative methods such as Original Cost Less Depreciation (OCLD), Original Cost (OC), and Replacement Cost (RC) because of its better reflection of the system's value in wWILLDAN
Financial Services
63 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. Note that this excludes the replacement cost of conveyance facilities and lift stations, which are captured in the sewer facilities fee in the previous chapter.
Table 10.2: Current Sewer System Asset Valuation
Asset Function Original Cost
Treatment
General
Land
Total
Original Cost Less Replacement Cost
Depreciation Replacement Cost Less Depreciation
$ 254,104, 711 $ 225, 417, 691 $ 294,170, 308 $ 246, 207, 054 28, 690, 611 23,118,124 36, 007,492 24, 906, 543
2,002,560 2,002,560 2,278,393 2,278,393
$ 284, 797, 882 $ 250, 538, 375 $ 332, 456,193 $ 273, 391, 990 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
$ 273, 391, 990
79, 060, 000
$ 194, 331, 990
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 $32.39. This amount is multiplied by the assumption of 235 gallons per day
WILLDAN
Financial Services
64 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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.
Table 10.4: Fee per GPD
Total Adjusted System Value
System Flow Capacity (Gallons per Day)
Fee per GPD
GPD per EDU
$ 194, 331, 990
6,000,000
32.39 235
Capacity Fee per Average Sized Single Family Unit $ 7,612 Average Square Feet per Unit 2,687
Capacity Fee per Residential Square Foot $ 2.83
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.
Note that if a development project results in the intensification of effluent strength, that project will be subject to the corresponding land use fee, and a credit will be provided for any previously paid fee.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
65 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 10.5: Nonresidential Sewer Capacity Fee Schedule
$/EDU Flow (gpd) BOD (Mg/I) TSS (Mg/I)
Capacity Fee per EDU A $ 7,612
Standard EDU Effluent (per SFR)
B 235 gpd 235 gpd 250 Mg/I 250 Mg/I
Commercial Low Strength
Effluent Values C 35.97 gpd 140 Mg/I 115 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.15 0.56 0.46
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(Fbw Eou)) F 0.09 0.02 0.01 Total Capacity Fee $699 $130 $107
Commercial Medium Strength
Effluent Values C 35.97 gpd 235 Mg/I 175 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.15 0.94 0.70
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x DTFiow Eou)) F 0.09 0.03 0.02 Total Capacity Fee $699 $219 $163
Commercial High Strenath
Effluent Values C 35.97 gpd 933 Mg/I 667 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.15 3.73 2.67
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(Flow Eou)) F 0.09 0.11 0.08 Total Capacity Fee $699 $870 $622
Industrial Low Strength
Effluent Values C 57.82 gpd 106 Mg/I 127 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.25 0.42 0.51
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(Flow Eou)) F 0.15 0.02 0.02 Total Capacity Fee $1,124 $159 $190
Industrial High Strength
Effluent Values C 57.82 gpd 1598 Mg/I 506 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.25 6.39 2.02
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(FIow Eou)) F 0.15 0.31 0.10 Total Capacity Fee $1,124 $2,394 $758
Fee per 1,000
Sq. Ft.
$937
$1,081
$2,190
$1,473
$4,276
Sources: Tables 9.1 and 10.4.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
66 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 $30.7 million, net of existing unreserved 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 2,809,262
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 30,742,438
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 at buildout to determine a cost per EDU. Table 11.2 displays this calculation. Total EDUs at buildout are used for this 'WILLDAN
Financial Services
67 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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 $ 30,742,438
Total EDUs at Buildout 32,403
Cost per EDU $ 949
New Development EDUs 13,697
Projected Fee Revenue $ 12,998,453
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 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.
At/WILLDAN
Financial Services
68 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 11.3: Recycled Water Facilities Fee Schedule
A B
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Base Admin
Feel Charge1' 2
E=C+D E/Average
Fee per
Total Feet Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial $ 949 0.15 $ 142 $ 1 $ 143 $ 0.14
Industrial/Business Park 949 0.25 237 2 239 0.24
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 949 0.25 237 2 239 0.24
$ 949 0.83
$ 788 $ 8
$ 796 $ 0.30
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.
Sources: Tables 9.1 and 11.2.
Aft/WILLDAN
Financial Services
69 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 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.
WWI LLDAN
Financial Services
70 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)
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
Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non -w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31)
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Costs
Table 12.2 lists the City's anticipated General Plan updates and related study costs within the 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 unreserved general plan impact fee fund balance.
7WILLDAN
Financial Services
71 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 12.2: General Plan Costs
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
General Plan Update' 1 Update $ 989,400 $ 989,400
Zoning Code Update2 1 Update 370,000 370,000
Housing Element Update3 2 Updates 297,000 594,000
Total $ 1,953,400
Less Existing Fund Balance 262,150
Net Cost $ 1,691,250
1 Assumed cost based on cost of General Ran Update completed in 2020, adjusted for inflation using the CPI -U Index to December, 2023.
2 Cost based on City contract aw arded in 2023.
3 Cost based on Housing Element contract from 2022, adjusted for inflation using the CPI -U Index to December, 2023.
Source: City of Beaumont; US BLS CPI -U; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Standard
Table 12.3 shows the calculation of the system plan facilities standard per capita for General Plan updates and related studies. The studies will identify facilities needed to serve both existing and new development, so the costs of the studies are allocated to both existing and new development using this methodology. The cost standard is calculated by dividing the total cost of all studies needed by buildout by the total service population at buildout. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.
Table 12.3: General Plan — System Standard
Cost of Planning Studies $ 1,691,250
Future Service Population (Buildout) 105,790
Cost per Capita $ 16
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 16
Cost Allocation per Worker 5
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 $926,567 in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the studies.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
72 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the studies. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, and grants.
Table 12.4: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 16
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Revenue
$ 764,683
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 1,691,250
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (926,567)
Sources: Tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3.
Fee Schedule
Table 12.5 shows the maximum justified advanced General Plan update schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) 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 12.5: General Plan Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=CxO.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge'' 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 16 3.22 $ 52 $ 1 $ 53 $ 0.02 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial $ 5 2.12 $ 11 $ $ 11 $ 0.01
Industrial/Business Park 5 3.08 15 - 15 0.02
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 5 0.88 4 4 0.004
Fee per average sized dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 12.3.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
73 13. Library Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for expanded library facilities to serve new development using the existing facility standard approach. The fees calculated in this chapter could be implemented within the City of Beaumont and within unincorporated areas of the Beaumont Library District (District). The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for libraries within the District from the projected increase in residents and the additional library space and collections needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the District's existing ratio of library facilities to residents, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit.
Service Population
Library facilities in the District primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the District's residential population. Table 13.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for library facilities within the District, both inside the Beaumont City limits and in the surrounding unincorporated area.
Table 13.1: Library Facilities Service Population
City of
Beaumont
Residents
Residents
Outside of City Library District
Limits' Total
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
56,070
41,074
97,144
9,455 65,525
6,926 48,000
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 grow s.
Sources: Table 2.1; California State Library; Willdan Financial Services.
Existing Library Facilities
The quantity of existing library facilities that the District owns will be used to inform the facility standards in this analysis. The District currently operates one 11,700 square foot library. The District also owns collections and public computer stations. Table 13.2 summarizes the District's existing library facility inventory.
'WILLDAN
Financial Services
74 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 13.2: Existing Library Facilities
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Library Building 11,700 Sq. ft. $ 550 $ 6,435,000
Collections 58,460 Items 25 1,461,500
Public Computer Stations 15 Stations 2,000 30,000
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 7,926,500
1 Unit cost includes assumed cost of construction and land acquisition, as reported by Beaumont Library District.
Sources: Beaumont Library District; Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 13.3 summarizes the planned library facility needed to serve the City through buildout. 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 $5.8 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 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 library 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.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
75 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 13.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 7,926,500
Existing Service Population 65,525
Cost per Resident $ 121
Sources: Tables 13.1 and 13.3.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use library facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and collections that are part of the system of library facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 13.3.
Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use library facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of library facilities that serves new development. The preliminary list of facilities to be funded by the fee is detailed above in Table 13.3. Table 13.5 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 13.1.
Table 13.5: Library Impact Fee Revenue
Projection
Cost per Capita $
Growth in Service Population in District
(2023 to 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: (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.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
76 City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Table 13.6: Libra
ry
Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge'' 2
E=C+D
Total Fee'
F = E/Average
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 121 3.22
$ 390 $ 4
$ 394 $ 0.15
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 13.4.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
77 14. Emergency Preparedness
Facilities
The purpose of the emergency preparedness facilities impact fee is to fund the emergency preparedness facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of emergency preparedness facilities per capita.
The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new emergency preparedness facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional emergency preparedness facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.
Service Population
Emergency preparedness facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.
Table 14.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for emergency preparedness facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.
WWI LLDAN
Financial Services
78 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 14.1: Emergency Preparedness Facilities Service Population A 8 AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
56,070 1.00
41,074 1.00
97,144
6,215
21,675
27,890
0.31 0.31
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.
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 $372,411 net of the existing unreserved 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 1,129,129
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 372,411
Source: City of Beaumont.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
79 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost Allocation
Future Level of Service
Table 14.3 shows new development's projected per capita investment in emergency preparedness facilities at the planning horizon. This value is calculated by dividing cost of all planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.
Table 14.3: Emergency Preparedness Facilities —
System Standard
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 372,411
Total System Value (Buildout) $ 372,411
Future Service Population (Buildout) 105,790
Cost per Capita $ 4
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 4
Cost Allocation per Worker 1
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 buildout. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, $181,240 in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned emergency preparedness facilities.
The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned emergency preparedness facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
80 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 14.4: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 4
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Revenue
$ 191,171
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 372,411
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (181,240)
Sources: Tables 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3.
Fee Schedule
Table 14.5 shows the maximum justified emergency preparedness facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (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: Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Schedule Land Use
Cost Per
A B C=AXB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D F=E/Average
Admin Fee per
Capita Density Base Feel Charge. 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 4 3.22 $ 13 $ $ 13 $ 0.013
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial $ 1 2.12 $ 2 $ - $ 2 $ 0.002
Industrial/Business Park 1 3.08 3 3 0.003
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1 0.88 1 - 1 0.001
Fee per average sized dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 14.3.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
81 15. Storm Drainage Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for storm drain facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Beaumont. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a storm drain fee calculated using the existing facilities standard approach to fund storm drain facilities that serve new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for storm drainage facilities from the projected increase in impervious surface generated by new development and the additional storm drains needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the City's existing ratio of storm drainage facilities to impervious surface, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of impervious surface generated by different types of development.
Storm Drain Demand
Most new development generates storm water runoff that must be controlled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation. Table 15.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on impervious surface coefficient by land use category. The impervious surface coefficients are based on data from Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual. EDU factors relate demand for storm drain facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the impervious surface generated by each unit of new development.
Table 15.1: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units DU or Impervious Equivalent
KSF per Surface Dwelling Unit
Land Use Type acre Coefficient (EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
4.00 0.50 1.00
17.00 0.65 0.31
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 32.67 0.90 0.22
Industrial/Business Park 30.49 0.90 0.24
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 30.49 0.90 0.24
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 -ratio of 0.75 for commercial, and 0.7 for industrial/business park and industrial/w arehouse uses.
Sources: Rate D-5.6 from the Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual; Table 9.1, Willdan Financial Services.
EDU Generation by New Development
Table 15.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through buildout. New development will generate approximately 11,989 new EDUs, representing 39.9 percent of total storm drain demand at buildout.
wWILLDAN
Financial Services
82 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 15.2: Storm Drain Demand Pro'ections
Land Use
2023
EDU Units /
Factor 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 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 0.22 1,792 394
Office 0.24 352 85
Industrial 0.24 1,511 363
Subtotal 3,656 842
Total
18,087
60.1 %
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 15.1.
Growth 2023 to Buildout
Units/ 1,000
SF EDUs
6,498 6,498
5,804 1,799
12,302 8,297
5,304 1,167
532 127
9,991 2,398
15,827 3,692
11,989
39.9%
Total - Buildout
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
23,081
7,940
31,021
23,081
2,461
25,542
7,096 1,561
884 212
11,502 2,761
19,483 4,534
30,076
100%
Existing Inventory
Table 15.3 summarizes the replacement cost of the City's existing storm drain inventory.
Quantities of the various types of facilities were identified from the City's GIS data. The replacement cost of the facilities was estimated using recent bid data from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
Table 15.3: Storm Drain Existing Inventory
Replacement
Description 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 identifies the preliminary planned storm drain facilities. In this case the City plans to conduct a storm drain facilities master plan to identify future capacity -expanding storm drain facilities needed to serve the City.
Since the City does not have any unfunded storm drainage projects beyond the storm drain master plan, development is responsible for mitigating all storm drain impacts on a case -by -case basis. Once the storm drain master plan has been completed, the City plans to revise this fee to fund new development's share of the identified projects. At that point in time, new development will be able to mitigate its impacts on storm drain facilities by paying that future impact fee.
Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
83 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 15.4: Planned Storm Drain Facilities
Description
Total Project
Cost
Citywide Storm Drain Master Plan $ 1,000,000
Total $ 1,000,000
Source: City of Beaumont.
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 existing facility cost standard for storm drain facilities. This figure is shown for informational purposes only and does not drive the fee schedule.
Table 15.5: Existing Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Existing Inventory Replacement Cost $ 78,628,659
Existing EDUs 18,087
Cost per EDU $ 4,347
Sources: Tables 15.2 and 15.3.
Planned Facilities Cost per EDU
The planned facilities cost per EDU that drives the fee schedule is calculated by dividing the cost of the planned facilities from Table 15.4 by the projected increase in storm drain EDUs identified in Table 15.2. This cost per EDU drives the fee calculation.
Table 15.6: Planned Facilities Cost per EDU
Cost of Planned Facilities $ 1,000,000
Increase in EDUs 11,989
Cost per EDU $ 83
Sources: Tables 15.2 and 15.4.
Projected Fee Revenue
Under the planned facilities approach, the projected fee revenue is equal to the cost of the planned facilities identified in Table 15.4.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
84 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for storm drain facilities is shown in Table 15.7. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU from Table 15.5 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 15.1.
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) 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 15.7: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A 8
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
Residential Dwelling Unit 4 $ 83 0.67
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial $ 83 0.22
Industrial/Business Park 83 0.24
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 83 0.24
C=Axe D=Cx0.01
Base Admin
Feel Charge1' 2
$ 56 $ 1
$ 18 $
20 20
E=C+D E/ Average
Fee per
Total Feel Sq. Ft.3
$ 57 $ 0.02
$ 18 $ 0.02
20 0.02
20 0.02
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 15.1 and 15.6.
AN/WILLDAN
Financial Services
85 16. Trails
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new trails demanded by new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new trails from the projected increase in residents and the additional trails needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit.
Service Population
Trails in Beaumont primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for these facilities is based on the residential population. Table 16.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for trails.
Table 16.1: Trail Facilities
Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (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.
wWILLDAN
Financial Services
86 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 16.2: Existing Trails
Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost
Existing Trails
Sundance Bowl Walking Path 3,000 linear feet $ 78 $ 234,000 Highland Springs Walking Path 7,400 linear feet 78 577,200 Noble Creek Walking Path 2,650 linear feet 78 206,700
Marshall Creek Walking Path 6,900 linear feet 78 538,200 Palm Islands Walking Path 6,800 linear feet 78 530,400
Crenshaw Walking Path 2,300 linear feet 78 179,400
Cherry Channel Walking Path 7,500 linear feet 78 585,000 Portero Walking Trail 3,300 linear feet 78 257,400
Total 39,850 linear feet $ 3,108,300
'Cost per linear foot assumes $5.55 per square foot of decomposed granite trail, 14' wide.
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Trails
The City has one unfunded trail planned to serve the City as it grows. Table 16.3 details the City's planned trail.
Table 16.3: Planned Trails
Quantity Units Unit Cost' Total Cost
Future Trails
Edison Easement Phase 2 4,000 linear feet $ 78 $ 312,000 'Cost per linear foot assumes $5.55 per square foot of decomposed granite trail, 14' wide.
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 16.4 expresses the City's current trails level of service in terms of an existing cost per resident. This cost per resident is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
7WILLDAN
Financial Services
87 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 16.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Resident
$ 3,108,300
56,070
$ 55
Sources: Tables 16.1 and 16.3.
Future Level of Service
Table 16.5 shows new development's cost per capita needed to fully fund the planned facilities.
The level of service indicated by the planned facility is lower than the existing standard. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing the cost of planned facilities by the increase in population.
Table 16.5: Trails Planned Facilities Standard
Cost of Planned Facilities
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 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.
Fee Schedule
Table 16.6 shows the maximum justified trails fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (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
WILLDAN
Financial Services
88 City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
fee justification analyses. See the Administrative Costs section of Chapter 1 for a discussion of this assumption.
Table 16.6: Trail Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Capita Density Base Feel Charge'' 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 8 3.22
$ 24 $
$ 24 $ 0.01
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 16.4.
Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services
89 17. 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, and library 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, storm drain facilities and trails facility fees. Transportation 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 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, and public facility fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development's fair share of facilities identified either in the City's most recent CIP, or the City's prior development impact fee studies. New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of service represented by the planned facilities. The City will have to fund existing development's share of the increased level of service through any other funding source. 'WI LLDAN
Financial Services
90 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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 General Plan Buildout, which has been updated based on the City's 2020 General Plan.
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 17.1 displays an accounting of annual revenue collected over the last five fiscal years for the impact fees included in this analysis.
Table 17.1: Annual Collected Impact Fee Revenue
FY 2023 FY 2022 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2019
Traffic Signal $ 203,304 $ 179,998 $ 108,731 $ 410,093 $ 458,661 Railroad Crossing 285,267 242,393 118,918 116,231 2,046,624 Fire Facility 559,958 472,975 192,423 212,209 1,666,646 Public Facility 410,685 439,313 155,937 154,245 379,250 Emergency Prepardeness 883,168 831,471 277,521 272,086 1,056,153 General Plan 122,733 87,226 24,048 19,528 172,890
Recycled Water 989,499 1,382,581 278,089 305,184 675,314 Road and Bridge Benefit 2,372,543 2,411,075 994,344 990,955 5,070,240 Sewer Capacity 4,610,065 5,896,211 1,988,400 2,083,699 3,588,099 Recreational Facilities 533,042 847,938 243,318 259,139 459,551 Police Facilities 486,085 514,076 183,599 180,923 447,718 Community Park Development 1,041,296 968,166 480,154 311,733 1,788,402 Neighborhood Park Development 1,259,955 1,171,643 581,180 377,535 2,164,265 Total $ 13, 757, 600 $ 15,445, 066 $5,626,662 $5,693,561 $ 19, 973, 812 Source: City of Beaumont.
66016.5. (a) (5) - Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot for all fee categories and comply with AB 602.
66016.5. (a) (6) - Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities within each facility fee chapter. Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City's current adopted CIP, master plans and other relevant documents. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study.
Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
91 18. 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.
wWILLDAN
Financial Services
92 19. 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, and emergency preparedness facilities.
Benefit Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).
Al/WI LLDAN
Financial Services
93 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.
Burden Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).
Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For most facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development.
For transportation related facilities demand standards are based on trip generation by various categories of new development. For storm drainage facilities demand is based on impervious surface generated by development. For sewer and recycled water facilities demand is based on increased wastewater flow generated by new development.
The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.
Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter.
Proportionality
• Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).
The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.
See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees.
Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services
94 Appendix
Table A.1: Beaumont Storm Drain Facilities Inventory
Total
Replacement
Material Quantity Unit Cost Cost
Structures
Inlets 32 $ 7,263 $ 232,425
Outlets 18 4,675 84,157
Catch Basins 240 5,239 1,257,445
Structures Subtotal 290 $ 1,574,027
Culverts by Shape
Arch CMP 2 $ 4,300 $ 8,600
CONC 2 35,100 70,200
Box CONC 15 31,740 476,100
RCP 1 21,100 21,100
Circular CMP 7 1,914 13,400
CONC 4 2,125 8,500
RCP 28 1,814 50,800
Round CONC 2 2,500 5,000
Misc. 6 5,317 31,900
Culverts Subtotal 67 $ 685,600
Pipes by Diameter
4" - 12" 13,495 $ 118 $ 1,592,410
15" 3,114 150 467,100
18" 58,207 209 12,165,263
21" - 24" 58,266 227 13,226,382
27" - 30" 46,899 237 11,115, 063
33" - 36" 58,798 250 14, 699, 500
42" - 48" 47,323 250 11, 830, 750
54" 11,242 250 2,810,500
60" - 66" 14,624 250 3,656,000
72" 5,425 374 2,028,950
>72" 6,326 439 2,777,114
Total 323,719 $ 76,369,032
Sources: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Bids); Willdan Financial Services.
AN/WILLDAN
Financial Services
A-1
CITY OF BEAUMONT
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS
STUDY UPDATE
REVISED O-RAFTREPORT
SEPTEMBER 6OCTOBER 31, 2024
WFinancial Services
Oakland Office
66 Franklin Street
Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel: (510) 832-0899
WI LLDAN
Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
27368 Via Industria
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
Tel: (800) 755-6864
Fax: (888) 326-6864
www.willdan.com
Aurora, CO
Orlando, FL
Phoenix, AZ
Plano, TX
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
Background and Study Objectives 6
Facility Standards and Costs 7
Use of Fee Revenues 7
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 8
Other Funding Needed 8
1 —INTRODUCTION 10
Public Facilities Financing in California 10
Study Objectives 10
Fee Program Maintenance 11
Administrative Costs 11
Study Methodology 11
Types of Facility Standards 12
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 12
Organization of the Report 14
Land Use Types
Existing and Future Development
15 15
Service Population
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory
Parkland and Park Facilitics Unit Costs
Parkland and Park Facility Standards
Mitigation Fee Act
Quimby Act
City of Beaumont Parkland and Park Facilities Standards Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Use of Fee Revenue
Fee Schedule
18 18
19 20
20 20
21 21
23 21
2/
¢—RECREATION FACILITIES 26
Service Population
Existing Recreation Facilities Inventory
Planned Recreation Facilities
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
26 26
27 27
27 Use of Fee Revenue
Non Fee Funding Required
28 28
WWILLDAN
Financial Services
City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
5 Service Population
Facility Inventories and Standards
Existing Inventory
Planned Facilities
Cost Allocation
30 31
31 32
33 Use of Fee Revenue
Fee Revenue Projection
Fee Schedule
34 34
35 6 —POLICE FACILITIES 36
Service Population
Facility Inventories and Standards
Existing Inventory
Planned Facilities
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Future Level of Service
Use of Fee Revenue
Non Fee Funding Required
Fee Schedule
36 37
37 38
39 39
39 40
40 41
Service Population 42
Facility Inventories and Standards 43
Existing Inventory 43
Planned Facilities 44
Cost Allocation 45
Existing Level of Service 45
Future Level of Service 45
Use of Fee Revenue 46
Non Fee Funding Required '16
Fee Schedule 47
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 48
Fee Structure Changes
Trip Demand
Trip Growth
Project Costs
48 'I 8
49 50
Fee Schedule
9. SEWER FACILITIES 54
Sewer Demand 51
52 trWI LLDAN
Financial Services
ii
City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
EDU Generation by New Development
Facility Nccds and Costs
Cost per EDU
Fee Schedule
55 55
60 60
a$SEWER CAPACITY 61
Current Demand for Wastewater Treatment
Current Sewer System A -set Valuation
Adjusted System Valuation
Fee per Gallon per Day
Nonresidential Fee Schedule
RECYCI ED \A/nTER C
Recycled Water Demand
Planned Facilities
Cost per EDU
Fee -Schedule --
61 61
62 62
63 Service Population
Planned Costs
Facility Standard
Fee Revenue Projection
Fee Schedule
65 65
65 66
68 69
70 70
71 1 —LIBRARY FACILITIES 73
Service Population
Existing Library Facilities
Planned Facilities
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Use of Fee Revenue
Fee Revenue Projection
Fee Schedule
73 73
74 7,1
74 75
75 75
T. EMERCENC PREPAREDNESS FC,"FhFG- rILcITIES 77
r
Service Population 77
Planned Facilities and Standards 78
Planned Facilities 78
Cost Allocation 79
Future Level of Service 79
Use of Fee Revenue 79
Non Fcc Funding Required 79
Fee Schedule 80
—STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES 81
Storm Drain Demand 81
t'WII.LDAN
Financial Services
City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
EDU Generation by New Development 81
Existing Inventory 82
Planned Facilities 82
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 83
Projected Fee Revenue 83
Fee-Sehedvle 84
16. TRAILS 85
Service Population
Existing Trails Inventory
Planned Trails
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Future Level of Service
Use of Fee Revenue
Fee Revenue Projection
Fee Schedule
85 85
86 86
86 87
87 87
87 17. MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT FACILITIES 89
Service Population
Facility Inventories and Standards
Existing Inventory
Planned Facilities
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Future Level of Service
Use of Fee Revenue
Fee Revenue Projection
Fee Schedule
89 90
90 91
91 91
92 92
92 93
AB 602 REQUIREMENTS 91
Compliance with AB 602
66016.5. (a) (1) Review of Original Fee Ascumptions
66016.5. (a) (5) Residential Fees per Square Foot
66016.5. (a) (6) Capital Improvement Plan
19. IMPLEMENTATION
91 -94
95 95
95 96
Impact Fee Program Adoption Proce'e 96
Inflation Adjustment 96
Reporting Requirements 96
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 96
Purpose of Fee 97
Use of Fee Revenues 97
Benefit Relationship 97
Burden Relationship 98
IrWILLDAN
Financial Services
iv
City of Beaumont
Proportionality
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
98 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
Background and Study Objectives 9
Facility Standards and Costs 10
Use of Fee Revenues 10
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 11
Other Funding Needed 13
1. INTRODUCTION 15
Public Facilities Financing in California 15
Study Objectives 15
Fee Program Maintenance 16
Administrative Costs 16
Study Methodology 16
Types of Facility Standards 17
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 17
Organization of the Report 19
2. GROWTH FORECASTS 20
Land Use Types 20
Existing and Future Development 21
Occupant Densities 22
3. PARK FACILITIES 24
Service Population
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Invento
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Parkland and Park Facility Standards
Mitigation Fee Act
Quimby Act
City of Beaumont Parkland and Park Facilities Standards Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Use of Fee Revenue
Fee Schedule
4. RECREATION FACILITIES
Service Population 34
Existing Recreation Facilities Inventory 34
Planned Recreation Facilities 35
Cost Allocation 35
Existing Level of Service 35
Future Level of Service 36
Use of Fee Revenue 36
Non -Fee Funding Required 37
24 24
25 26
26 26
27 28
30 31
31 34
WWILLDAN
Financial Services
v
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule 37
5. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES 39
Service Population 39
Facility Inventories and Standards 40
Existing Inventory 40
Planned Facilities 41
Cost Allocation 43
Existing Level of Service 43
Future Level of Service 43
Use of Fee Revenue 44
Non -Fee Funding Required 44
Fee Schedule 45
6. POLICE FACILITIES 47
Service Population 47
Facility Inventories and Standards
Existing Inventory
Planned Facilities
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Future Level of Service
Use of Fee Revenue
Non -Fee Funding Required
Fee Schedule 54
48 48
50 51
51 52
53 53
7. PUBLIC FACILITIES 57
Service Population 57
Facility Inventories and Standards 58
Existing Inventory 58
Planned Facilities 59
Cost Allocation 60
Existing Level of Service 60
Future Level of Service 60
Use of Fee Revenue 61
Non -Fee Funding Required 61
Fee Schedule 62
8. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 64
Fee Structure Changes 64
Trip Demand 64
Trip Growth 65
Project Costs 66
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 69
Fee Schedule 70
9. SEWER FACILITIES 72
Sewer Demand 72
),WILLDAN
Financial Services
vi
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update EDU Generation by New Development 73
Facility Needs and Costs 74
Cost per EDU 83
Fee Schedule 83
10. SEWER CAPACITY 85
Current Demand for Wastewater Treatment
Current Sewer System Asset Valuation
Adjusted System Valuation
Fee per Gallon per Day
Nonresidential Fee Schedule
11. RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES
Recycled Water Demand
Planned Facilities
Cost per EDU
Fee Schedule
85 85
86 87
88 91
12. GENERAL PLAN
Service Population
Planned Costs
Facility Standard
Fee Revenue Projection
Fee Schedule
91 91
92 93
95 13. LIBRARY FACILITIES
Service Population
Existing Library Facilities
Planned Facilities
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Use of Fee Revenue
Fee Revenue Projection
Fee Schedule
95 97
97 98
99 101
14. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FACILITIES
101
101
102
102
102
103
103
103
105
Service Population 105
Planned Facilities and Standards 106
Planned Facilities 106
Cost Allocation 107
Future Level of Service 107
Use of Fee Revenue 108
Non -Fee Funding Required 108
Fee Schedule 109
15. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES 111
Storm Drain Demand 111
WILLDAN
Financial Services
vii
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update EDU Generation by New Development 112
Existing Inventory 113
Planned Facilities 113
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 114
Planned Facilities Cost per EDU 115
Projected Fee Revenue 115
Fee Schedule 115
16. TRAILS 117
Service Population 117
Existing Trails Inventory 117
Planned Trails 118
Cost Allocation 118
Existing Level of Service 118
Future Level of Service 119
Use of Fee Revenue 119
Fee Revenue Projection 119
Fee Schedule 119
17. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS 126
Compliance with AB 602
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service
66016.5. (a) (4) — Review of Original Fee Assumptions
66016.5. (a) (5) — Residential Fees Per Square Foot
66016.5. (a) (6) — Capital Improvement Plan
126
126
127
127
127
18. IMPLEMENTATION 128
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 128
Inflation Adjustment 128
Reporting Requirements 128
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 128
19. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS 129
Purpose of Fee 129
Use of Fee Revenues 129
Benefit Relationship 129
Burden Relationship 130
Proportionality 130
APPENDIX A-1
auerWILLDAN
yomi Financial Services
viii
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Beaumont through buildout of the City's General Plan. It is the City's intent that the costs representing future development's share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
• Parks • Recycled Water
• Recreation Facilities • General Plan
• Fire Protection Facilities • Library District
• Police Facilities • Emergency Preparedness Facilities • Public Facilities • Storm Drain
• Transportation Facilities • Trails
• Sewer Facilities • Maintenance Equipment
• Sewer Capacity
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.
The Mitigation Fee Act findings required to implement impact fees in California demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and a fee to fund facilities needed to serve that development. The term essential nexus refers to the relationship between new development and the need for facilities (and corresponding impact fees) to serve that development. The findings also require that this study demonstrates rough proportionality of the fees- meaning that the amount of the exactions must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government, resulting from the proposed development project. To ensure that fees are roughly proportional to demand for facilities from new development, this study first allocates facilities costs to new development using the allocation methods described below, then to individual units of new development based on the demand characteristics of each unit, by land use type. This is described in detail in each chapter and summarized in Chapter 2819.
All development impact fee -funded capital projects should be programmed through the City's five- year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act. 'WILLDAN
Financial Services
9
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Facility Standards and Costs
There are several approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements.
The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development's fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non -impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development's fair share of planned facilities. This approach is used for the recreation fire protection, police, recycled water, general plan, emergency preparedness, and public facility fees in this report.
The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the transportation -related, sewer facilities, fire facilities, maintenance equipment facilities and trails facility fees in this report.
The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City's existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City's annual capital improvement plan and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is to calculate the parks, library, and storm drainage facilities fees in this report.
The buy -in method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now and into the future. Under the buy -in methodology, new development "buys" a proportionate share of existing capacity at the current value of the existing facilities. This approach is typically used for utility fees, where existing facilities are built with excess capacity to serve future development. This approach is used for the sewer capacity fees in this report.
Use of Fee Revenues
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that this analysis "Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged."1 Each chapter in this report identifies the appropriate use of impact fee revenues for each particular impact fee category.
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, infrastructure, 1 California Government Code §66001 (a) (2).
%AilIWILLDAN
Financial Services
10
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City's identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
E.1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule - per Square Foot Fee Category
Residential Industrial/
Dwelling Industrial/ High -Cube
Unit Commercial Business Park Warehouse
Park Land In Lieu (Subdivisions)1 $ 0.79 $ - $ - $ -
Park Land Acquisition (Non Subdivisions)2 0.77 - -
Community Park Improvements 0.53 - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements 0.59 -
Recreation Facilities 0.93 - -
Fire Protection Facilities 0.28 0.34 0.50 0.14
Police Facilities 0.87 0.48 0.69 0.20
Public Facilities 0.28 0.15 0.22 0.06
Streets and Bridges 1.70 15.59 7.04 1.85
Railroad Crossings 0.52 4.78 2.16 0.57
Sewer Facilities 0.92 0.45 0.33 0.68
Sewer Capacity3 4.72 1.80 3.33 2.29
Recycled Water 0.29 0.14 0.10 0.21
General Plan 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.004
Library District 0.15 - - -
Emergency Preparedness Facilities 0.01 0.004 0.006 0.002 Storm Drain 1.10 0.97 0.75 0.97
Trails 0.01 - - -
Maintenance Equipment 0.01 0.01 0.010 0.003
Total (Subdivisions) $ 13.72 $ 24.72 $ 15.16 $ 6.98
Total (Infill) $ 13.70 $ 24.72 $ 15.16 $ 6.98
Fee in lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act. 2 Fee for parkland acquisition charged under the Mitigation Fee Act. 3 "Commercial medium strength" fee show n for commercial. "hdustrial high strength" fee show n for industrial/business park. "Industrial low strength" fee show n for industrial/high cube warehouse. Refer to Table 10.5 for full sewer capacity nonresidential fee Sources: Tables 3.8, 4.7, 5.6, 6.7, 7.7, 8.5, 9.5, 10.4, 10.5, 11.3, 12.5, 13.6, 14.5, 15.7, 16.6 and 17.6. �WILLDAN
Financial Services
11
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update E.1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule - per Square Foot Industrial / High Cube Warehouse
Transload
and Short- Fulfillment
Residential Term Center Cold
Dwelling Industrial/ Storage Warehouse - Parcel Hub Storage Fee Category Unit Commercial Business Park Warehouse Non -Sort Warehouse Warehouse Park Land In Lieu (Subdivisions)1 $ 0.79 $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ Park Land Acquisition (Non Subdivisions)2 0.76 - - - - - Community Park Improvements 0.49 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements 0.60
Recreation Facilities 0.93 - - - -
Fire Protection Facilities 0.36 0.43 0.63 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Police Facilities 0.64 0.35 0.51 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Public Facilities 0.28 0.16 0.23 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
Streets and Bridges 1.85 15.05 8.20 0.67 1.08 4.30 0.81 Railroad Crossings 0.52 4.24 2.31 0.19 0.30 1.21 0.23
Sewer Facilities 0.65 0.31 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Sewer Capacity3 2.83 1.08 4.28 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47
Recycled Water 0.30 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
General Plan 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
Library District 0.15 - -
Emergency Preparedness Facilities 0.013 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Storm Drain 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Trails 0.01 - - - -
Total (Subdivisions) $ 10.45 $ 21.79 $ 16.96 $ 3.52 $ 4.04 $ 8.17 $ 3.70 Total (Infill) $ 10.42 $ 21.79 $ 16.96 $ 3.52 $ 4.04 $ 8.17 $ 3.70 1 Fee in lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act. 2 Fee for parkland acquisition charged under the Mitigation Fee Act. 3 "Commercial medium strength" fee show n for commercial. "Industrial high strength" fee show n for industrial/business park. "Industrial low strength" fee show n for industrial/high cube w arehouse. Refer to Table 10.5 for full sew er capacity nonresidential fee schedule.
Sources: Tables 3.8, 4.7, 5.6, 6.7, 7.7, 8.5, 9.5, 10.4, 10.5, 11.3, 12.5, 13.6, 14.5, 15.7 and 16.6.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
12
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Beaumont.
They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E.2, approximately $319.0321.7 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. The "Additional Funding Required" column shows non -impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non -fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development.
The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
Table E.2: Non -Impact Fee Funding Required
Fee Category
Park Land
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Recreation Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets and Bridges
Railroad Crossings
-Sewer racilities
Sewer Capacity'
Recycled Water
General Plan
Library District
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Trails
Maintenance Equipment
Total
Net Project
Cost
$ 26,127,072
18,072,000
19,969,000
62,440,220
12,965,326
73,182,221
23,345,367
304,533,272
92,211,598
i0, x82,100
29,432,627
1,722,271
5,807,961
695,153
51,250,472
312,000
573,512
$ 793, 022,171
Additional
Development Funding
Fee Revenue Required
$ 26,127,072 $ -
18,072,000
19,969,000 -
31,421,365 31,018,855
12,965,326 -
34,267,352 38,914,869
10, 944, 524 12, 400,843
159, 527, 369 145, 005, 902
48,881,819 43,329,778
9,b 2,2b0 x0,849,850
12,321,396
764,683
5,807,961
334,549
51,250,472
312,000
573,512
$ 473,072,650
17,111,231
957,588
360,604
$ 319, 949, 520
1 No project costs show n. Capacity fee revenue is used to pay back aty for excess capacity used to serve new development at WWTP.
Sources: Tables 3.5, 3.6, 4.6, 5.3, 6.6, 7.6, 8.3, 8.4, 9.4, 11.2, 12.4, 13.5, 14.4, 15.6, 16.3 and 17.3.
WWILLDAN
Financial Services
13
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table E.2: Non -Impact Fee Fundin ' Required
Fee Cate • o
Additional
Net Project Development Funding
Cost Fee Revenue Required
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 Capacity
Recycled Water
General Plan
Library District
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Trails
Total
$ 25, 858,194
16,526,000
20,242,000
62,506,334
17,007,587
52,292,457
23,889,646
308,153,612
87,716,550
70, 382,100
30,742,438
1,691,250
5,807,961
372,411
1,000,000
312,000
$ 724,500,541
$ 25, 858,194 $ -
16,526,000 -
20,242,000 -
31,462,439 31,043,895
16,472,432 535,155
25, 282, 328 27, 010,129
11, 231, 280 12, 658, 366
161,004,317 147,149,296
45,316,450 42,400,100
28, 337, 773 42, 044, 327
12,998,453 17, 743, 985
764,683 926,567
5,807,961
191,171 181,240
1,000,000
312,000
$ 402,807,480 $ 321,693,061
1 No project costs shown. Capacity fee revenue is used to pay back aty for excess capacity used to serve new development at WWTP.
Sources: Tables 3.5, 3.6, 4.6, 5.3, 6.6, 7.6, 8.3, 8.4, 9.3, 9.4, 11.2, 12.4, 13.5, 14.4, 15.6 and 16.3. ft'WILLDAN
F. ar1Llal Services
14
1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Beaumont. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
• Public Facilities Financing in California;
• Study Objectives;
• Fee Program Maintenance;
• Study Methodology; and,
• Organization of the Report.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 45 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;
• Unfunded state and federal mandates; and,
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of "growth pays its own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction -wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Implementation Policy LUCD6 of the City's General Plan states "Development Fees. Update citywide development impact fees for infrastructure, affordable housing, other community benefits, and long range planning." The primary purpose of this report is to update the City's impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policy stated above.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act to demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and the impact fees needed to support that development. The findings demonstrate
WILLDAN
Financial Services
15
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update that the fees are proportional to demand for facilities from new development and are necessary to allow the City to adopt the fee schedules presented in this report.
Beaumont is forecast to have significant growth through this study's planning horizon of General Plan buildout, which is not assigned to a particular year. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Beaumont has decided to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and capital facilities planning documents to update the City's existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.
Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the California Construction Cost Index, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 19.
Administrative Costs
Administration of an impact fee program to comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act imposes costs on the City for capital budgeting, fee adjustments, mandated annual reports and 5 - year reviews of the impact fee program, as well as periodic impact fee update studies and legal review. It is common practice in California for cities to add a small administrative charge to impact fees to cover those costs.
This study uses an assumption of 1°/0 of the maximum justified fee to estimate the administrative costs associated with the fee program, consistent with the last impact fee study. To validate this assumption, City staff prepared an analysis of the administrative costs of the fee program from FY 2022-23. These costs were conservatively estimated at $108,282 compared to fee revenue of $8,184,833, equal to 1.32% of collected revenue. Note that this analysis excluded the administrative costs (and corresponding revenues) of the recycled water and sewer -related fees, as the administrative costs of those fee components were not tracked separately.
Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:
1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;
2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;
WILLDAN
16
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;
4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;
5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and
6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non -fee funding is required to complete projects.
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.
Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
• Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. • Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City's facility design standards.
• Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.
This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
WILLDAN
Financial Services
17
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand = $/unit of demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy -based standard. The local agency must secure non -fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This approach is used for the recreation, fire protection, police, recycled water, general plan, emergency preparedness, and public facility fees in this report.
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand = $/unit of demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long- range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.
This approach is to calculate the parks, library, and storm drainage facilities fees in this report.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is a portion of a roadway that has been identified as necessary to mitigate the impact from new development through traffic modeling analysis. Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the transportation -related, sewer conveyance facilities, fire facilities, and trails facility fees in this report.
- $/unit of demand
Buy -In Method
The buy -in method is based on the value of the existing system's capacity. This method is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new development now and into the future. Under the buy -in methodology, new development "buys" a proportionate share of existing capacity at the current value of the existing facilities.
The buy -in fee is determined by taking the current value of assets (replacement cost new, less depreciation) divided by the current capacity provided by the system. Responsibility for new
WILLDAN
Financial Services
18
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update capital improvements is then shared equally by all customers. A simplified version of the calculation equation is:
Present Value of Existing Facilities
= cost per unit of demand
Existing System Capacity
This approach is typically used for utility fees, where existing facilities are built with excess capacity to serve future development. This approach is used for the sewer capacity fees in this report.
Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.
Chapters 3 through 1-716 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
• Parks • Recycled Water
• Recreation Facilities • General Plan
• Fire Protection Facilities • Library District
• Police Facilities • Emergency Preparedness Facilities • Public Facilities • Storm Drain
• Transportation Facilities • Trails
• Sewer Conveyance • Road Maintenance Equipment
• Sewer Capacity
Chapter X17 describes how this study complies with the requirements of AB 602.
Chapter 1-918 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 2019.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
19
2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2023 base year and a planning horizon of General Plan buildout, which is not assigned a particular year.
Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2023 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The estimate of total development at buildout is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any.
• Estimates of growth from 2023 through buildout are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.
The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Residential: All residential dwelling units. Fees charged per square foot of living space.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development. • Industrial/Business Park: AIIA business park consists of a group of flex -type or incubator one- or two-story buildings served by a common roadway system. The space may include offices, retail and wholesale stores, restaurants, recreational areas and warehousing, manufacturing and other, light industrial development, or scientific research functions.
• Industrial/High Cube Warehouse+ (HCW): All warehouse and distribution center development. Note that for the transportation facilities fee, this land -use category is further divided into subcategories as follows o Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse: A transload facility has the primary function of consolidation and distribution of pallet loads (or larger) for manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers. A transload facility typically has little storage duration, high throughput, and its operations are high efficiency.
o Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort: A non -sort facility is a fulfillment center that ships large box items that are processed primarily with automation rather than through manual means.
o Parcel Hub Warehouse: A high -cube parcel hub warehouse typically serves as a regional and local freight -forwarder facility for time sensitive shipments via airfreight and ground carriers.
1WWILLDAN
Financial Services
20
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update o Cold Storage Warehouse: A high -cube cold store warehouse has substantial temperature -controlled environments for frozen food and other perishable products.
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed -use development with both residential and commercial uses. Another similar situation would be a warehousing facility that contains office space. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type included within the building.
The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project's characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use.
Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Beaumont, both in 2023 and at buildout. The base year estimates of residents and dwelling units come from the California Department of Finance. The projection of total dwelling units at buildout is identified in Table 3.2b of the City's General Plan. Total dwelling units at buildout is then used to estimate population at building by multiplying the count of units by the occupant densities of 3.28 residents per single family unit and 2.70 residents per multifamily unit, based on data for Beaumont from the American Community Survey.
Base year employees were estimated based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau's OnTheMap Application. Estimated building square feet in 2023 was calculated based on the current employment count and density factors in Table 2.2. Building square feet at buildout is identified in Table 3.2b of the General Plan.
M LLDAN
Financial
21
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions
2023 Buildout Increase
Residents 56,070 97,144 41,074
Dwelling Units 2
Single Family 16,583 23,081 6,498
Multifamily 2,136 7,940 5,804
Total 18,719 31,021 12,302
Employment 3
Commercial 3,800 15,044 11,244
Industrial/Business Park 1,085 2,723 1,638
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,330 10,122 8,792
Total 6,215 27,890 21,675
Building Square Feet (000s)4
Commercial 1,792 7,096 5,304
Industrial/Business Park 352 884 532
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,511 11,502 9,991
Total 3,656 19,483 15,827
Current household population from California Department of Finance. Projection based on total dwelling units in City multiplied by assumption of residents per single family (3.28) and multifamily (2.70) unit calculated from American Community Survey data. 2 Current values from California Department of Finance. Projection of total dw elling units at buildout identified in Table 3.2b of the General Ran. 3 Current estimates of primary jobs from the US Census' OnTheMap. Projection based on total building square feet identified in Table 3.2b of the General Ran, multiplied by employment densities from Table 2.2.
° Estimated building square feet in 2023 calculated based on employment count and density factors in Table 2.2. Building square feet at buildout identified in Table 3.2b of the General Ran.
Sources: California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2023; City of Beaumont, California Final General Ran, 2020; OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.
Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. The densities ensure that the fee per unit of new development is roughly proportional to the demand for facilities from various types of development.
Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.
The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factor was calculated using the most recent data from the American Community Survey
WILLDAN
Financial Services
22
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update specifically for the City of Beaumont. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition for commercial and industrial/business park land uses. The occupancy density factor for industrial/highOcube warehouse uses was calculated based on data provided by the City for use in this analysis.
Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential - All Units 3.22 Residents per dwelling unit Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial/Business Park 3.08 Employees per 1,000 square feet Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 0.88 Employees per 1,000 square feet Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; FIE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.
fWILLDA,N
Flnancda[
23
3. Park Facilities
The purpose of the park facilities impact fee is to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of park facilities per capita. Fee revenue would be used to expand the provision of parks to meet demand from future development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for City parks from the projected increase in residents and the additional parks needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the City's existing ratio of park acres to residents, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit. A fee in -lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act is also included in this chapter.
Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in Beaumont primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City's residential population. Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park facilities.
Table 3.1: Park Facilities Service
Population
Residents
Census (2020)
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
53,036
56,070
41,074
97,144
Source: Table 2.1.
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory
The City of Beaumont maintains several parks throughout the city. Table 3.2 summarizes the City's existing parkland inventory in 2023. All facilities are owned by the City. In total, the inventory includes a total of 154.27 acres of City -owned parkland.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
24
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.2: Park Land Inventory
Developed
Name Acres
Community Parks
Beaumont Sports Park
Stewart Park
Subtotal
Neighborhood Parks
Aspen Creek Park
De Forge Park
Fallen Heroes Park
Mickelson Park
Mountain View Park
Nicklaus Park
Palmer Park
Rangal Park
Seneca Springs Park
Shadow Hills Park
Stetson Park
Sundance Bowl
Sundance PA 51
Sunny Hills Park
Three Rings Ranch Park
Trevino Park
Veteran's Park
Wild Flower Park
Subtotal
22.66 13.21
35.87 1.18
15.10 16.61
6.68 5.00
18.06 3.62
1.58 2.14
3.90 11.82
16.51 1.40
0.32 6.02
5.36 0.13
2.97 118.40
Total 154.27
Source: aty of Beaumont.
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 3.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Beaumont. The cost of improving a acre of community and neighborhood parkland with standard park improvements is based on the assumed cost of park improvements from the City's prior impact fee study, adjusted for inflation into 2023 dollars. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. In total, this analysis assumes that it costs $847,200 to acquire and develop an acre of community parkland and $438,600 to acquire and develop an acre of neighborhood parkland, respectively, in Beaumont.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
25
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Community Neighborhood
Parks Parks
Standard Park Improvements
Land Acquisition
Total Cost per Acre
$ 628,600 $ 220,000
218,600 218,600
$ 847,200 $ 438,600
Sources: City of Beaumont; CoStar; Willdan Financial Services.
Parkland and Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded parkland and park facilities. Information regarding the City's existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.
The most common measure in calculating new development's demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act (using a city's existing inventory of parkland and park facilities), or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.2 In this case, the City will use the Mitigation Fee Act to impose park impact fees for development not occurring in subdivisions and will use the Quimby Act for development occurring in subdivisions.
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to existing development.3 In this case, the fees will be set to maintain the City's existing parkland standard of acres per 1,000 residents.
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three -acre minimum if the jurisdiction's existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).
The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction's adopted general or specific plan standards.
The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.
The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund the acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated. 2 California Government Code §66477.
3 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Background Report.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
26
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update The Quimby Act allows use of in -lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.
Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements, and rehabilitation of existing parks.
City of Beaumont Parkland and Park Facilities Standards Table 3.4 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. Once accounting for impact fee fund balances, the City has an existing parkland standard of 2.9488 acres per 1,000 residents, which is less than the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The impact fee analysis in this report will be based on maintaining the City's 2.9488 acre per 1,000 resident standard as new development adds demand for parks in Beaumont. Fees in -lieu of land dedication for subdivisions are calculated at the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. Note that the existing improvement standard is allocated to community and neighborhood parkland, respectively.
Table 3.4: Park Standards
Community Neighborhood
Parks Parks
Tota I
Developed Park Acreage 35.87 118.40
Fund Balance Equivalent 3.52 5.57
Total Park Acres 39.39 123.97
Existing Service Population (2023)
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)
Quimby Act Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)
56 070 56 070
0.70 2.21
154.27
163.36
56 070
2.91 3.00
1 Existing community and neighborhood park fund balance divided by cost per acre from Table 3.3 to determine equivalent park acres, respectively.
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
Community Neighborhood
Parks Parks
Total
Developed Park Acreage
Fund Balance Equivalent
Total Park Acres
35.87 35.87
Existing Service Population (2023) 56,070
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 0.64
Quimby Act Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)
118.40 154.27
6.95 125.35 161.22
56,070 56,070
2.24 2.88
3.00 Existing community and neighborhood park fund balance divided by cost per acre from Table 3.3 to determine equivalent park acres, respectively.
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
WWILLDAN
Financial Services
27
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 3.5 shows the park improvements needed to accommodate new development at the existing acre per 1,000 resident standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, new residential development must fund the improvement of 28.7526.39 community park acres and
90.7792.01 neighborhood park acres, at a total cost of $3636.8 million.
Table 3.5: Park Improvements to Accommodate New Development Calculation Community Neighborhood Total
Park Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 0.70 2.21
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) B 41,074 41,074 Facility Needs (acres) C=AxB/1000 28.75 90.77
2.91 119.52
Average Unit Cost (per acre)
D $ 628.600 $ 220.000
Total E=CxD $ 18,072,000 $ 19,969,000
$ 38,041,000
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.
Calculation Community Neighborhood
Park Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 0.64 2.24
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) B 41.074 41.074 Facility Needs (acres) C=AxB/1000 26.29 92.01
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 628.600 $ 220.000
Total E=CxD $ 16,526,000 $ 20,242,000
Total
2.88 118.30
$ 36,768,000
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.
Table 3.6 shows the park land needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard and Quimby standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, new development must fund the acquisition of between 119.52118.29 and 123.22 parkland acres, at a total cost ranging between $26.125.9 and $26.9 million.
The facility standards and resulting fees under the Quimby Act are higher because development will be charged to provide 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 2.91-88 acres of improvements, whereas development not subject to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide only 2.91-88 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 2.91-88 acres of improvements. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 3.6 presents the range of total land costs that may be incurred depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
28
City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Table 3.6: Park Land to Accommodate New Development
Calculation Parkland Total Ranger
Subdivisions
Parkland Dedication In -Lieu (Quimby Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 3.00
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) B 41,074 Facility Needs (acres) C=AxB/1000 123.22
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 218.600
Total - Subdivisions2 E = C x D
Non -Subdivisions
Parkland Acquisition (Mitigation Fee Act)
$ 26,935,892
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) B 41,074 Facility Needs (acres) C=AxBi1000 119.52
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 218.600
Total - Infill3 E = C x D
$ 26,127,072
Values in this colurm show the range of the cost of parkland acquisition and development should all development be either subject to the Quimby Act, or to the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. 2 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Quimby Act (Subdivisions of 50 units or more). Fee in -lieu of parkland dedication charged at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. 3 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Mtigation Fee Act. Acquisition fee charged at the existing standard.
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.
wILLDAN I
Financial Services
29
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Calculation Parkland Total Ranger
Subdivisions
Parkland Dedication In -Lieu (Quimby Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) B
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x 8/1000
3.00 41.074
123.22
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 218,600
Total - Subdivisions2 E = C x D
Non -Subdivisions
Parkland Acquisition (Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 2.88
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) B 41.074 Facility Needs (acres) c =A x B/1000 118.29
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 218.600
Total - Infill3 E = C x D
$ 26,935,892
$ 25,858,194
1 Values in this colurm show the range of the cost of parkland acquisition and development should all development be either subject to the Quimby Act, or to the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. 2 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Quimby Act (Subdivisions of 50 units or more). Fee in -lieu of parkland dedication charged at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. 3 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Mtigation Fee Act. Acquisition fee charged at the existing standard.
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.
Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 3.7 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the existing facility standard, and at the Quimby standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of four fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of land dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition. This fee is payable by residential and nonresidential development not occurring in subdivisions. • A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for neighborhood park improvements. This fee is payable by all development.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for community park improvements. This fee is payable by all development.
A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, not both. All development projects pay both Mitigation Fee Act fees for park improvements.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
30
Calculation Quimby Fee OR
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.7: Cost per Capita
Land Improvements
Mitigation Community Neighborhood
Fee Act Fee IAND Parks Parks
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 218,600 $ 218,600
Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 3.00 2.91
Total Cost per 1,000 capita C=Axe $ 655,800 $ 636,126
Cost per Resident D=C/1,000
$ 656 $ 636
$ 628,600 $ 220,000
0.70 2.21
$ 440,020 $ 486,200
$ 440 $ 486
Sources: Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Land
Mitigation
Calculation Quimby Fee OR Fee Act Fee
Improvements
Community Neighborhood
AND Parks Parks
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 218,600 $ 218,600 $ 628,600 $ 220,000 Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) 8 3.00 2.88 0.64 2.24 Total Cost per 1,000 capita C =Ax e $ 655,800 $ 629,568 $ 402,304 $ 492,800 Cost per Resident
D=C/1,000 $ 656 $ 630 $ 402 $ 493
Sources: Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use parkland and park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.
Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per capita basis for both land acquisition and improvement. These cost factors (shown in Table 3.7) are cost per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards. The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.
Table 3.8 shows the maximum justified park fees based on the Quimby Act standard and based on the existing park standards under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively.
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. See the Administrative Costs section of Chapter 1 for a discussion of this assumption.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
31
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 3.8: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Capita Density Fee' Char el' 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3
Subdivisions
Parkland $ 656 3.22
Community Park Improvements 440 3.22
Neighborhood Park Improvements 486 3.22
Total $ 1,582
Non -Subdivisions
Parkland $ 636 3.22
Community Park Improvements 440 3.22
Neighborhood Park Improvements 486 3.22
Total $ 1,562
$ 2,112 $ 21
1,417 14
1,565 16
$ 5,094 $ 51
$ 2,048 $ 20
1,417 14
1,565 16
$ 5,030 $ 50
$ 2,133 $
1,431
1,581
$ 5,145 $
$ 2,068 $
1,431
1,581
$ 5,080 $
0.79 0.53
0.59 1.91
0.77 0.53
0.59 1.89
Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) inpact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.7.
fWILLDAN
Flnanclai
32
Subdivisions
Parkland $ 656 3.22
Community Park Improvements 402 3.22
Neighborhood Park Improvements 493 3.22
Total $ 1,551
Non -Subdivisions
Parkland $ 630 3.22
Community Park Improvements 402 3.22
Neighborhood Park Improvements 493 3.22
Total $ 1,525
Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) irrpact 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.
$ 2,112 $ 21
1,294 13
1,587 16
$ 4,993 $ 50
$ 2,029 $ 20
1,294 13
1,587 16
$ 4,910 $ 49
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.3
$ 2,133 $
1,307
1,603
$ 5,043 $
$ 2,049 $
1,307
1,603
$ 4,959 $
0.79 0.49
0.60 1.88
0.76 0.49
0.60 1.85
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.7.
'WILLDA,N
33
4. Recreation Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new recreation facilities demanded by new development. A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of recreation facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new recreation facilities from the projected increase in residents and the additional recreation facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit.
Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in Beaumont primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City's residential population. Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for recreation facilities.
Table 4.1: Recreation Facilities
Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
56,070
41,074
97,144
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
Existing Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of Beaumont owns a community recreation center. Table 4.2 summarizes the City's existing recreation facilities inventory. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. In total, the City owns approximately $11.9 million in recreation facilities.
Table 4.2: Existing Recreation Facilities
Community Recreation Center - Land
Community Recreation Center - Building
Total Value - Existing Facilities
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
3.20 acres $ 218,600 $ 699,520
24,857 sq. ft. 450 11,185,650
$ 11,885,170
Sources: Qty of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.
WWILLDAN
Financial Services
34
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Planned Recreation Facilities
The City has planned several recreation facilities to serve new development. Included in the plans are both expansions to existing facilities and the new construction of facilities. In total, the City has identified $66.862.5 million worth of new recreation facilities to serve existing and new development, net of existing unreserved fund balances. Table 4.3 details the City's planned recreation facilities.
Table 4.3: Planned Recreation Facilities
Cost
Overflow Parking Lot Lighting at the CRC $ 224,400
CRC Improxement Project 150,000
Community Center 48,439,900
Splash Pads (3) 4,450,000
Gym 11,676,400
Total
Less Existing Fund Balance
$ 64,940,700
2,500,480
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 62,440,220
Source: aty of Beaumont FY24 Capital Improvement Ran.
CIP No.
Description Cost
FUTO2 Community Center $ 48,439,900
FUTO3 Splash Pads (3) 4,450,000
FUTO4 Gym 11,676,400
Total $ 64,566,300
Less Existing Fund Balance 2,059,966
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 62,506,334
Source: Qty of Beaumont FY25 Capital Improvement Ran.
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 4.4 expresses the City's current recreation facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 4.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City can fund the planned recreation facilities identified in Table 4.3.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
35
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 4.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Resident
$ 11,885,170
56.070
$ 212
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.3.
Future Level of Service
Table 4.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in recreation facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.
Table 4.5: Recreation Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities
Cost of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (Buildout)
$ 11,885,170
62.440.220
$ 74,325,390
Future Service Population (Buildout) 97,144
Cost per Resident
$ 765
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
Value of Existing Facilities
Cost of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (Buildout)
$ 11,885,170
62.506.334
$ 74,391,504
Future Service Population (Buildout) 97,144
Cost per Resident
$ 766
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use recreation facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are part of the system of recreation facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 4.3.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
36
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned recreation facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 4.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through buildout. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $31 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned recreation facilities. The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
Table 4.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 765
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 41,074
Fee Revenue $ 31,421,365
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified
62,440, 220
$ (31,018,855)
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4.
Cost per Capita $ 766
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 41,074
Fee Revenue
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 62,506,334
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (31,043,895)
$ 31,462,439
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4.
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 fcc program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and this assumption.
Table'1.7Table 4.7 shows the maximum justified recreation facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square
WILLDAN
Financial Services
37
City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
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: (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 4.7: Recreation Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Densi
ty
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 765 3.22
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feet Charget' 2
$ 2,463 $ 25
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
$ 2,488 $ 0.93
1 FeP per average siz d 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.
'Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.5.
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 766 3.22
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feet Charget'2
$ 2,467 $ 25
E=C+D
Total Fee
F = E /Average
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
$ 2,492 $ 0.93
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.
'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 4.5.
wwiLLDAN
ERA Financial &annals
38
5. Fire Protection Facilities
The purpose of the fire impact fee is to fund the fire facilities needed to serve new development.
A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the plaaaedsystem plan facilities standard of fire facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new fire protection facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional fire protection facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.
Service Population
Fire facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses. The service population used to determine the demand for fire facilities includes both residents and workers.
Table 5.1 shows the current fire facilities service population and the estimated service population at the planning horizon of General Plan buildout.
To calculate service population for fire protection facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. A worker is weighted at 0.69 of one resident to reflect the lower per capita need for fire services associated with businesses. The 0.69 factor is consistent with the factor used by Riverside County in its development impact fee study, as the City of Beaumont is part of the Riverside County fire protection service area. The worker weighting factor used in the Riverside County study was based on an analysis of call data response by land use type, which indicated varying levels of demand for fire protection services between residential and nonresidential land uses.
WWILLDAN
Financial Services
39
City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.1: Fire Facilities Service Population
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
41,074
97,144
6,215
21,675
27,890
1.00 1.00
0.69 0.69
56,070
41,074
97,144
4,288
14,955
19,243
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
60,358
56.029
116,387
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.69 of residents to be consistent w ith Riverside County's development inpact fee analysis.
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's fire facility inventory and facility standards.
Existing Inventory
Table 5.2 summarizes the City's current inventory of land, apparatus and vehicles. Fire protection services are provided from two stations located throughout the City. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. The replacement cost for the station buildings is based on the City's recent fire station construction costs. The replacement costs of vehicles and apparatus were provided by the City for use in this analysis.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
40